The Triumph of Nuance (and the death of candor)

Every four years, as predictably as the coming of the presidential elections themselves, the media starts talking about "nuance". Invariably, this takes the form of the chattering classes discussing how wonderfully "nuanced" a Democratic presidential candidate is. Al Gore was described as much more nuanced than George W. Bush, as was John Kerry. And of course we were told that Barack Obama was much more nuanced than John McCain.
The implication of all this, and the conclusion the Democrats and their henchmen (or do I need to be politically correct and say hench-persons?) in the media would like us to draw, is that Democrats are wonderfully wise and insightful, while Republicans are neanderthals incapable of seeing the "shades of gray".
But what "nuanced" seems to actually mean, if you pay close attention, is that politicians - and particularly Democrats - are pathologically incapable of providing direct answers to direct questions. I've learned this first hand from my correspondence with my senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner. In multiple letters and emails I have presented them with very clear, straightforward questions that could easily be answered with a yes or a no, or a clear statement of position. I've ended each correspondence with this request - "The courtesy of a clear, direct response from which a constituent can determine your actual position on these issues would be appreciated." Yet all I receive in response are meaningless, nonsensical talking points that do not even come close to answering my questions.
The same thing happens on television, radio, in press conferences and print - wherever Democrats speak, "nuance" takes over and candor dies.
The downside of all this is that the American people never really hear the whole truth about what's going on in Washington. Politicians nuance their way through every issue, a compliant media fails to hold them accountable, and truth and candor die.
A nation cannot excel on nuance. It can only excel when truth matters, and politicians are held accountable for the truth in all things. Sadly, it has not been so in Washington for a very long time - and there's no "hope" I can see that this will "change" under the Obama administration.

Letter to Senators re: Obama and "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

Senators Webb and Warner,

There are some major questions related to the safety and security of our country and its citizens – the protection of which is among the primary duties of Congress and the President – which you should answer for your constituents.

First some background; President Obama this week released CIA memos related to “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on terrorists who attacked or planned attacks on America. He did so over the objection of the past four Directors of the CIA, who warned that doing so would not make America “safer and stronger”, as Obama claimed, but would in fact do just the opposite by giving enemies detailed information on the limits our interrogators are bound by. Obama has so far ignored requests to release memos that detail what was learned through those techniques and how Americans were better protected based on what was learned. Now Obama is leaving the door open to prosecutions of those who served in the prior administration who may have been involved in providing the legal opinions authorizing such techniques, and others. He’s conveniently leaving off the list of potential targets for prosecution all the Democrats in Congress who were fully and completely briefed on exactly which techniques were going to be used on which terrorists when. Pelosi, Reid and all their cohorts knew exactly what was happening as it happened, but raised no objection. Their blatant hypocrisy in complaining about these techniques now would be stunning if it hadn’t become so routine.

Now my questions:
Do you believe that the release of the CIA memos detailing the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” will make America “safer and stronger”? If so, what logic supports that position? Al Qaeda’s goal was, and remains, destruction of America and our way of life. Their goal was not to make sure we didn’t use enhanced interrogation techniques, so it would seem that believing that eliminating those techniques from our arsenal will make us safer defies basic logic.
Do you believe that President Obama should release all memos related to this topic, so Americans will know what was gained when such techniques were used? Obama promised “a new age of transparency”. If he was telling the truth, he should give Americans the whole story and tell us not just what the CIA can no longer do, but also what we’ll no longer get by giving up those techniques?
Do you support Obama’s position that members of the prior administration should be subject to prosecution for roles related to the enhanced interrogation techniques? If so, shouldn’t the members of Congress who were fully briefed on these interrogations be held to the same standard?

Senators, the fact that the President would flip-flop once again – having previously said he would not allow prosecutions of members of the Bush administration – and now effectively allow the prosecution of officials in a prior administration for what are basically differences of opinion, is frightening. All this while the Secretary of Homeland Security is saying that what demonstrably is a crime – crossing our borders illegally – is not a crime.

