Christians Aren't Just Stupid . . .

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

They're a cause of numerous social ills, to boot. But they are also quite stupid, as well. And they hate sex.

A few months ago I wrote an article--You Christians Are Stupid and We Hate You--about the political left's antipathy towards Christians, and was dubious of the wisdom of calling Christians stupid as a tool for making political progress in America. And I don't think it's a winning strategy.

And you folks know I write for a reasonably select audience--not that it's a private blog, but it's mostly for friends and folks I know. So it's interesting that the first email I got from someone that I don't know (at least, as far as I know I don't know them) regarding anything I've written here was on that article. And it didn't address the point of what I was writing--which is that some folks on the left are outright hostile to Christians, mix it up with politics, trend towards hyperbole in their critique of the many perceived Christian evils they are subjected to, and strangely seem to expect that to be a big vote-getter in a country where a majority of folks self- identify as Christian.

The email was also anonymous, which just strikes me as strange, given the tone seems to be one of establishing a dialog. Perhaps he or she lacks the courage of his or her convictions, or was fearful I might call out the Christian attack dogs if I knew who they were. And the author certainly doesn't actually dispute the core points of my original article, which is that folks on the left generally don't like Christians and think they are stupid. In fact, he or she seems to emphasize the point, blaming all sorts of other manner of evils on Christians:

In response to certain claims that you make in your article, I submit the following study, which finds correlations between religiosity and various types of social dysfunction, such as child mortality, homicide, abortions, STDs, low life expectancy, etc. All of the aforementioned social ills seem to increase as the percentage of the population that believes in God increases:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

This is going to be a two-parter. On my next post, I'm going to examine said study more closely. But just as a general point, as any statistician can tell you, correlation is not causation. It would be just as easy, and as likely, to say that in environments where social dysfunction is high and moral turpitude plentiful, people turn to religion for hope, direction, and fulfillment. Other factors could be responsible for STDs and low life expectancy and high abortion rates, if this is, indeed, a true statistical correlation where the data has not been massaged for a more pleasing outcome. And people could be more prone to find solace in religion where such factors are plentiful. Indeed, people frequently do not turn to God until things turn bad for them. It's often unpleasant exterior circumstances that reveal a deeper, spiritual world. And it could be possible that such data is, at the least, questionable.

The first thing that occurs to me is that the Soviet Union, where atheism was the state religion and enforced by imprisonment and death, there were numerous social ills, including high child mortality and STDs, rampant alcoholism, and low life expectancy, although the murder rate wasn't that bad, if you didn't count the ten million Russian citizens slaughtered by the superior secular state. But perhaps Communist China is a better example. Certainly, the economy isn't as terrible as was the Soviet Union’s. Although through execution, starvation, and forced labor, the People's Party managed to kill by most estimates almost 25 million of its people. And certain social ills, like malnutrition, force abortions, and torturous deaths for the treason of practicing Christianity (or being Jewish or Muslim) could also be considered social ills. But then, of course, there's North Korea . . .

Sufficed to say, I'm not convinced that a study that finds a causal relationship of social dysfunction and religiosity has been completely thorough. But I'll review the report, Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies(try saying that with a mouthful of marbles), next time.

But I do wonder what the author would have made of a similar study that found correlations of certain social ills with large populations of registered Democrats (and this can be done), or correlations of certain social ills with large populations of blacks (and this can be done as well). As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Correlation and causation aren't the same thing, and are usually entirely different. Or a matrix that demonstrated that populations with more Methodist churches than Baptist Churches had far more social ills than populations with more Baptist Churches than Methodist churches. Now, I don't know for sure that that can be done, but I know something very much like it can definitely be done. That is the magic of statistical analysis.

My anonymous correspondent continues:

In answer to your question regarding how many Americans reject evolution, the International Social Survey Program, cited by the above paper, puts that figure at a little over 50%. Not quite 77%, but still the highest evolution rejection rate in the developed world. (Not necessarily the highest rejection rate among third-world theocracies like Iran).

"Not quite" 77%. Quite a statistical leap, to go from one unsupported claim for 77% of Americans disbelieving in evolution (the number that was in the original Alternet article that I critiqued in the post my anonymous emailer is responding to) to 50%. That's a 27% difference. Well, if there was another 27% jump downwards in there, that'd mean only 23% of Americans disbelieved in evolution. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that figure is right. Half the folks in the country don't believe the human race evolved from lower life forms. Okay. At least half of America is dumber than you and less enlightened than you, my anonymous friend. Great! Yay for you!

I don't intend to be flip when I say: so what? What does that mean, really?

Certainly, I part company from many good Christian folks when I say that the evolution of man from lower life forms was the mechanism of God's creation of man. But perhaps not as many as you think. But does that make me happier than you? Or a better person in some fundamental way than a strict Creationist? Does it make me better at my job to believe in a Darwinian origin of species? A better musician, writer, husband or father? At the very most, it makes me right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle on one issue that's largely immaterial to day to day life.

Perhaps the known facts of evolution are very important to you because you feel they disprove the existence of a Creator. But I just see it was one more part of God's grand Creation. I may be wrong. If I am, and you're right, you win. So why worry about it?

And one more comment here. Evolution is a broad term. Are we establishing that people don't believe that man evolved from apes, or a common ape-like ancestor? Or that they don't believe in dog breeding, genetic engineering, inheritance, and animal husbandry? Or are we talking an either/or--do you believe that man evolved from a thick organic soup as a matter of chance, or do you believe God created man in his image? There's not an option in that sort of question for a "yes, I believe in evolution and I believe in God, too" sort of answer. And I've taken surveys with those sorts of questions, so I know they can happen.

My friend writes:

It is ironic that, while Christians howl about abortion, their anti- birth control teachings drive the abortion rate through the roof, as folks who believe that condoms don't work, as Christians teach, use the ineffective, and Biblical, "pull and pray" method instead, resorting to abortion when this fails.

I don't know about you, but I have not personally experienced a church teaching the "pull and pray" method. I know the church counsels against premarital sex, and there are good reasons for this, but, except for the orthodox Catholic church, how much of the Christian church counsels against birth control? I'm not arguing for Catholicism. To be honest, I'm not arguing for Christianity, per se, as I don't believe I'm called to be a witness in the way that some Christians are.

For the record, I'm not howling about abortion. I don't think it's right. And I think it is a form of infanticide. And I think birth control is a great thing. I don't think teen sex is such a great thing, because teens are generally emotionally immature, because the girls usually end up getting hurt, because teen pregnancies happen when even educated teens misuse, or forget to use, their free condoms and because . . . well, there's a reason it's not Christmas every frickin' day of the year. There's a reason fine wines are aged. Some things are better when you wait.

And, technically, "pull and pray" would not be Biblical. You weren't supposed to spill your seed upon the ground, either.

My friend continues:

You never did answer why you believe in the Christian god to begin with. All Christians whose answers I've ever heard have admitted that they simply assume that the assertions of Christianity are correct. Those who don't admit that they're simply assuming that the Gospels are true avoid the question like the plague, preferring to commit harder-to-spot fallacies instead (special pleading in your case: You admit that assuming the existence of the Greek gods and Santa Claus is absurd, but you insinuate the idea that it's somehow different to assume the Hebrew god's existence-- Insistingthat atheists just don't "get it" is an inarticulate cop-out).

Actually, it was an "aside", as it wasn't really the point of the post. And while I can see exactly how it was a cop-out, I'm not sure how it was "inarticulate". You seemed to understand it well enough.

I didn't answer the question as to why I believe in God to begin with because it wasn't actually a question posed in the post, just a statement of fact. But my answer isn't going to be very different from all the other answers you've heard. I have faith. That's why I believe. I know what I have experienced. What I've learned. I could not encompass all of that here, and, in any case, it wouldn't mean much to you. Like I said, I was an atheist. Every single example, every brick that slowly built the wall of my belief, even the biggest ones, could be dismissed by you. Was exactly the sort of stuff I dismissed for a long, long time. I wish I had something better to give you here, but I don't. Maybe one day I will.

But you sound happy with your beliefs, and I'm not going to try and dissuade you. It may make me a crappy Christian, but I don't want to sell you something you don't want. I was evangelized several times in my life, and never bought it. At all. I was completely alone when I accepted Jesus Christ. So, I personally don't go the evangelism route. You asked, I try to answer, but that's pretty much that. It would appear that you've got answers that your satisfied with, and I've got answers I'm largely satisfied with, so we're both good and that's that.

By the way, I don't say that assuming the existence of Greek gods and Santa Claus is absurd, per se, simply that it's a clever rhetorical trick liberals and the anti-religious to make the beliefs of Christians and Jews sound more silly. Actually, a belief in Santa Claus makes sense for a young child who is told by his parents that Santa is real. Belief in the Greek Gods made perfect sense to many Greeks at the time. A belief in God makes sense to me, now. A belief in nothing makes sense to you. I'm not about to make fun of, or ridicule, your beliefs. I was an atheist until I was 33 years old. I'm not about to start pointing fingers.

I am especially interested in hearing how an atheist like you claim to have been gets converted into a Believer.

I think that "claim to have been" gives lie to your assertion that you're genuinely interested. But, at least it lets me know that you, my anonymous friend, aren't anybody I knew in the past. And I expect you weren't on any of the lists I've been on where religion was discussed. I can tell you, more than a few people were surprised--and disappointed--by my conversion, and some suggested it was probably just a phase.

But, it's a good thing you aren't actually interested, because it is not something I'm going to be able to tell you in a way you will understand. C.S. Lewis, a fellow converted atheist, described it as-- I'm paraphrasing--falling to his knees in awe of the undeniable truth of it. That idea would have done me no good when I was an atheist, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't convey anything of the actual experience. If you've ever seen a movie where a twist at the end changed the meaning of everything, so suddenly everything you saw earlier that you thought meant one thing now actually meant something else . . . well, it's like that. And I wish I could be clearer, and I'm really doing my best, but I'm not called to witness in that way. I'm almost sure of that.

You had to somehow be convinced that humans have a massless entity located somewhere within their body that is the true seat of consciousness (as opposed to the scientific theory that the brain is the seat of consciousness).

