Thursday, September 2, 2010
Good and Bad Example Of Free Speech
This news report caught my eye out of Missouri.
When it comes to politics, there may be as many opinions as cars cruising down U.S. 65. So, naturally, there are different reactions to a billboard south of Ozark that says "Voted Obama? Embarrassed yet?"
"I know the president didn't win down here, but there were a lot of people down here that voted for him, and I think I can speak for them and say we are not embarrassed yet," Matthew Patterson, executive director of the Greene County Democratic Central Committee, said in a telephone interview on Sunday.
"My partner and I felt lots of frustration here lately, and we liked that sign and we thought that was a reasonable question to ask," Steve Critchfield said in a telephone interview on Monday.
Critchfield and his business partner from Commercial One Brokers, a real estate firm in Branson, saw a similar sign online, bought it, and brought it to the Ozarks.
"I've certainly voted for people I'm embarrassed to say I've voted for," he said. "We're not naïve enough to think that we wouldn't get someone to be upset. I'm just surprised how upset people are."
Critchfield says he's received death threats due to the sign; people accuse him of hate speech and racism. He insists the billboard was for something more American in the name of discourse, conversation, and old-fashioned debate.
"If everybody thinks [President Obama's] done a great job and they're very happy," he said, "then I guess they'd be buying billboards saying 'I'm proud to have voted for him.' That's what makes America great, isn't it?"
Did you catch both the good and bad examples of free speech being exercised in the article? Obviously Steve Critchfield is exercising his free speech by buying the billboard, and people who are issuing death threats and accuse him of racism and hate speech are also exercising theirs. But those people are using their freedom of speech in a way designed to shut Critchfield up and deny him his freedom, a typical liberal response to the speech that liberals dislike.
But Critchfield nails the essence of free speech in the final two paragraphs of the news story: if people disagree with his opinion, their best way of expressing that is to purchase a billboard of their own to support President Obama. That would be a dialog of two ideas, and people may weigh the merits of each. And a dialog is much better than one side demanding that the other side shut up.
Posted by Captain Midnight | 9/2/2010 10:16:25 PM
Permanent Link | Tags | Email
Monday, August 30, 2010
What Season Is It?
You may think that we are moving into Autumn, and while that is true here in the United States, we are also moving into election season. Most of the primaries are over, so the political hopefuls will be busy bombarding everyone with their pleas for our votes.
Some people running for office are going to say things to which other people will take exception. People may even say that their comments are lies, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear some people call for certain advertisements to be banned and silenced. I have a problem with banning political speech. If you object to what someone has said, the proper response is to speak up for yourself, not to call for the other person to be silenced.
And speaking of silencing other people, as I walked to work this morning I just happened to notice that there were five political signs lying on the ground. I don't remember any strong winds blowing over the weekend. Strangely enough, only signs for Republican candidates had been uprooted. Discriminating wind? Or an example of people trying to silence the free speech of people with whom they disagree?
Any time the topic of silencing free speech arises, I think Andrew Klavan of Pajamas Media seems to sum it up best:
Posted by Captain Midnight | 8/30/2010 7:14:18 PM
Permanent Link | Tags | Email
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Our Vacationing President
President Obama has headed off on another vacation, this time to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. Of course, all presidents take time off from the rigors of office, and that's a good thing. The U.S. would be poorly served by any president who is so beaten down by the pressures of office that he couldn't properly do his job. Being president is a very tough job, and getting away from its demands is a nice break, even if it is for a short time.
I remember reading about the vacations President George W. Bush went on, and people pointed to his many vacations as a sign of a bad president. According to the article, he spent 487 days at Camp David, and 490 days at his Crawford ranch in Texas. And so that means he was completely cut off from his office, right? Pfft. A president isn't ever really away from his job, not even when on vacation. In the middle of a transoceanic flight on Air Force One, the president is in constant communication with the rest of government. Camp David is just as connected as Air Force One and so was Pres. Bush's ranch. During his time away from the White House, Pres. Bush was still getting his daily briefings of current events and threats, and Pres. Obama is undoubtedly doing the same on his vacations.
Both Camp David and Pres. Bush's ranch in Texas were excellent places for some a little presidential R-and-R. Both have been set up to support a president and his needs without completely disrupting the people around. But when a president or his family goes someplace else, the visit is a huge disruption to the locals. You can see a clear demonstration of this disruption during Mrs. Obama's vacation in Spain. As her group went around, security had to clear out buildings, check for suspicious people, and cordon off beaches just for the First Lady's use. I certainly understand the need for security, and to a lesser extent privacy, but the end result still remains: a visiting president and family is a major disruption. Just ask the people stuck for hours in bumper-to-bumper L.A. traffic because Pres. Obama made a short visit there.
Frankly, I'm glad Pres. Obama is taking his vacations, even if it means causing a ruckus around the States. Each vacation means he is able to blow off some of the pressure of office, and hopefully that means we will have a better president.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Captain Midnight | 8/26/2010 11:07:48 AM
Permanent Link | Tags | Email
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Our Muslim President
Time magazine reported an interesting survey of Americans:
Nearly one-third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President -- a slightly higher percentage than the 24% who mistakenly believe the current occupant of the Oval Office is himself a Muslim.
So one in four surveyed believe that President Obama is a Muslim, and their belief is labeled by Time as being mistaken. But based on Islamic teachings, President Obama is a Muslim because his father was himself a Muslim. And because Islam defines someone born to a Muslim father as a Muslim, I have titled this article, "Our Muslim President." He has certainly demonstrated that he has sympathies towards Islam and Muslims, and I'm sure that is due to his upbringing. No, I don't consider him a Muslim. President Obama has stated clearly that he is a Christian, and I will accept his word on that.