Has Washington gone completely mad? Obama is willing to prosecute the very officials who worked hard and successfully kept America safe since 9/11/01 – using techniques that Congress was fully informed of at the time – and his administration is not willing to enforce the laws that prevent criminals and potential terrorists from crossing our borders. Do you agree with these positions the Obama administration has taken?

The courtesy of a clear, direct response from which a constituent can determine your actual position on these issues would be appreciated.


Respectfully,

Lou

Is Obama Making Us Safer?

The better question might be - "is it his goal to make us safer?" By any objective, logical standard it would be hard to make the case that he's actually trying to make the country safer.
A brief review of some recent Obama highlights on this topic:

• the world-wide, non-stop apology tour seems like it will never end. Obama seems determined to apologize for everything that happened before he took office, and to confess the sins of every American except himself and his ideological soul-mates. This demonstrates nothing but weakness to our adversaries.
• he's been actively waving olive branches at the world's despots, including Kim Jong Il, Ahmedenijad, Ortega, Chavez and the Castro brothers. These tyrants have returned the favor by launching missiles, arresting an American journalist, continuing to develop nuclear weapons and berating America at every opportunity.
• his Secretary of Homeland Security - who can't call a terrorist a terrorist, but can call Americans extremists and terrorists if they happen to disagree with Obama - has just informed us that crossing our borders illegally is not a crime.
• Obama himself decided to release CIA memos that detail the interrogation techniques that those in the field protecting our country will and will not use. This will directly assist those who wish to do our country harm. Obama conveniently failed to release the memos that detail the intelligence gained thru the interrogation techniques he so desperately wanted to end.
• Obama has left the door open to prosecuting those in the prior adminstration who successfully kept this country safe. This will have a chilling effect on the intelligence community - what field agent is going to take the chance in this environment of ideological witch hunts that he or she will be prosecuted later if they interrogate aggressively?

There can be no logical, rationale argument made that anything Obama has done recently will make this country safer. If someone can make that case - logically, rationally and fact-based - I'm sure all Americans would be willing to consider it. But I doubt that any Obamaton will offer anything but ideology, emotion and anti-Bush nonsense in support of his approach.

The thing that really betrays the Obama agenda is the ludicrous assertion that releasing the CIA memos about enhanced interrogation techniques makes us "safer and stronger". Al Qaeda attacked America and American interests multiple times in many places long before we invaded Iraq or used any enhanced interrogation techniques. Our use of such techniques did not cause the terrorist attacks (excuse me, man-caused disasters), and eliminating such techniques will not reduce the probability of attacks at all.

Only if one believes that Al Qaeda's goal was to get us to stop using enhanced interrogation techniques could you believe that eliminating them will stop them from trying to attack us. Is there anyone out there who really believes that?

Who are the "Extremists"?

Lat night I attended one of the Tax Day Tea Parties in Reston, Virginia. The weather was miserable, but the spirit of the crowd was anything but. This tea party was moved from its originally scheduled site due to the anticipated size of the crowd - which turned out to be the right move.
According to the most recent DHS report (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5410658/DHS-Report-on-Right-Wing-Extremism) I could have been walking into the midst of a bunch of "extremists" and "potential terrorists". But what I actually saw were many mature, responsible, hard-working Americans gathered to peacefully express their concern about the immature and irresponsible behavior of their elected representatives in both parties. It was not ideological or partisan in any way. It was a simple expression of frustration with the ideologies and partisan behavior in Washington that are driving the country toward economic disaster.
Contrast the behavior of the "potential terrorists" at the Tea Parties with the enlightened free-speech crowd that greeted Tom Tancredo at the University of North Carolina on Tuesday night (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/16/tancredo-ambushed-by-unc-students/). According to TheHill.com "the former congressman wasn't able to get a word in. He was greeted by boos and chants of "no dialogue with hate" and eventually protesters were escorted from the standing room only crowd." Apparently anything that does not align 100% with the liberal point of view is "hate" and does not deserve to be heard. So much for free speech.
What I witnessed at the Tea Party was a sincere, rational expression of a legitimate concern about the future of our country. Those currently in power simply cannot conceive that there could be a legitimate difference of opinion about what they are doing to this nation, so they resort to the usual name-calling, labeling and efforts to stifle the dissent. What a sorry testimony that is about their ability to lead. Which is exactly why we saw the Tax Day Tea Parties yesterday.