I disagree. And frankly, so does most of history, which indicates that numerous religious folks have forever located the mind somewhere in the body, indicating that the soul is something “beyond” the mind, or that we have an eternal, Platonic self connected to the physical body at some point (the pineal gland being a popular option). Additionally, one could easily believe that the brain is the seat of consciousness and the mind is entirely a matter of chemical reactions in this realm, and that it is transmuted by some supernatural mechanism at or after death to another state in another realm.

While some people may have at one time regarded the physical body as unrelated to consciousness, one hardly has to believe that the soul—and certainly our mental processes and sense-of-self--is unrelated to the brain, in order to believe in God.

I believe the brain is the seat of consciousness. I believe my memories, my emotions, my memories and my sense-of-self are a product of the electro-chemical reactions in my brains. And yet, for all of us, I believe the whole is much, much greater than the sum of its parts. And that the hand of God is demonstrated in the fact. No doubt, you disagree, and, dude, that’s so cool. I was in that same place for, like, almost all of my life. I understand why you disagree, and I’m not going to try and talk you out of it.

But aren’t Christians called to witness? Aren’t we supposed to be salt of the earth, a light of our faith? Well, yes, but . . .

This entity, called a "soul" by Christians, somehow interacts with the brain to produce behavior, and somehow floats off and flies away somewhere at death.

You neglect the possibility of transmutation. But whatever it is and however it happens after death, I suspect the mechanism is not knowable to us. At least until after we’re dead. And maybe not then. I can’t promise you, one way or the other, because I haven’t been dead yet.

I have yet to encounter a Christian who believes this by anything other than assumption.

Otherwise known as faith. There are reasons for faith, but direct empirical observation of the face of God or life-after-death is generally not one of them.

It's not a conclusion that could ever be reached by any sort of empirical investigation-- you have to presuppose that this absolutely undetectable entity exists, or you can't believe it.So how does a Christian go about convincing an atheist that souls really exist?

I suspect, in most cases, that they don’t. I was not convinced by evangelism or proselytizing. It was a conclusion I had been building toward for awhile without knowing it, and some minor difficult circumstances in my life were enough to open my eyes, as it were. Not quite having the scales fall off my eyes on the road to Damascus, but close enough for government work. However, I was proselytized several times and by several people, and none of that figured in to it. The one guy who I had once discussed such issues with, atheist-to-believer, that did have some effect, in retrospect, had discussed his opinions on the issues but had not really tried to proselytize me. I would have liked to discuss things with him more, now, but I don’t have any way to contact him. So I’m stuck there.

If there is something a believer can say to an atheist to convert him, I don’t know it and I’m not that guy. I do know that every argument every used on me—and there were many—didn’t work. So I’m prone to believe you've got to find your own way. If anything is going to bring you to God, it's probably not going to me.

But, best of luck in all you do. And have a blessed day.

Bush = Idiot

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

Is Bush an Idiot? I dunno, but he's not the one campaigning against a sitting president who cannot run for re-election.

In Forrest Gump's Evil Twin (which, in the email I get from Alternet, is billed as "Bush = Idiot"), Stephen Pizzo continues the left's and liberal's interesting process of running against a president who cannot run again, and calling Bush, and folks who voted for him, and anybody who'd consider it or disagree with them about pretty much anything, idiots.

As Spock might say, "Fascinating, captain."

Pizzo writes:

How extraordinary. Something is happening here that has never happened in America's history. A consensus is sweeping the nation. Not that the war in Iraq is wrong, or that oil companies are screwing us blue, or that the climate is going to hell, or that good-paying jobs are being replaced by low-paying jobs, or that our national health care system is a disgrace, or that that the rich are getting a lot richer while the middle class gets poorer.

While all that's true, and more and more folks are getting it, that's not the consensus of which I speak.

Amazing. While I admit our health care system, although much better than it was 50 years ago, and more widely available (if lacking nostalgically pleasing house calls), could be much improved, what sort of alternate reality do these folks live in (oh, I forgot, duh: Alternet!). While opinion polls indicate a downward trend on the wisdom of Iraq, or how the war is going, or how it's being handled, a consense that the war is "wrong" simply isn't there. Except on the left. Maybe it should be there, maybe it would be if everybody understood how bad war is, but it's just not so. And there's no evidence to support such a claim. But perhaps I'm picking nits.

But someone should, because it doesn't stop there. Good-paying jobs (undefined by Pizzo, but let's define them as jobs paying $30k or above, for the sake of argument, although you could make that break just about anywhere) have been growing steadily. There are more now than ever before, and more now than there was last year and the year before that. By any actual measurement of the data. Maybe it has nothing to do with Bush or Repblicans, maybe it is a residual Clinton effect, maybe it's being engineered in secret by Democrats in congress, or maybe it would just be ten times better if we didn't have Bush in the Whitehouse. But that ain't the point. The point is, good-paying jobs are not being replaced by low-paying jobs. In fact, there are more of both.

Picking nits, yes. Okay. It could probably be better. John Kerry would have rocked our world, had we been smart enough to elect him. Certainly, being at War in Iraq, with all that entails, must be restraining the economy from where it would be, if only. But that's not the point. The point is, good paying jobs are not being replaced by low paying jobs by any measurement you can come up with. At least, not in America. I presume the author isn't referring to Europe or Canada and blaming that on Bush.

Ooops! Almost forgot about "oil companies screwing us blue". Yeah, they make a lot of money. Of course, most of that is enabled by politicians who then get to have their cake and eat it too by blaming the oil companies. And, the fact it, it's the price the market will bear. If it gets to be too much, we'll start biking everywhere, telecommuting, using alternative fuels--something. Right now, we aren't, because the high price of gasoline isn't too high for us to pay. And, by "screwing us blue", shouldn't that discourage such voracious consumption, thus protecting the environment? And lessening our dependence on foreign oil? Isn't that a good thing?

Part of the problem is the market. And the market would be much calmer if America allowed drilling in the Gulf and in ANWR. Apparently, the problem isn't bad enough to let us tap our own supplies, so I think "screwing us blue" may be hyperbole. But that truly is picking a nit: they make a lot of money, and we're paying a lot of money, so--admittedly, with our full cooperating--they are kind of screwing us blue. Okay.

Oh, and the rich getting richer while the middle class gets poorer? Well, there are two reasons that they don't say the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. The first one is, of course, that the poor are getting richer, too. Just not as fast as the rich are getting richer. But they are getting richer. Which is a good thing, isn't it? The second is, they feel their base in terms of votes and donations will be found in the middle class who feel squeezed in the modern economy, even if the external reality is, in fact, better than it has ever been in every conceivable way. So they want them to feel they are getting poorer, and need to vote for liberals.

But those measurements that show the middle-class getting "poorer" are, in fact, aggregate numbers. The ranks of the lower-middle class have been growing. Why? Upper- and middle-middle class folks falling downwards? No, indeed. It's the upper-lower classes and middle-lower classes breaking into the middle class. So what they are complaining about, in fact, is the poor getting richer. Because that puts more lower-middle class folks in the sample. Huh.

But let's get to the nut. The real argument that liberals have for their ideology and Democrats have against Republicans. And Steve Pizzo writes:

Here it is: The president of the United States is a moron.

Yes, stupid, dumb as common road gravel. And not figuratively, but literally. George W. Bush, president of the world's last remaining superpower, is a moron. Forrest Gump's evil twin.

And, after several other uses of "idiot" and "moron" and "worse President in history", he writes these nuggets:

One of the trademarks of a moron is contempt for facts that challenge the simple but comfortable fictions that rule their daily routines. You can drag a moron to a library, but you can't force him to learn.

In fact morons get downright testy when someone challenges what they think they know. We saw this trait earlier this week when Bush was asked if he thought Don Rumsfeld should resign. The moron lashed out at the questioner, dashed into his imaginary phone booth and emerged as The Decider. "I'm the decider," he pronounced, with Mussolini-like swagger. You see, scratch a moron and beneath that smirking, ignorance-is-bliss exterior, you discover a fundamental truth: Beauty may be only skin deep, but moron goes right to the bone.

And ironic comment from someone who gets all the major assertions in regards to verifiable information wrong.
Ah, well.

You can read it all for yourself. The implicit point Pizzo doesn't quite get to is, however, touched on by a commentor. Everyone who voted for or supported Bush is a moron, too!

The commentor writes:

I've got to a gree that George W is a moron. In fact, it could be said he's the moron's moron. However that's not the problem. The problem is, that when over fifty percent of yanks are morons(he did get reelected) the odds are you're going to end up with a moron as President.
Unkind i know but the truth often is.

Another writes:

Now we know why he is President. This non thinking, totally oblivious idiot is in complete and total denial. Just listen to his words. Its a form of brain washing. NO facts, no links, no information, just the rote repeating of his church leaders. Its amazing to sit back and watch. Its like an experiment and the results are shocking. How really pathetic that he relects millions of Americans.

An interesting complaint, given the author of the article also had no real facts, no links, no documentation for his assertions. But that's not an issue, naturally.

Okay, one more, any more you gotta go check the article out for yourself. There's nearly 300 comments on this, almost all of them of the "Bush is an idiot" type or, as a variation, "Bush is smart but evil". Like this one!

Here is another non-american opinion, for what its worth.
Thinking of Bush as a moron is a great mistake. Read the evaluations made of him by one of his college professors. That he is envious, vengeful, unprincipled, lazy, a liar and emotional illiterate and other beautiful attributes, I have no doubt.

But believing he is a moron and acting accordingly, has given the democrats and the oposition many catastrophic surprises.

His values are not the same as those of most of the people on this blogs, perhaps excfepting the currency trader, who I hope is not holding any dollars. Anybody here believes that he gives a damn about the people of Iraq - or any other of the people under his beloved dictators - whether they have a democracy or not? No, he cares about the revenues of the oil companies and he has done a tremendously good job on this. Not giving a damn for taking the average americans (and his voters) for a ride.

You can think about his other personal priorities and will probably arrive at the same conclusions, he and his friends are doing fabulously.

His goals are personal and short term, and for this he uses the people who still believe in the greatness of USA's values, those who are afraid of everything beyond their borders, those who are afraid of change, those who like him have as main values the number of digits in their bank account - often an offshore account. Those for whom civilization, culture, feelings and empathy don't mean anything.