"Rightwing Extremism"

Below is the text of a letter I sent today to my Senators, Warner and Webb, after hearing about the recent DHS report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”.

Dear Senators,

On January 22 of this year I wrote you a letter that included the following paragraph:

“As my representatives in the U.S. Capitol, I am writing to you to express concern about the steady move towards greater government intervention in our lives already taking place under the Obama administration. You may recall that the 10th amendment to the Constitution reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That amendment has never been repealed, but it appears to have been forgotten in Washington.”

Based on the recent DHS report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, are you going to report me to DHS as a possible “right-wing extremist” because I believe that the 10th amendment to our Constitution actually means what is says?

Governor Rick Perry of Texas said today “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Is he a potential “right-wing extremist” as well?

DHS apparently released a similar report about left-wing extremists, but it made no mention or insinuation about the potential for violence from such groups despite their demonstrable record of such behavior. But now Secretary Napolitano suggests, without a shred of fact or evidence to back up her allegations, that returning war veterans and ordinary people who believe that the federal government is usurping powers that rightfully belong to the states may react with violence against the government. Aside from a completely transparent attempt to stifle dissent – what is the purpose of this report? And what facts, if any, is it based on?

Senators, when President Bush was in office one of the most popular bumper stickers said “Dissent is Patriotic”. Apparently Team Obama believes dissent is patriotic only when said dissent isn’t directed at them. Now that there is some legitimate debate and disagreement about Obama’s efforts to centralize control of our lives in the federal government, dissent is suddenly a threat and triggers the standard liberal name-calling in an attempt to intimidate those who disagree with Obama. The irony of a woman who can’t call a terrorist a terrorist, and who feels the need to rename the War on Terror an “overseas contingency operation”, calling ordinary Americans who just happen to disagree with what’s taking place in Washington “extremists” would be hysterical if it wasn’t so sad.

Do you believe that the First Amendment protects my right, and that of Governor Perry and millions of other Americans, to express concern about the efforts currently underway to expand federal government control of our lives? Is dissent still “patriotic”? Do you believe that the Tenth Amendment - “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” – actually means what it says?

The courtesy of a clear response from which I can actually discern whether or not you are taking an actual position on the important questions above would be appreciated.

Respectfully,

Lou

"Investing" in Education?

We've heard a great deal lately from Team Obama about the moral imperative of "investing" more in education. Setting aside the irony of this crowd telling anyone about what's "moral", we need to think very carefully about allowing our dollars to be "invested" by them, especially when it comes to education.

Writing in the Denver Post, Robert Hardaway summed up the situation nicely (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5982482):

• Spending on public schools in the U.S. exceeds that of any other country on earth


• Public schools in this country currently spend more than twice as much money per student as private schools


• If money were the solution, America's schools would be the best in the world. In fact, American public school students ranked 19th out of 20 countries in international achievement tests (nudging out Jordan), although American students did excel in "self-esteem" and the number of hours watching TV.

Further illustrating that there's no demonstrable link between increasing federal spending and improvements in education results, Mr. Hardaway reported:

• a study has shown that Iowa, which ranked No. 1 in the nation in SAT scores, ranked 27th in per-capita student expenditures.


• Utah, which ranked dead last among the states in per capita expenditures, finished 4th in test scores.


• In Japan, where public schools students consistently finish first or second in international tests, per-student expenditure is about a third of that in the U.S., despite a higher cost of living.

Between 2001 and 2008, federal spending on education increased from $42.6 billion to $67.5 billion, an increase of 58% or 6.8% annually. In fact, since the 1970s, federal per-student expenditures have tripled (adjusting for inflation), but test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress have not improved. This does not sound like a very profitable "investment".

American taxpayers are spending, on average, more than $9,000 per student per year for all children in public schools. The average in Obama's hometown of Chicago is slightly higher than that, but a recent report published by the America's Promise Alliance found that the city's high school graduation rate was only 51.5 percent. Again, not a very successful "investment".

The problem with American education isn't lack of "investment" - it's lack of discipline and lack of competition. Entrenched interests (unions, bureaucrats, etc.) prevent our public schools from delivering an education which equals that currently delivered in private and charter schools for far less cost. Public school bureaucrats do not grant authority to teachers to discipline students or protect innocent students from disruptive ones. And just today the Obama administration rescinded charter school scholarships for poor African-American children in Washington D.C.

As the Heritage Foundation has reported, "Many Members of Congress value the opportunity to choose a safe and effective school for their own children, yet many of these same Members consis­tently oppose school choice legislation that would give the same opportunity to other families. For example, Senators Edward Kennedy (D–MA) and Hil­lary Clinton (D–NY) have been outspoken opponents of school choice initiatives even though both have sent their children to private schools."

Over 40% of Senators and Representatives send their children to private school, which is more than 4 times the national rate of private school attendance. They clearly recognize the failure of our public schools, and the failure of simply throwing more money at that problem. Yet rather than addressing the core problem, they simply dodge it by sending their kids elsewhere and continuing to compel the rest of us to make a phenomenally unsuccessful "investment". Once again, our employees in Congress want to have it both ways - to their advantage and our great disadvantage.

The Kevorkian Media

In 1999 Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder for directly participating in the voluntary euthanasia of Thomas Youk. Mr. Youk, 52, was in the final stages of ALS. Youk provided Kevorkian his fully-informed consent on September 17, 1998.
On November 4, 2008 our country effectively gave its consent to being euthanized, although that consent was surely not the "informed consent" that Mr. Youk provided Dr. Kevorkian. Rather, it was a consent obtained through the lies, of omission and commission, fed to the American public by a media completely incapable of credible, factual reporting.
What Obama is doing to the country now is not a surprise to those who took the time and made the effort to research his history, character and motivations. During the campaign, however, Obama was able to package his destructive, socialist agenda as "hope" and "change". The mainstream media went along with him unquestioningly and exerted great effort to convince America that Obama's program would actually be good for the country. And they will continue to do so, even as Obama destroys what has made this country a unique success in the history of the world.
Thomas Sowell captured the crux of the problem brilliantly in his column on April 7, 2009 (see link below) when he wrote "Perhaps the scariest aspect of our times is how many people think in talking points, rather than in terms of real world consequences. " In that same piece he also wrote "Liberals seem to think that they are doing lagging groups a favor by making excuses for counterproductive and self-destructive behavior. The poor do not need press agents. They need the truth. No one ever said, "Press agents will make you free."
And our mainstream media will not make us free either. They are as committed to the statist agenda as Obama is, and have dropped all pretense of playing the watchdog role so needed now. Washington DC is where the greatest risk to individual freedom always lies, but never more so than when a single party controls the White House and both houses of Congress. If a true watchdog press was ever needed, it is now. Unfortunately we now have a lapdog press, eager to please and unwilling to question those in power.
The Constitution defines the proper roles of the federal government, among which are the responsibility to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" for the American people. But the federal government itself is now the greatest threat to our "Blessings of Liberty", and with a compliant press ready to help the current Congress and administration euthanize us, all Americans are at risk if we don't move beyond the spoon-fed talking points and think about the real-world consequences of policies and programs destined to lead us to failure.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/04/07/random_thoughts