Sheesh. Who knows? Maybe it'll work for them. Maybe it won't. The only thing I can guarantee you is that the approach isn't objective, factual, honest, or even-handed. And I'm dubious about how well "If you don't agree with us you're stupid" works as an argument for your point of view.

When Life Hands You Lemons, Cry, Scream, Stomp Your Feet and Give Up

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

With the economy rocking-and-rolling and unemployment dropping to (nearly) statistical full employment, what's the left to do? Why, complain about layoffs!

And complain they do. One example being a new book, written by someone who, by his own admission, has never been fired or laid off.

No doubt, French youth rioting has excited the American left. They always appreciate a good protest.

And they would surely like to see a little more protesting here. Yeah, all the illegal immigrants protesting against immigration reform they probably had not read, nor properly understood, was exciting, but most protests--from anti-war protests to protests against the evil behemoth that is Wal-Mart--have been anemic in the U.S. We haven't had a good, solid, multi-racial, cross-generational protest/riot in decades in this country.

So maybe the French have it right. The left needs to be fomenting resentment against employers and business and corporate America in general. Then, finally, we too can have some good, solid, car-burning, rock-throwing, tear-gassing riots in America, too.

I'm just speculating, there. What I can say for sure is that, since the riots, there has been a steady drumbeat from the left against corporate America, specifically focused on how bad corporate America is to its brow-beaten employees. And, frankly, this is the place where I think the American (and, let's be honest, the global) left turns from simply being wrong in their policies and strategies to pernicious. Because the message, implicit and explicit, is that you shouldn't take responsibility for your own life. That it is depressing and disheartening to see yourself as the source of your own achievements an success. That you shouldn't see yourself as the prime-mover in your own life, but rather a victim or beneficiary of forces outside of you that are too large and powerful for you to control or understand.

Oh, you whacky conservative, you might say. That's just more rabid right-wing hyperbole! The left isn't saying that.

Oh no? Well, check out How Secure is Your Job, by Laura Barcella.

This artile is a book review of The Disposable American, a book by Louis Uchitelle that takes the truly insidious view that your self-concept, and self-worth, should be determined by labor laws that prevent a company that no longer wants you working there to actually fire you or lay you off.

If it apparently the author's contention that the "insidious" self-help movement is "insidious" because it has encouraged workers to accept more responsibility for their own job security than necessary! Ack! I've barely started, and already my face is twitching.

As a brief personal aside, the best thing that ever happened to me was getting laid off. It's happened to me twice so far, and, although tough and difficult to get through at the outset--especially the first time it happened--my only regret now is that it didn't happen five years earlier, or that I hadn't just quit five years earlier. Or ten.

I'm not saying it was easy, and I'm not saying it wasn't a shock to the system, but there were much more interesting things to do and much better (or, at least, different) people to work with and interact with, and I've since enjoyed opportunities and personal growth that I can guarantee you never would have happened, had I never lost a job because the government made it too expensive and difficult to fire me.

To pretend that it is, generally, good for people to work in one place for their entire lives is bad enough. To pretend that putting your head down and staying in your cubicle and spending the rest of your life in your well-worn rut is good for your or your self-esteem is nuts. And how does it say anything positive about you that your company can't fire you or lay you off because there is a law against it?

And let's not even get to the negative impact such regulation has on employment. The fact is, our unemployment rate has fallen--again--while the French unemployment rate is rising and the unemployment rate among French youth is around 23%.

But perhaps the book isn't entirely destructive. He does say this:

First of all, there is an oversupply of skilled people relative to the jobs that are available. And secondly, we don't properly measure the damage to the companies themselves and the productivity that comes from job security.

The first, in my opinion, is not a negative. It is a positive. It's good for the economy and society as a whole to have an oversupply of skilled labor, even if it's not a lot of fun to be skilled in certain things that are at a saturation level in the economy. But some of those people will learn new disciplines, and be able to apply their old skills to their new discipline. And others will find a way to apply their skills by starting a new business, becoming a consultant, or doing something else that is adaptive in a way that contributes to the overall economy and improves their own lives.

It's the second part I agree with. The hire-fire cycle isn't great for the companies. And an effort to inform companies that it's not a good business strategy to hire and fire based on this quarter's results is a good idea.

But is the hire/fire cycle really bad for the employees? Only if they let it be. In most cases, it's a positive. Time to finally start that business they've been thinking about. Or to become a writer. Or spend a few solid weeks developing a new skill, and add that to the resume. It's the individuals choice to respond to getting laid off by sitting around in their underwear watching Oprah and feeling sorry for themselves. While they may do it, it's certainly irresponsible and unproductive to encourage it.

Unfortunately, encourage it they do.

To people who are, in effect, told that this is a be-your-own-manager society, when they're laid off, [it's implied] that they don't have value as workers -- and that's a considerable psychological blow and a source of mental illness.

Aw, jeeze. Getting laid off is a source of mental illness. Great. Assuming there could possibly be something to it, wouldn't working in a crappy job for decade after decade also be a source of mental illness? In which case getting fired might actually be a source of mental health and personal development? Can't it effect your self-worth to in a rut, year after year, somewhere that doesn't appreciate your contributions even if they don't--or can't--get rid of you? Can't spending your time in an insular group of people, often in the same boss/employee relationship year after year, be destructive? Cause the employee to lose perspective? Make them too fearful to look for a better job or strike out on their own?

And, so what? If someone implies that I don't have value as a worker--well, fine, I'm a whole lot more and better than "a worker". I'm not a worker-bee, dudes, I frickin' rock. What kind of crap is that?

If someone is taking a layoff as something more than, "Hey, this ain't workin' out," that's the problem, not that they got laid off. If they were doing a good job and they know it, if they've got skill and they know it, if some corporate flack doesn't get it, whose fault is that? Whose loss is that? It's theirs, not yours. If a layoff is a huge blow to the self-esteem--and it can be, I'm not saying it can't be--then the problem is that the person was too tied up in their job in the first place. And getting laid off will only help them break that bad habit.

But it means that people don't get back into the work force using all their old skills. They don't take risks, and they suffer. It's a memory that undermines them for many years.

When true, then that is the problem--that getting laid off can be a memory than undermines them for years. Not that they got laid off and not that businesses have the discretion to hire and fire at will. And they don't take risks if they get laid off? They were taking risks when they stayed in the same old rut of a job, being the cubicle monkey for their self-centered creep of a boss, working hard at doing the pointless busywork their out-of-touch manager assigned them, while all the time that guy was just going to fire them on a whim, anyway? Come on.

Folks who wait to get fired from the second-rate company they've been working for half their lives are not big risk takers by nature. It's just a fact.

[W]e all have a life narrative, and work is part of that narrative, and the narrative is part of our identity. If you take away the work and the identity that comes with the work, you interrupt the life narrative.

Ugh. You know, maybe the work part of the life narrative sucks and we aren't doing anything about it, and getting fired will be the best thing that could possibly happen to us. Maybe it's time to end that chapter, and start a new one, picking up a new narrative. Maybe labor laws should have nothing to do with "life narratives" and more to do with what makes the best economy for the largest number of people. Maybe.

The author (who is writing this book, and has never been fired or laid off!) also says:

In fact, there's any number of statistics that show that we have skilled people in excess of the demand for them. Thirty-seven percent of all airline attendants have bachelor's degrees. You don't need a bachelor's degree to be an airline attendant. It's nice to have it.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics, quoth Samuel Clemens. And, the fact is, you can get a bachelors degree in areas that have nothing to do with being employable or having marketable skills, but have a lot to do with attracting young folks and their parental money to a particular college or university. You can also get bachelors degrees in fields or areas that are obscure, not profitable to work in, or are way over-saturated and have been for decades. And no labor law can change that. Even a law to make all BAs and BFAs be available only in in-demand fields will result in those fields being saturated by the time the second or third generation of graduates came out. And would leave very little room for individuals to find what they are best at, anyway. In the end, it's not the bachelor's degree, or lack thereof, or the lack a government law to make good jobs that makes these folks flight attendants. Those people decide to take and keep those jobs, for a variety of reasons. And that's the beginning and end of it. The rest is just padding.

In addition to never having been laid off, I'm not sure the writer has ever run a business, or has much an idea of how one might be run, given his description of the "taking down of barriers to layoffs" that happened between '77 and '97 (according the author):

As one barrier [to layoffs] after another came down, the layoffs went up. We had a steel company shutting down mills, and there was uproar about it, attempts from the communities and the unions and church groups to buy the mills and keep them open, then that disappeared. We gradually acquiesced to the process.

Why did the efforts to keep the mills open disappear? Because it was too expensive to profitably run the mills? Because the unions made it impossible to produce steel and compete? Maybe they "acquiesced" to the process for the same reason we might "acquiesce" to the weather. Obviously, if there was an uproar, and they had been able to keep the mills open and run them profitably, they would have.

Then, this cryptic bit:

That might require, perhaps, some recognition that the private sector -- by itself, even with the best will in the world -- cannot create enough jobs to keep people fully employed at good wages.

And what is the implication? That we can create enough jobs to keep people fully employed at good wages with government intervention? And doesn't that beg the question as to why the only nations in the world at or near statistical full employment (including the US) are the countries where there is the least government intervention and the most leeway is given to the hiring and firing of employees?

The article wraps with Louis Uchitelle complaining about how Who Moved My Cheese? tells people to take responsibility for their own careers, and that if they get laid off, they should go find another job rather than sit on their butts and complain about it. That's a terrible message, according to Louis (who was never been laid off, I remind you) and extremely damaging to the self-esteem. Yikes! It makes them responsible of their own lives, instead of putting the responsibility for their lives on their employers, the government, and unions.

Sorry, Louis, but that's exactly backwards. It's fantasizing that your life is somebody else's responsibility, in any way, shape, or form, that is a destructive and damaging message. To suggest that anybody other than you is responsible for your general happiness, self-esteem, and the success or failure of your career, is damaging. It's an attitude that advocates sitting around and blaming others, ineffectually, for problems and difficulties that are part of a productive and interesting life, instead of advising them to take action, take advantage of the difficulties they face, and use them to grow, change, and create something positive.

But then, that's not the message of the modern American left. The message of the modern American left is, "When life hands you lemons, throw them on the ground, stomp your feet, cry about it, then curl up into the fetal position until someone passes a law saying that life isn't allowed to hand you lemons any more."