Obama Defines Arrogance

After Obama effectively "called out" President Bush while on foreign soil this past Thursday, I contacted the offices of my Senators - Warner and Webb. The text of my message to them is below;
Senator Warner (and Webb),
Your constituents need to know your opinion of what Mr. Obama did today in France. It was bad enough when Gore and Carter and others cowardly stood on foreign soil and bashed America. But now our current occupant of the oval office is doing it too.
Do you agree with what Obama said today?
British newspapers are reporting the following:
Barack Obama: 'arrogant US has been dismissive' to allies President Barack Obama has offered an apology for the Bush era, declaring that America had "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" towards its allies.
It is beyond outrageous, reckless and irresponsible for a president to openly criticize his predecessor on foreign soil. It is truly a disgrace beyond what my words can express. Whatever the philosophical or policy differences may have been between Obama and President Bush - this way of expressing them is an absolute disgrace.
Your constituents have a right to know your position on this action by Mr. Obama.
Do you support his actions in making such statements on foreign soil?
The courtesy of a clear, direct yes or no reply would be appreciated.
Suffice it to say I am not expecting a response. All prior contact with these Senators has yielded nothing but boilerplate responses of the standard liberal talking points. These gentlemen have proven incapable of providing clear direct answers to direct questions. And they unfortunately have plenty of company in that regard within the current Congress and administration.
The irony of a man who is quite possibly the most arrogant to ever hold high office in this country calling someone else arrogant will of course be lost on Obama's loving press and the current Congress.

ObaMadoff

The story of the "ponzi scheme" perpetrated by Bernie Madoff is by now familiar. Federal authorities are busy trying to confiscate his business and personal assets in an effort to recoup for Mr. Madoff's victims at least some of the tens of billions of dollars lost in the massive fraud.
In the meantime, other federal officials in the same government are carrying out a ponzi scheme that makes Mr. Madoff look like a rank amateur. While they surely did not start the problem, this Congress and the current President are pouring gas on the fire - spending so profligately and irresponsibly that the debt created will be unsustainable.
In an article on February 13 in WorldNetDaily, Jerome Corsi reported that our federal obligations exceed the GDP of the world. The link to his story is below, but here are some key points made in the article:
"As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.

The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy..."

Mr. Corsi provided links in his article, which I also provide below, to the actual reports from the U.S. Treasury Department that support his claims.
The simple fact is that all levels of government in this country take too much in taxes and yet still manage to spend more than they take in through those confiscatory taxes. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (just a couple of percentage points behind India and tied with the economic powerhouses of Argentina, Malta, Pakistan and Zambia) and our individual rates are among the highest and going higher (at least for U.S. citizens defined as "rich"). More than half our states run deficits due to irresponsible spending, and now they're turning to the federal government to cover their shortfalls.
The tax and spend policies of our politicians - of all stripes but particularly those of the liberal persuasion - will inevitably bankrupt this country. Yet for some reason people keep electing the same nitwits to office.
Of the ten poorest cities in the country, all ten have Democratic mayors. Two of them have never had a Republican mayor and the other eight average 59 years since the last Republican administration. That can't be a coincidence.
It's long past time that the American people put aside the rhetoric and palavering of our politicians and watched what they actually do and hold them accountable. If we don't do it soon it may be too late.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/

Read Obama's Lips, No New Taxes

At least that's what Obama said on the campaign trail. Specifically, he said in Dover N.H. on Sept. 12 "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
But now that he's in office, Obama has signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products also got steep tax increases. Taxes on tobacco products fall disproportionately on those who are not "rich" (according to Obama's own definition).
The extra money will be used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children, which was enacted last month with the passage of the SCHIP legislation. And that's where the logic really gets twisted.
The bizarre logic evident in this legislation belongs in the book “Catch-22”, not in U.S. law. In an economy where half the people pay no income taxes at all, the House has passed legislation that will provide free health care to families of 4 making up to $65,000, which is more than three times the federal poverty threshold. To fund this giveaway the House decided to increase the tax on smokers. Brilliant logic – given that the taxes on tobacco were initially raised with the specific goal of decreasing the number of smokers. So if the taxes succeed in their original purpose and drive down the number of smokers, then the funding for SCHIP will evaporate. If this is what passes for logic in the Congress, I fear that they’d all be losers on the TV show “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?”.
Since Congress has proven itself totally incapable of eliminating any program, even the most egregious failures, the loss of funding from taxing smokers will inevitably lead to Congress looking for something or someone else to tax to fund SCHIP.
You just can't make this stuff up.