Best of luck with legislating that one, guys.

Illegal Immigrants and Democrats Think We're Stupid

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

One day, they show up waving Mexican flags and flying Spanish language banners that claim California for Mexico.

The next day, they are draped in American flag hats, t-shirts, and headbands reciting talking points provided by International ANSWR (the modern form of the American Communist Party, by the way). Talking points that are clearly focus-tested to soothe the savage breast of the hard-hearted and soft-headed American voter.

What happened to all the Mexican flags? The signs proclaiming California, Texas and Arizona as the rightful provinces of Mexico? The Liberal Spin Machine is working the issue for the cameras. And the press cooperates.

So, did you hear anybody in the press noting how all the illegal immigrants were draped in the flag at the recent protests? What happened to the Mexican flags? They were, in fact, collected, where possible, by protest organizers to make a more media-friendly crowd. And where are the Spanish-language signs? Same. The vaguely anti-American rhetoric? The media conveniently missed it, or didn't consider it newsworthy (but they aren't biased, of course, or trying to shape the news).

It stuck out to me. It was obvious. But the mainstream news didn't even notice the difference.

And, literally, the illegals were draped in the flag. American flag arm bands, American flag head bands, American flag capes and bags and shorts and shirts and pants and blankets. Going so far overboard to show their "patriotism" (while they break our immigration laws and move much of their economic output, in the form of their paychecks, to the parasitical Mexican economy) should make any objective observer dubious at the very least.

And we're supposed to believe that these people, who are breaking American laws--and often not just immigration laws but labor laws as well--"love" America? No, they love American money and largess. They love American social services, and they love taking money under the table from American employers who ought to know better. And no amount of American flag T-shirts are going to change that.

But perhaps all is not lost. Recent polling indicates that average Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were turned off by the recent protests. While politicians will probably still look at them as future voters and take no real action to, say, make them obey the law or make any attempt to assimilate, average Americans aren't swayed by angry, sometimes racist, sometimes anti-American, protestors. No matter how many American flag headbands they put on.

Perhaps it's because illegal immigrants should be made to obey the law, and that blanket amnesty is just a bad idea. But it could also be because the protestors, and the folks organizing them, think we're stupid. If anything is turning average Americans off, I think it's probably how stupid, shallow, and gullible the protestors, and the protest organizers, clearly think us "average Americans" are.

Pedophiles and the Department of Homeland Security

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

How can this happen? It's because Republicans are in power! If only Democrats were in power, we'd live in a magical land where the bluebirds sing us awake in the morning and money grows on trees!

In Pedophiles in Our Midst, Christy Hardon Smith tells tales of prosecuting pedophiles, and of the incurability and recitivism of pedophiles, that I’m pretty sure would not find a sympathetic ear with the left, were in not being told about someone they can characterize as being a Bush administration crony. Because the implication is that some people are just bad. And can’t be fixed. And need to be punished, or locked up for life. Which is usually anathema to the left. At least, until they are talking about members of the political right.

So, a fairly conservative point of view on the issue finding a home on Alternet. Interesting.

But the most notable thing about the article, to me, is the blurb, which I feel fairly certain was crafted by whoever edited the article for Alternet rather than Christy Hardin Smith:

Why is our government doing background checks on activists but not on its own staff?

Although, never having been convicted of any crime, no background check on Brian Doyle would have fingered him for anything. If only the government had been, say, listening in on all his phone calls . . .

But I digress. The point is, the government does do background checks on employees of all agencies associated with national security, including the DHS. There was just nothing, yet, on Brian. Now there will be.

But what I find most fascinating is the take of the rank and file Alternet readers commenting on the story. Take a look at the sort of thing your friendly neighborhood liberal has to say about the situation:

This is just more evidence that institutions that foster sexual repression (a la the Catholic church and the abstinence only Republican party) also seem to breed an excessive number of sexual deviants.

---

Isn't it interesting that some of the worst perverts are employed by the Cheney/Bush regime? IMPEACH ALL OF THE CHENEY/BUSH PERVERTS!

---

REAL NAZIS! Wake-up folks! These extremist republicans who are running the government are not interested in America for its people. They are hypocrites, liars , authoritarians, criminal scum, racists, extreme nationalists, just like the Nazi Party in Germany and the Fascist Party in Italy. We see them subverting all branches of the government. They believe they are above the law and morality and that they should rule the world for profit and glory, mostly for rich white Americans. Call them what you will, this is the reality. If Americans do not take back government from them, there will be a world conflagration just as in WWII. Most of the world has come to hate America just as it came to hate the Nazis and the Fascists. Sooner or later, they will do something about it, just as in the past.

---

Truly, amoral criminals are in charge of this government.

---

It is comforting to know that within the Bush administration at least there is one crime that you can commit that will have consequences, namely a sex related crime.

This is something, although I wish that the administration would also focus on other criminal acts, such as making up a phony case for war in Iraq, for example. Did I mention illegal wiretapping?

While I totally agree that Brian Doyle should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it seems to me that his immediate suspension without pay illustrates the administration’s obsession with sex, and their unrelenting focus on abstinence, contraceptives, gay marriage, pornography, and so on.

Should not some other administration officials, the list too long to include here, not also be immediately suspended?

---

Sadly, there is a correlation between a sexual predator who wants to dominate his victims and an administration that wants to dominate everyone, that defends torture.

Frankly, I'm surprised this wasn't Cheney.

---

And check this out. Oh. My. God. Here’s the real reason Alito’s wife ran from the room during the middle of Alito’s confirmation . . . George Bush is a closet pedophile (and still an alcoholic):

‘It seems that Judge Alito has a good-looking son, Philip, and when the family was at the White House recently to meet with Bush and his wife, the President somehow got the son alone and tried to kiss him!

The boy was outraged and told his father that Bush smelled like booze. The father said nothing, wanting the Supreme Court job, but the mother complained to Laura Bush."

Laura told her that ..."George is under so much stress these days, trying to protect America from terrorists that he 'slips' once in a while...."
...

I immediately passed this to a British newspaperman (Guardian) who shot back that a similar incident had transpired when Bush was visiting in England and it was a subject Not to be Discussed!

...

Right in the middle of the hearing on her husband's suitability for the Supreme Court, Ms Alito suddenly fled from the room, weeping. There was nothing going on at the moment that justified it. My source tells me she is furious because Bush is a pedophile and she is afraid that her son will get nailed by the sick creep. Her husband wants his new job and will do nothing to prevent him from getting into a position where he can destroy Roe v. Wade.

Also, apparently Bush is a repressed homosexual. Wow!

And it's amazing how often the left brings up barely repressed homosexuality as a precursor to pedophilia. I thought they were more sensitive about that stuff. Apparently not. But, again, I digress.

Anyhoo, please refer back to any of my previous posts of the left’s future problems regarding winning the hearts and minds of the American heartland. Or on the foolish choices they make. This is a prime example.

The big problem for the left, and Democrats, to be found here? These are the folks who end up picking the candidate during the nomination process. And these are the folks that need to be pandered to, and there’s no way to hide that pandering when it comes time to run in the general election.

Pistol Whipped by Patton Oswalt

Read it at KevinWillis.net

---

Just to let you know, the entertainment industry keeps beating me. Patton says, because I'm not a billionaire, George Bush hates my f___ing guts. But who is it that really doesn't like me here?

I know they don't love me. I know it. They hate me. They abuse me. But I keep taking it. Look, I've got problems, I know it. Sure I do. But who doesn't? I can’t leave them. Don’t ask me to. You know I can’t.

Anyhoo, in this case, it takes the form of Patton Oswalt. I love Patton Oswalt. He's a rarity in comedy, or entertainment generally--the cerebral everyman. The erudite regular guy. Sort of a still very liberal Dennis Miller. While I'm probably never going to do it, I can certainly sympathize with his Amsterdam bit ("I was like Templeton the Rat in Charlotte's Web, you know? Hookers and pot! Hookers and pot!") and what other comedian has such an awesome, and inspiring, bit on the noble PAAS Easter Egg Coloring Kit? Indeed, he waxes eloquent on classic conservatism (without, perhaps, noting the irony) because the bit ends with effusive praise of the fact that PAAS is still around, and has remained classic and unchanged since practically the beginning.

He can be dark and disturbing, and gross. But no more than, say, Southpark. Still, I think he’s funny, and I really enjoy his stuff. But, underneath the surface, it turns out that he—like so many of the others—is another Hollywood Pod-Person. And out comes the pistol, and he starts whipping me with it.

There's not a lot of heroes left these days. There's a horrible psycho in the Whitehouse and we're on the brink of apocolypse, but there are heroes . . .

And then he goes on to praise the hedonism and indulgence of Robert Evans. But, okay, that's not so bad. Just his opinion, and perhaps Patton is not as well-read or informed on actual history or political issues as he is in regards to Hollywood minutiae and different words to describe human (or other) genitalia.

But then there's this bit:

The thing I don't understand is the people who support George Bush and they're not billionaires. Like, that makes no f___ng sense. They're like, "I think George Bush is f___in' awesome, man!"

And you're like "Wow! How much do you make? You must be like a billionaire!"

They go, "I make, like, 30 grand a year."

And you go, "Wow, cause Bush f___in' hates you, did you know that? He f___in' cannot stand you. He wouldn't be caught dead with you."

Seeing someone like that, it's like meeting a girl like, well - say Michael Damien is touring the state fairs in the Midwest, still doing his, you know, "remix" of "Rock On" and she f___in' blows him by the Tilt-A-Whirl and then goes home to her mom and says, "F___in' Michael Damien is in love with me, Mom, and he's gonna take me out of this town!"

And Mom's like, "Sweetie, no.. He appreciated the blowjob, but he's not going to come back for you.. He's gonna move on to other state fairs, but he won't come back to rescue you. You will go to work at Fashion Bug tomorrow like you will until you die."

A lot of stuff is in there, though. Hollywood folks--the elite of whom are filthy rich, and the rest of whom aspire to be--don't understand why regular folks working regular jobs, such as the reviled retail job at the Fashion Bug, would support someone who didn't promise that the government was going to send them a big fat check every month for sitting on their collective asses and doing nothing for the rest of their lives. Why would someone who earns $30k a year support Republicans? The only people who like the middle class and the poor are wealthy socialist elites, like the folks who tax those very people to death in California, and elected Democrats, who tax those people to death in California and would like to do so everywhere else.

And what evidence does Patton have that Bush hates you, or me, for that matter? Because Bush himself is not poor. He hasn't ever been poor. Bush is, in fact, rich, and his family has been wealthy for generations. He is old wealth. Unlike, say, John Kerry, who doesn't even know how to properly eat a hot dog and spends his free time windsurfing, or Ted Kennedy, who can afford to not only have numerous casual affairs with interns, but drive drunk and drown them and still get off with a handslap because he's so frickin' rich and powerful.

And on and on and on. The Democratic party is filled--up to the gills--with old wealth, and financed by old wealth, as are most of the socialist elites who support the Democrats, if only because there isn't an even more liberal, leftist, Marxist political party to bankroll.

Although I should be inclusive. There is a great deal of new wealth that throws money hand-over-fist at the Democratic Party, too.

And who is too good to be seen with me? George Bush or John Kerry? Dubya or Nancy Pelosi? Who is too important for me? Dubya or Hillary Clinton? There are plenty of arrogant, too-good-for-you politicians in the United States, left and right, and Bush wouldn't even be in the the top fifty. There are plenty of mayors of little buttwipe nowhere towns that are more self-important and ego-inflated than Bush.

And let's say he doesn't care to be seen with a peon like me. I'm voting for president based on who I think likes me the most? Who would be more likely to patiently sit through a photo-op with a working-class Joe (which, btw, Bush does all the time, even as president)? How screwed up would that be? I've had some friends that are good friends and fine people, don't get me wrong, but they should never, ever become president. Or win any elected office. What does whether or not George Bush would be seen with me or would like me as a person have to do with the price of tea on Tuesday?

The answer is, nothing. Whether the president would be your good buddy doesn't and shouldn't inform your voting. And it doesn't, really, on either side of the equation. What about the African-Americans who again voted for the Democratic candidate in droves? Are we seriously supposed to believe that John F. Kerry has a friendship roster populated with boyz from the hood? That he hangs out with Ice'd Flavah Cubie Smalls discussing 2 Pac and the relative merits of Colt 45? Or that he'd be caught dead with any minority, except as it might further his political goals?

I.e., it's a false dichotomy. Big time politicians don't spend a lot of time hanging around the little people in either party, and whether or not they'd be your personal friend doesn't have any bearing on how good or bad their policies might be for you, your neighbors, and your country.

Well, maybe it's his policies. Perhaps George Bush's policies show that he only likes billionaires. But, uh, I'm doing slightly better now, but when I wasn't make much more than 30k was when the Bush tax cuts went through, and they were a lifesaver for me. They really, really helped.

Then he tried for Social Security reform, which would really help guys like me out when they get to retirement. I've got a wife and two kids, I've got debt to pay down, and it's very difficult for me to invest in my retirement right now. And may be that way for years ahead. And George Bush wanted to let me take a little bit of my Social Security tax money and invest it in a private account that I would own and could even pass on, should I die before my Social Security collecting days came to pass. And not only that, he wanted to make it my money--my money that had hopefully been appreciating over time, but my money. So when it came time to live off my Social Security, it wouldn't be my children or my grandchildren paying for it, and I wouldn't be any additional burden to our public welfare system. It would simply be my money that the government had, not unreasonably, forced me to save for myself and my family, for my own good and to avoid my being an excessive burden on future tax payers. Shoot, I think think this guy might actually likeme, Patton.

And despite all the bellyaching, Social Security reform is in the current budget, and looks like it might get started. I tell ya, I sure hope so, and the folks that I presume must like me so much since George Bush isn't supposed to, have done nothing but fight giving me a better retirement, and the right to have my own tax money go to help provide for me in my senior years and they have fought to keep any real wealth I might build up in my life time from being passed, unmolested, to my children and grandchildren. And they have fought against letting me keep more of my income in general so I can pay my bills and provide for my family.

I'm sorry, who is it that doesn't like me?

And it's just silly. How many people say, "You treat me great, you support legislation I agree with, I find you physically attractive, I love your taste in movies, but you only make $30k a year and my cut off is, at minimum, a hundred thou per annum, so I hate you." How many people do that the other way? Envy and resentment may provoke a few, but it's the snobbery of out-of-touch elites who happen to be wealthy that most plain folks resent, not their actual annual income.

In the end, it's the same question I always ask, and folks like Patton Oswalt--who I think is a brilliant, not-quite-as-edgy-as-he-thinks-but-still-darn-funny comedian most of the time--make me puzzle over it again. How can I guy who so clearly has his brain engaged, who is so clearly well-read and well-educated--come to such a kindergarten-level analysis of contemporary politics? Why is it that smart--often very smart, very grounded liberals--suddenly lose all that when it comes to partisan politics?

And I'm not even talking about being wrong on the issues, which I believe they are, but demonstrably having no idea what any of the issues actually are. Bill Clinton may or may not have been almost sociopathic, but, even if he was, he didn't not portend the apocalypse, and most would agree that only wing-nuts thought he would. George Bush might be wrong on everything from the war in Iraq to tax cuts for working families, but would that make him a psychopath? Would his election signal the end of the world? Or even close enough that it might be funny to a rational human being grounded in some sense of reality?

Man, I don't know about you. But I don't think so. But, in the end, I don't think Bush f___ing hates me. And, when it comes down to it, if he did, it would have very little to do with whether or not he was the right man, given our other choices, to be elected president of the United States.

French Youth Riot Against Facism

No, sorry, if the French put as much energy into fighting facism and totalitarianism as they have into rioting against companies having the ability to fire incompetent or unnecessary employees, America wouldn't have constantly had to save their lazy butts.

Predictably, the fine folks at Alternet (in this case, Robin Craft) completely understand why giving employers a choice in who they hire and fire would have French youth rioting in the streets.

Craft notes:

Between 500,000 and 1.5 million people were mobilized Saturday afternoon against a new youth labor contract that would, among other things, allow employees -- that are 18 to 26 years old -- to be fired without cause during the first two years of employment.

How absurd that companies should have the same choice as employees--who can, of course, quit without cause at any time. And they aren't just given two years to quit, but can, in fact, quit any damn time they please. Why they would want to quit when they can do a bad job and still get paid and never get fired is beyond me, but, you know, the option is there. Maybe their years of experience at loafing could get them a better paying job somewhere else in the roaring economy of France.

As to why companies would want to fire outstanding or high-performing employees without cause is not touched on. Why they should be forced to keep people who don't perform--or, heck, just aren't needed due to changing market conditions--isn't mentioned.

But of course not! Companies don't exist to serve a customer or provide products to fill needs in the marketplace. They exist to provide paychecks to lazy, entitled, wine-swilling Frenchmen who can't be bothered to get off the couch long enough to defend their own country from Nazis, but can start turning over cars (not that it's that hard to tip the small and flimsy European cars they've been attacking) and setting things on fire to demand not to be penalized for their poor performance, or changing conditions in the marketplace. At least, not without driving the company that hired them out of business, too.

Of course, Alternet's take is predictable:

[S]tudents and labor unions united against what they see as a proposition for substandard labor protections, job insecurity and inequality reminiscent of American labor conditions.

Eeek! American labor conditions! what a terrible, brutal world we live in in America. Let's compare and contrast the brutal American job market with the soft, fuzzy French one, shall we?

Unemployment in France is 8.8%--which is great for such a quasi-socialist economy, and much better than it was in 1997, when their unemployment was 12.6%--the kind of rate American's associate with a severe depression, and would have Democrat's calling for impeachment. Indeed, even at under 7% unemployment, the Democrats attacked Bush on the job situtation constantly.

But the brutal U.S. unemployment rate is currently 4.8%. Even though companies can hire and fire much more easily than in France, our unemployement rate is 4% lower than theirs. Why is that, I wonder? Could it be that our brutal style of American economics ends up employing more people more consistently?

As for Purchasing Power Parity (roughly, how much the average citizen is capable of purchasing with what they make versus their costs and expenses), United States ranks #3. France ranks #20. The CIA World Fact Book ranks them as #24.

As far as Gross National Product, measured per capita, United States is number four, and probably would be number two or three if GNI (Gross National Income) wasn't calculated to include the economic productivity of non-residents in places like Luxembourg.

There are several different measures of economic growth, and we've been beating France for years on pretty much all of them. What a brutal economy we have!

Another worry is that the contract will become a favorite among employers, contributing to unemployment for older, unskilled workers as they are replaced by easy-to-fire young people, who in turn fear losing their jobs to others just before the end of the two-year trial period.

Well, then, they should work extra-hard to do a good job and learn valuable skills that would make it more expensive to replace them than to just keep them on the payroll. Again, does the employee get to quit the company without "cause"? Why should the government actively discourage companies from hiring people and trying them out by making the decision largely irrevocable?

In the end, if the folks rioting in France would devote that much energy to their jobs, their marketable skills, and taking responsibility over their own lives, they wouldn't need to worry about this, or any other, change in French law that makes it easier for companies to fire workers. If a worker is valuable, they either won't get rid of him/her or he/she will find it very easy to get another job. If a worker is not valuable or does not contribute, why should the company keep paying him/her for shoddy work?

It's been said before, but it's worth repeating. There ain't no free lunch. So stop trying to get someone else to buy your lunch for you, get off your ass and go make a sandwich.

I'm in an Abusive Relationship with George Clooney

And then blaming the other person. What fun is it to admit you have a problem if you don't simultaneously point the finger at someone else? And if I'm admitting things, then I have to admit that my battered-spouse existence with George Clooney is just the beginning of my relationship woes.


You see, I'm also in an abusive relationship with Cameron Diaz and Julia Roberts.

And, as it turns out, I'm also in an abusive relationship with director Ang Lee. And writer/director David Koep.

Sure, Steven Speilberg and George Lucas may not pistol-whip me like some of these other folks. But, let's be honest. They aren't really my friends.

And neither is Owen Gleiberman, entertainment critic for Entertainment Weekly. In fact, now and again, he's been known to smack me around.

And so has songstress Norah Jones. And Pixar CEO Steve Jobs. And former Disney CEO Michael Eisner. And don't get me started on the beatings I've taken from Michael Stipe and Moby and Eminem. And Garrison Keillor, who called me a hairy-backed shrieking midget, among many worse names. Or so many of the fine folks at Ain't It Cool News. Which I read as religiously (sometimes moreso) as I read National Review or Red State.

See, I'm an entertainment geek. I love movies. I love music. I love pop culture. I could be an entertainment critic--well, could be, if my political persuasion were more leftwards, I guess. But I love the stuff. I love industry gossip. I love knowing who is doing what.

As I have a regular life and geeking on entertainment news doesn't feed the kids or pay the bills, I often find myself out of the loop, and then, when it comes time to play catch up, I love learning about all the new movies, bands, and books that I've missed.

Sadly, this is a decidedly one-sided relationship. See, Julia Roberts has said, point blank, that she hates me and doesn't understand how anybody could be me. I think she said something about wishing I was dead, but I blocked it out.

George Lucas thinks I think in absolutes. When it comes to Star Wars, I might fancy myself more the Luke Skywalker type, and he thinks I'm a Sith Lord. He may not say it, but . . . he practically does.

I love those guys (and gals), but when they talk about me, they think I'm evil. When they write people that live and vote like I do (sort of) in a screenplay, those are the bad guys, with extra-added evil that I personally haven't witnessed as being part-and-parcel of conservatism.

And then, there's what doesn't get made. Stephen King's Cell, just released, has been optioned and is already on it's way into scripting and production. But what about Michael Crichton's State of Fear. That would make one helluva movie, but, alas, he doesn't tow the Hollywood line on global warming. Or Crichton's cautionary tale of nanotechnology gone awry, Prey would also make a great movie. But, heck, Crichton's already wandered off the reservation. Even Airframe, which was in the production line at one time, didn't end up getting made. Could it be because of the negative take on unions? Or the Chinese government and culture? Hmmm.

Perhaps that's too conspiratorial. And, to be honest, Crichton has a better shot than some folks. Any movie with Christians that aren't either evil or misguided-but-then-enlightened-by-some-liberal are destined to be straight-to-dvd, or never produced. But movies that "bust stereotypes"--i.e., that load L.A. with lots of 1950s style-racism, ala Crash, or shows us manly gay cowboys, ala Brokeback Mountain get the red carpet in Hollywood.

So, what's the problem? Are they out of touch with mainstream America? Well, given that George Clooney proudly proclaimed that he was out of touch, and that "out of touch" essentially meant that he was out of touch with all those racists, bigots, misogynists, and homophobes and their well-thumped Bibles in middle-America, is, to some extent, proof that they are not just out of touch, but living in an alternative, largely fantastical, reality.

First, he gives Hollywood too much credit for being on the right side of important issues, historically or now. Clooney's protestations aside, Oscar has passed over many exceptional performances by many exception black actors while, at the same time, exceptional African-American managers have been promoted and rewarded for their fine performance in evil, backwards corporations at rates that, while imperfect, would certainly put the Academy to shame. Any number of African American entertainers could tell you how hard it was to get African-American themed movies made in enlightened Hollywood--movies that turned out to be classics, and made a hefty profit. And then, when it came time to make the next movie, those enlightened Hollywood folks couldn't be bothered to help make the bread once again. Although George Clooney would certainly be willing to show up and take credit for it, once the bread was baked, sliced and toasted.

Second, he gives middle-America no credit. Even if only liberals were good folks, there are plenty of them in Middle America. Not to mention, women's suffrage and the abolition movement in this country were things politically championed by the Republican party (and opposed by the Democrats) and also more supported than opposed by Christian evangelicals. There's no pause to wonder if, perhaps, they paint conservatives, Republicans, and Christians, with too broad a brush. No stopping to consider the possibility that being "out of touch", to paraphrase Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin in The Princess Bride), does not mean what he thinks it means.

But then, that's just the problem. They are so sure of their world view, and so insular in the company they keep and the material they digest, that there is no reason to do anything but dismiss everything else out of hand. It wouldn't occur to them to have a sympathetic Christian or conservative character--at least, not one that didn't somehow come to understand how liberals were right and conservatives were wrong.

Now, Camera Diaz speculating that rape might be legalized if George W. Bush won in 2004 was just stupid. So she's easy to dismiss. But what about a fine entertainment critic, like Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly? I like Owen and read his stuff. But check out this abbreviated review of Power of Nightmares, where Owen all but endorses the movies assertion that Islamofascism and American Christianity, and neocons (who are often irreligious, just as an informational point) as being mirror images of each other. To whit:

He shows, for instance, how the neocons deliberately fabricated evidence of the Soviet threat (an astonishing clip of Donald Rumsfeld in the '70s, talking about undetectable weapon systems that never existed, will look eerily familiar), and that their philosophical godfather, the legendary academic Leo Strauss, endorsed the use of such fictions as a basic organizing tool of a civilized society.

And this isn't the complete review. I don't recall the specific words, but I do remember that the review, as it appeared in the magazine, had even more laudatory things to say about the film maker's thesis.

I don't have to wonder what Owen would think of a similar documentary demonstrating how environmental activist fabricate date for environmental problems there is no real evidence for, just "consensus" opinon--he'd revile such political drivel. I do wonder why a serious critic wouldn't address the fact that neoconservatism, as such, is not inherently religious, thus making a poor analog to Islamofascism, which is fueled entirely by religious zealotry. But no, this is a fine movie, because it "audaciously" makes an "audacious" ("audacious" being the Hollywood word for what middle-America would call "patently absurd" or "just plain dumb").

But . . . do you see how they treat me? The "deliberately fabricated Soviet threat"? Invisible weapons systems aside, the Soviet system was a killing machine that killed more human being through murder, war, starvation, and slave labor than any other political insitution in the history of the world, from Nazism to world-wide slavery. Maybe just a nod to the fact that Donald Rumsfeld's general contention that the Soviet union was unabashedly horrible and bent on world domination being completely correct and, in retrospect, perhaps understated, might be nice. Just throw me a bone, Owen. But, no. Owen doesn't like me. In fact, Owen doesn't see much difference between me and Osama.

And yet I keep on taking it.

And I'm a big fan of Harry Knowles and the folks at Aint It Cool News. But sometimes there desire to inject irrelevant politics and anti-religious garbage into their commentary stretches credulity. For example, take Harry's review of Aeon Flux.

I laughed one of those, “Oh the red states are going to love this,” sort of laughs.

Not that this film is anti-Republican – but seriously how many in the Bible belt are really going to be down for a film with plot devices involving drug induced higher planes of psychic existence where people of similarly augmented consciousnesses can gather to plot in total chemical secrecy the overthrow of their utopian existence? A film, whose design, is wholly bizarre Euro-sci-fi-esque – without a single thing that they can recognize as familiar or comfortable. How about this – how about the subject matter of cloning as the sole way to preserve humanity – because… well, it turns out “God’s Chosen Few” that survive the great decimation of mankind… well, it’s those godless fucking scientist that save mankind with their Satan ways.

So, let's check this out. Harry says:

1. That red staters don't like science.

2. Are too ignorant and uncultured to appreciate cheesy Euro-sci-fi.

3. Are so opposed to drugs that a movie that has some sort of nanotech system for sending messages and communicating "brain-to-brain" as it were would be too drug like for them, and it would make them "uncomfortable".

4. Always look for something familiar and comfortable, because they are unwilling to challenge themselves, even in a movie.

And I'm sure you can find a few insults of your own. Do you see how they treat me?

And I can go on. I enjoyed Pleasantville, despite the cliche of having the guys who wanted to keep the classic black-and-white sitcom ways being portrayed as brownshirts, but then I listened to the director's commentary on the DVD, and he had nothing good to say about me, while praising himself, and his fellows, effusively. I thought War of the World's was lame, but it certainly wasn't helped by the assertion by writer David Koep that the invading aliens, killing folks randomly then catching them and grinding them up for plant food, were analogous to the American military. What a rotten thing to say about our men and women serving in our armed services. And what a stupid thing to say.

Or Tim Robbins, who I enjoyed in The Player and a number of other movies, even though Bob Roberts was just dim-witted conservative-bashing, saying that the fact that I can find an alternative viewpoint, and find information and commentary that resonates with me, on talk radio means that there is a "chill wind" blowing. He thinks it's bad that I can hear things he doesn't agree with! Because, I surmise, they are so patently wrong (or payed for by dark-suited men in smokey-rooms, busy greasing the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the proletariat, and thus not authentic), that's it's bad that I even get to hear an alternative point of view. Sheesh! With friends like these . . .

But what am I going to do? I love the movies. I love music. Even when I disagree with some of the content, I still love 'em.

I know! I know they aren't going to change. I know that. Don't you think I know that? But I can't leave them. I love them. It would break my heart.

But maybe it would hurt for them to, you know, dry out. Spend a few days in jail. Then maybe they'll think before giving me another shiner. You know?

My Letter to LiveLiberal.com

LiveLiberal seeks to demonstrate that "liberal" is not a dirty word, and tries to do it in a way that leaves behind much of the vitriol.

But it takes more than refraining from calling Republicans Nazis to make genuine political progress. And I'm not sure they are quite there yet. But, I admire the goal, and I'm certainly for a more rational dialog between political opponents, so I'd like to help them along.

So, I wrote LiveLiberal.com a thoughtful and I hope constructive email, which I reprint here, with a few additions, with the portions of their site that I was responding to added quoted to provide context (something I did not do in the original email).

As a former liberal (and now rock-ribbed conservative, alas), I've got to say, I admire what you are doing. The vitriol and intolerance of much more "pure" liberals in my personal sphere as a young collegiate liberal were the catalyst for my personal conversion. Not that I'm not glad for it--I learned a great deal during the course of my journey from one end of the political spectrum to the other--but I also believe that a healthy dialog, sincere disagreement and loyal opposition helps make our country a better place to live, and our people better citizens. It's my sincere hope that you have a positive influence on both the right and the left. It's good for there to be a dialog that doesn't descend into insults and anger.

That being said, as a conservative, I'd like to make some hopefully constructive comments, although I'm approaching it from the point of view of trying to appeal to right-of-center folks, and that may not really be your goal.

...in the 19th century ... liberals in Congress initiated and passed the Morrill Land Grant Act. This Act granted land in virtually every state to build a university for higher learning. Shortly thereafter, public universities placed higher education within the reach of most Americans at about the same time that universal public education, a liberal idea, became the norm.

In your historical summary, I think it would be worth noting that (though it may be obvious) historical liberals and conservatives are not the same folks, and do not argue always for the same things, as they did in the past. Many of the liberals who initiated and passed the Morrill Land Grant Act would be considered staunch (even somewhat oppressive) conservatives today, fully considered. Just Morrill, who initiated the act, was a Whig and a Republican (and, having left school at age 15, was something a self-made man, in the classic, conservative bootstrapping mold). The act was signed by Abraham Lincoln, also a Republican. Although Republicans of the day may have been different in many ways than Republicans now, I think you'd have a hard time finding a present day conservative who thinks the Morrill Act was a bad idea.

Which is not to say the Republicans of that day were conservatives--in many ways, Lincoln was a radical president, but then so were the folks in the Confederacy, as secession from the Union and war with the North can't exactly be called "conservative".

As a former liberal who changed through reading, research, and extended contemplation, I think you do your cause a disservice when you don't provide the context, even just briefly, that many of the "liberals" who advocated universal education (and even a slow-to-change, antique-hording conservative, now or then, could see the value in establishing colleges "in engineering, agriculture and military science" for the long term prosperity and security of the United States) were Republicans. That many were religious and acted out of a religious conviction and were fine with the role religion played in the process (a modern, if weaker, analog might be Bush's faith-based initiatives).

And, unlike progressive efforts of reforms proposed by contemporary Republicans, there was not huge conservative opposition to the Morrill Land Act.

Speaking of conservative efforts towards radical reform, they certainly do exist. One example would be Social Security Reform. Like it or loathe it, is a fairly radical attempt to change the status quo, and, like many conservative initiatives, does not fit well with the idea that conservatives abhor change. It would probably be more accurate to say that both conservatives and liberals clean out their attics, but they simply choose to clean out different things, based on sincere and well-intentioned beliefs about what should stay and what should go.

At the turn of the century, the liberals in Congress initiated and funded sewer and water systems, food safety laws, and founded the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health. During this same time, truth in advertising laws and product labeling were put into effect by liberals over the anguished protests of conservatives who insisted it would be too expensive and a burden to business.

In regards to such things as funding sewage and water systems . . . well, again, I admire your goal and I appreciate the softness of your tone, but the implication still seems to be that, at least back in the day, conservatives didn't want running water! That conservatives wanted outhouses and slop jars and human waste in the streets! While there may have been certain individuals who, without particular respect to ideology, felt that if disease and pestilence was good enough for their pappies and grandpappies, then it was good enough for them, I don't think it's honest argument to try and suggest that that is, or ever was, a "conservative" position.

Early in the 1920's, liberals in Congress and throughout the States gave women the right to vote.

In regards to giving women the right to vote, I think it's tough to argue that this was a strictly liberal vs. conservative issue. Certainly, modern conservatives worship Margaret Thatcher and are hoping for President Condaleeza Rice, so to suggest there is any analogy between contemporary conservatives and objectors to women's suffrage is disingenuous.

But, more to the point, two-thirds of each house had to concur to make the 19th amendment, and two-thirds of all state legislatures had to concur to ratify it. And they did. Do you really think it's fair to characterize something that, when it came down to it, over 2/3rds of our political leaders supported and voted for, not just in DC but in states all across the nation, both liberal Republican and conservative Democrat, as "liberal"? Do you think only liberals should get credit for something that clearly crossed political and ideological lines, by any yardstick you choose to measure it by? I don't. But then I've never seen conservatism as misogynist or racist, either.

I don't have statistics, but I do know that many of the suffrage groups leading up to the 1920s amendment had the word "Republican" in their name, and many these Republican Women's groups still exist, often populated by the daughters and granddaughters of the classical feminists who fought for women's right to vote. And, rightly or wrongly, they don't see the sort of gap between the Republicans of the 1920s and the Republicans of the 1980s that perhaps you do.

Additionally, there are many Democrat organizations whose historical resentments go back, largely unabated, to the times when Republicans were the "evil and corrupt" party of abolition, then women's suffrage, then (with some dissent amongst the growing ranks of southern Republicans) civil rights. Yet even as the Democrats ceased to call themselves "The White Man's Party" and even as they took up the mantle of issues pioneered by classically liberal Republicans, the vitriol directed at their nominal enemies never seemed to change.

Shortly thereafter, public universities placed higher education within the reach of most Americans at about the same time that universal public education, a liberal idea, became the norm.

I would also argue, as a conservative, that universal public education is an American idea that transcends the sorts of ideological boundaries you seem to believe confine it. What sort of person is opposed to education? How do you have a prosperous economy and successful businesses and all sort of inspiring entrepreneurs, not to mention a trained and effective military, or domestic police force, without at least a basic public education? And wouldn't a comprehensive education be that much better, for everybody? Great inventions, ideas, and private businesses don't come from an illiterate workforce that can't add or subtract. While I'm not saying that you can't find someone who opposes universal public education, to argue that to support universal public education is "liberal" while to oppose it is "conservative" is, in my opinion, sophistry. I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think that sort of picture of conservatives is accurate, or reflects due consideration to the people and opinions you are trying to characterize.

During this same time, truth in advertising laws and product labeling were put into effect by liberals over the anguished protests of conservatives who insisted it would be too expensive and a burden to business.

I believe you are generally accurate in regards to food labeling and truth in advertising, although, again, some prominent liberal Democrats have fought (sometimes successfully) both food labeling and truth in advertising legislation, based on the concerns of businesses in their constituencies. The fact that, to this day, so-called "nutricueticals", herbal remedies, and other forms of contemporary snake-oil aren't FDA approved or regulated and do not have to actually prove any of their claims is the result of bi-partisan efforts from folks who have been, on other issues, reliably conservative or reliably liberal.

And, as a conservative (as I did when I was a liberal), I favor truth in advertising laws and food labeling. These are useful things that, while they do add cost and burden, is not onerous compared to their benefit (airbags I'm not so sure about; seatbelts, I am, and, even today, would we have shoulder straps without government regulation?).

During these periods, liberals gave us labor laws and workplace safety laws and rural electrification and Social Security and the TVA and the National Weather Service and the interstate highway system and the GI Bill and the Peace Corp and the space program and the FDIC and public broadcasting and the civil rights movement and the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the internet and the Family and Medical Leave Act to give a few examples.

To suggest the GI Bill, the space program, the FDIC, rural electrification and the FDIC and even public broadcasting are inherently 100% liberal is disingenuous, as all of those things did, to some degree or another, transcend party and ideological lines (and, in some cases, so did opposition). What is conservative about opposing rural electrification? Especially given that the bill was sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat? They were both liberals? And that the legislation got bipartisan votes for and against? And why wouldn't conservatives, many of them hearty, Midwestern and deep southern farm folk, support rural electrification? They are ideological and political conservatives. They are not Amish. Public broadcasting has both potential educational and military value. Even if conservatives disagree with what passes for "public interest" programming today, there is nothing inherently liberal, or non-conservative, in public broadcasting. The GI bill rewarded the hardworking men of our military when a college education, so that they could leverage both the leadership of their military experience with the knowledge gleaned through higher education . . . what, exactly, did "conservatives" oppose about the GI Bill? Was it rewarding our military men for fighting for their country? Or was it for making sure the best qualified, finest folks our country has produced got a solid education that they could apply to the business world?

And the space program, well under way during the administration of moderate Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, really exploded under the largely conservative, tax-cutting, military-spending, two-fisted Communist-fighting hawk, John F. Kennedy (who was, if abolition and suffrage era Republicans were liberal, undeniably conservative). Then continued under the very liberal LBJ and the just as liberal Richard Milhouse Nixon. Making it a cross-ideological effort. Even now, who wants us to go back to the moon and conduct a manned mission to Mars? George W. Bush. How does that square with the idea of space exploration as being exclusively liberal?

And, I add here (this did not go in the original email, as it somehow slipped by me) that it's quite a blanket assertion to say that the Internet is the result of liberals! What has transcended ideological boundaries more than the history of the Internet? From it's early incarnation as a military network to it's later existence as a network connecting college information resources to it's currently splendid diversity, both conservatives and liberals have contributed immeasurably to the creation, the development, and the diversity of the Internet and it's many technologies and innovations. And the fact that conservatives, who supposedly abhor change, took to these new technologies like ducks to water poses something of a conundrum for the liberals and their treasured conservative stereotypes.

But perhaps that's all just a difference of opinion. However, the progress made since 1980 on all fronts is not.

Conversely, if we just look at the years of 1980-1993 and 2000 to the present, years of conservative ascendancy, we see a steady growth in income inequality, a drop in savings, a rise in personal debt, the increasing need for two family incomes, an increase in poverty, a decrease in charitable giving among the rich (but an increase among the poor), the largest national debt ever, seeing the USA move from the greatest creditor nation in the world to the greatest debtor nation in the world, a severely weakened US dollar, and the largest foreign investment in and ownership of our businesses and industries.

First, to try and create a correlation between the "years of conservative ascendancy" and any number of bad things that happened simultaneously, real or imagined, is rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Correlation does not prove causation; in fact, correlation often doesn't prove anything. But, if that's the direction you choose to go, that particular sword cuts both ways:

While we see a steady growth in income inequality, we also see a steady growth in income across the board. While the rich got richer, the poor also got richer, and so did the middle class, and by every measurement: inflation adjusted income, capital holdings (including stock), and purchasing power. While personal debt has also gone up, it's gone up with people on all sides of the political spectrum who are using this debt to finance a higher standard of living than, strictly speaking, they really need.

Savings are up, not down, if you included something other than classical savings accounts, checking accounts, and certificates of deposit. More people own stock in this country than ever before. More people have equity in real estate, and much of the added debt burden has been used to finance home purchases, because more people are home owners than ever before. More people have money tied up in questionable investments, from coins to collectibles, than ever before. While this may not be wise, and may not be the best form of savings, it's not like that money evaporated, or was stolen in the middle of the night by greedy Republicans.

As far as charitable giving, I have to believe that your take is intentionally disingenuous. First, charitable giving is up, in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, across the board, over the time period you say it was down. The only way to presume charitable giving was down would be to calculate by the percentage of overall wealth given to charity by the super-rich, rather than real dollars, or by the overall percentage of GDP, neither of which are particularly good yardsticks to judge actual charitable donations, or their real impact.

Americans gave $241 billion to charity in 2003. It was a 2.8% growth in charitable given since 2000. Since 1998, charitable giving has been 2 percent or more of GDP, after two decade below that mark. To put that in the political timeline, that means that after four years of Republican control the house, and well after the election of George W. Bush, charitable donations rose to levels higher, in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP, than they were during the Clinton administration, and during the previous decade of almost monolithic liberal Democrat control over the house and senate.

There is plenty of material out there to controvert your assertions regarding charitable giving (except that charitable contributions from the poor and middle class being up--that's true).

Start here: http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/americansgive.html

But that doesn't even begin to touch it. Minority home ownership is now higher than it's ever been, growing more during the "conservative ascendancy" than in any period before. The same goes with minority owned businesses, and George Bush (who is, admittedly, not always the ideal conservative) has advanced a program to radically increase Small Business Loans to minority owned businesses, even though, as I just noted, minority owned businesses are already at an all time high. The stock market is actually in pretty good shape again, although, the Dow is admittedly doing better than the NASDAQ. Government spending is way up, and the simply crazy "prescription drugs for every senior" plan is costly boondoggle that should never have happened, but it's also not a particularly conservative idea. And frankly, most liberals have been complaining that we aren't spending enough. If there is an ideology of fiscal responsibility out there, and I'm not sure there really is, I don't think it’s liberal.

Sure, they may want to raise taxes to pay for all their social spending. But the problem is, tax receipts are up. Tax revenues are up, not down. Bush's "costly" tax cuts, in fact, seemed to have generated more tax revenue than ever before. At the very least, that can't be said to have "cost" anything, but tax revenues are up, well in excess of what they were during the Clinton years. We would, in fact, be well on our way to a balanced budget, if both the president and the congress weren't so darn spendy.

All of that is not to give conservatives sole or even majority credit, or to ding liberals for "not doing enough" or not desiring these same positive outcomes.

What I am trying to say is that I do think there is much to value, and much progress that has been made, due to liberals and progressive causes, and, frankly, some of the best advances have been made when issues largely crossed ideological lines, such as women's suffrage or civil rights (and sometimes we've gone in the wrong direction--prohibition was also a bi-partisan initiative that crossed ideological lines, and it turned out not to be such a hot idea). But whether I'm liberal or conservative, I am not served by trying to create false association, to imply causation where none exists, or deny credit where credit is due.

That is, I think we should work together when we can. Oppose each other, but loyally, when we must (that means liberals stop suggesting that conservatives want a return to slavery and like the idea of dirty water, dirty air, and child labor; in return, conservative should not agitate for presidential impeachments over 20 year old land deals and so on), but acknowledge that we both want positive outcomes. And that sometimes that viewpoint we argue against turns out to be pretty effective. Conservative and (oh, on occasion) liberal. ;)

As time constrains me, I'll stop here. But I hope to offer a few other comments in regards to the material on the site, and I hope you take it in the spirit that it's meant: as constructive commentary, from a conservative who admittedly disagrees with the idea that liberalism is "the best and predominant hope for the world today", but desires a more rational, reasoned, and less vitriolic dialog on the issues that divide us than is normally available these days.

Best of luck,
Kevin S. Willis

And They Learned Nothing from the Paul Wellstone Memorial

While Coretta Scott King may have appreciated some of the Bush-slams and questionable charges of racism made at her funeral, that still wasn't the place for Democrats to play politics. But the Democrats just can't help themselves.

Overt partisanship has become a kind of liberal crack. Just like an addict whose able to keep his life together for a while, but slowly starts spinning out of control until they finally reach the point where everybody can see they have a problem--everybody but themselves, that is--the liberals have gotten to the point where they can't help but use funerals as political platforms for cheap, petty, partisan, and factually inaccurate swipes. And they seem oblivious to how obvious, and ugly, their lack of self-control and self-awareness is.



Said Jimmy Carter in his political speech/eulogy:

[T]he struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans.

Carter, in his eulogy, also snuck in a slam for Bush on the NSA spying scandal:

It was difficult for them personally - with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance, and as you know, harassment from the FBI.

Because of the constraints of time, Carter neglected to mention that the wiretapping and harassment of Martin Luther King, Jr. came at the hands of Robert Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson--all of them, interestingly enough, Democrats. And not just Democrats, but Democrat icons. He also neglected to note that his own father had been a staunch segregationist. And a Democrat. Jimmy Carter himself exploited the race issues to defeat his primary opponent in his 1970 run for governor of Alabama, circulating a picture of his opponent, Carl Sanders, joking with a black athlete, suggesting his opponent was a "race-mixer", and pointedly refused to condemn or criticize George Wallace, the leader of the pro-segregation movement in Alabama. Turns out he was faking, but still. He did do it to win.



By contrast, Bush noted, in a much shorter, non-partisan speech that King's "dignity was a daily rebuke to the pettiness and cruelty of segregation". And he did not run down through the laundry list of Democrats that supported segregation in the 50s and 60s, the Democrats who called the police out on protesting African-Americans and had them sprayed with water hoses, the Democrats that stood in the door of school houses to keep blacks from mixing with whites, or the Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Act--including such esteemable folks as Al Gore's father, Albert Gore, Sr. He did not note the passionate activism of a man Clinton called a personal hero and mentor, and whom Clinton awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom, J. William Fulbright--a steadfast segregationist who voted against both the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights act of 1965. And the list goes on. And on. And on.


So, despite the many problems and scandals on the Republican side, I think 2006 is still looking pretty good for the Republican party overall. They continue to have an invaluable ally in their effort to beat the Democrats at the polls--and that's the Democrats, and the political left, themselves.



Said the Reverend Joseph Lowery, a longtime Democrat activist:

We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.

Even if you accepted this nonsense--there is, in fact, more being spent on the poor by percentage and in real dollars than in 2000, the last year of the administration of our first "black" president, Bill Clinton--funeral eulogies are not the place for it. Even if the dearly departed would have wanted it that way, it plays as cynical and manipulative to much of the larger population. And even to some who might otherwise agree, it can strike them as being in poor taste. Because, frankly, it is.



And it provides another opportunity for the record to be set straight. While it may not happen on most of the mainstream media, it might happen on Fox, will certainly happen on talk radio and on the conservative blogosphere, and Democrats, liberals, and even moderates find themselves exposed to the real facts, and a few of them might find themselves thinking about things a little differently. And each Wellstone Memorial, each politicization of a funeral like Corretta Scott King's, is another chink in the armor. It's another Democrat voter down, it's another potential leftist true believer lost. First, because it's just ugly. Secondly, because it shines a light on their hypocrisy.
While Jimmy Carter and CBS News, in this opinion piecemay want you to think the victims of hurricane Katrina were disproportionately African-American, and that this would somehow be Bush's fault, by percentage of overal population of New Orleans, whites were hit hardest. And Lousianna and New Orleans have been under the control of Democrats since, well, almost the beginning of time. They have had a steady diet of federal dollars for decades with which they were supposed to reinforce and build levys, dams, and otherwise prepare for disaster. They have more money and support of the Bush Administration than they had gotten in the previous 8 years of Clinton/Gore. Or during the 4 years of Carter/Mondal, with Democrat control of the house and senate.



And, in the end, now matter how evil and unapologetically caucasian the Republican party may or may not be, even evil conservatives can't control the weather, or who gets flooded and how bad. As the hurricanes and their aftermath were largely and act of God, and after God the mayor and governor of New Orleans and Lousianna respectively, both Democrats, who is Carter really implying are racists? The Democrats who control, and have controlled, Louisianna and New Orleans for years? Or God?


As for the right Reverend Lowery's assertion that we're blowing billions on wars, but there's nothing for the poor--and by implication, nothing for African-Americans--it seems like a good time to hilight the fact that social spending is up. That we're spending more on education now, for everybody, than we ever have in the history of this country. And that the statistics, on the whole, are pretty good. Since 2000, the last year of the enlightened Bill Clinton's reign, things must have gotten worse for poor folks and black people, with evil Republicans controlling everything, right?



Well, maybe not. Reading and math scores for African-American nine-year-olds are up significantly since 2000, and are the highest they have ever been since testing began. Reading scores are up 14 points and math scores are up 14 points in the past five years for African-American 9 year olds. Overall, the "Achievement Gap", long lamented by liberals who felt each other's pain about it but otherwise didn't seem to get much done, is closing. The gap in reading scores between white and African-Americans is the smallest it has been since testing began. Under 12 years of Republican reign in the congress and 6 years in the Whitehouse.


African-American business ownership is at all all time high. The Small Business Administration, under the auspices of the evil George W. Bush, has increased loans to African-American small businesses by 28%. And nearly have of all African-Americans now own their own hom, and African-American home ownership is up significantly since 2000. Violent crime is at a 30 year low, which helps everybody, but particularly the black community, which is disproportionately effected by violent crime.


And it's worth noting, for someone (and the political party he's part of) who supposedly is inherently racist, the Bush administration has sent more money to Africa to fight hunger, malaria, and HIV/AIDs than any president in the history of our country, than any other world leader or government in any other country in the world, and has tripled aid to Africa since 2000. While we can debate, as conservatives, whether or not this is a good idea, or if the aid just ends up subsidizing the problems in Africa, and numerous corrupt governments, he should certainly be winning the Nobel Peace Prize by the usual yardstick of the left--that is, good intentions. Since the Democrats are traditionally the part of "throw money at it" problem solving, Bush's Africa aid alone should earn him huge kudos.



But did anybody on the left mention any of that during Coretta Scott King's funeral? No, they didn't. And they shouldn't have. It would have been inappropriate. Unfortunately for them, what most of them did say was just as inappropriate.


Fortunately for conservatives, it's not the behavior of people who win elections--see the Paul Wellstone Memorial for proof of that--and it's not the behavior of idealogues who win the hearts and minds of the majority.