But If you listen to any of his speeches, they are loaded with his view of himself and filled with "I," "me," and similar language more than I recall any other politician doing. So based on his actions and words, I see that President Obama believes in Barack Hussein Obama above and beyond any personal belief in Christianity or Islam he may have.
Let's face it -- President Obama is our Narcissist in Chief.
Posted by Captain Midnight | 8/25/2010 8:00:00 AM
Permanent Link | Tags | Email
Friday, August 6, 2010
Billionaires Pledge to Give Their Wealth Away
The following story caught my eye:
40 billionaires pledge to give away half of wealth
A little over a year after Bill Gates and Warren Buffett began hatching a plan over dinner to persuade America's wealthiest people to give most of their fortunes to charity, more than three-dozen individuals and families have agreed to take part, campaign organizers announced Wednesday.
In addition to Buffett and Gates -- America's two wealthiest individuals, with a combined net worth of $90 billion, according to Forbes -- 38 other billionaires have signed The Giving Pledge. They include New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, entertainment executive Barry Diller, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens, media mogul Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, film director George Lucas and investor Ronald Perelman.
Combined, the 40 billionaires will donate $115 billion to their favorite charities. Their billions will touch and bless the lives of so many people, and it will all be made possible because of their industry. A poor farmer in Bangladesh may make the same pledge, but his meager money will not have the same scope as the wealth of a billionaire. Having large amounts of money grants a person the ability to greatly bless people's lives. And the billionaires' pledge is very laudable.
Now let's imagine the government has decided that at a certain point, the billionaires have made enough money. Congress could easily write a law taxing at 50% the existing wealth of all billionaires. Do you think President Obama would sign such a bill into law? Hell yes, he would! And let's also imagine that Congress is spending these incoming billions in exactly the same way that the billionaires would have done themselves.
Are the actions of Congress laudable? Absolutely not.
See, in the first case, the billionaires are voluntarily choosing to give up their own money. In the second case, Congress is stealing the billionaires' money. It doesn't matter that the money is going to the exact same charities; the act of Congress remains one of theft, not of voluntary giving. True, it's theft via law and the armed force of government, but it's still theft. While Congress' action would be legal, there is nothing either praiseworthy or moral about forcefully taking one person's money to give to another.
When you get down to it, it's the billionaires' money to do with as they see fit, not the government's. Every time I hear a liberal talking about taxing the rich, I realize that liberal has forgotten that it's just not his money.
Posted by Captain Midnight | 8/6/2010 8:00:00 AM
Permanent Link | Tags | Email
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Quick Thoughts on Prop. 8 Ruling
As a rule, I don't sound off on issues without first thinking them through carefully. I have my snap-judgments on issues, but I try to ponder the sides of any argument before sounding off on it. Yes, this means that many times the news and novelty of the issue have faded by the time I type up anything about it, but it also means that I'm rarely stung by jumping on an unsubstantiated urban legend.
With that said, I'm going to do what I rarely do: discuss a breaking issue. Today Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California ruled that Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.
Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The judge is saying that California, and all the U.S. by extension, has the constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis to all people. So does this "obligation" include allowing a brother and sister to marry? How about someone marrying a minor? How about Mike and Mark marrying Mary, Marcy, and Maggie? How about Matt and Spot? And if marriage has become a right, could Moe sue Mindy for turning down his proposal?
And if this ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, how long do you think it will take for a gay couple to sue some church that teaches homosexuality is morally wrong, and therefore refuses to solemnize gay marriages?
Posted by Captain Midnight | 8/4/2010 5:30:00 PM
Permanent Link | Tags | Email
Friday, July 30, 2010
Cartoon Wisdom V
And now for the fifth of my posts inspired by an editorial cartoon this week. Today's was drawn by Chuck Asay.
Our government running up debt is a reality, and has been since before our country was founded. Article VI of the Constitution mentions that the new United States would still be responsible for all the debts incurred by the previous Confederation government. And pretty much every administration since then has run up the nation's debt. But under President Obama deficit spending has ramped up to a whole new level. Here's a telling graphic that is often posted at Gateway Pundit's site:
Chillingly, the deficit run up by this administration in 2010 alone is close to $1.5 trillion. That's in addition to what you see in the graph, which contains only figures up to 2009.
And what have we actually received for the $3 trillion deficit run up by President Obama's administration? And how many generations ahead will be paying for this useless extravagance?
Posted by Captain Midnight | 7/30/2010 9:20:00 PM
Permanent Link | Tags | Email
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Cartoon Wisdom IV
Here is the fourth of my posts inspired by an editorial cartoon this week. Today's was drawn by Lisa Benson.
The tax cuts that President Bush pushed for are slated to expire January 1st, 2011. And for many Americans, it means a tax hike. You can calculate and see if that's the case using this handy form from the Tax Foundation. I did a quick test and found out that I'll be coughing up almost $2,500 more if the tax cuts go away. I don't know about you, but $2,500 is a bunch of money!
But there is something else worth considering. Bush's tax cuts have and will affect the overall economy. The tax cut law was signed by President Bush on May 28, 2003, and the effect was quickly seen. The GDP growth for the second quarter of 2003 was 1.10%, but in the third quarter, with the tax cuts in effect, the GDP growth was 2.25%. GDP growth more than doubled, thanks to cutting the top rates people had to pay. Also interesting is the growth of private investment before and after the tax cuts. The private investment rate two quarters before the tax cuts kicked in were 0.61% and 0.42% while the two quarters afterwards were 3.96% and 4.50%. When people realized they could keep more of their hard-earned money, they were willing to invest it in the economy. Since the tax cuts had been heavily debated for a while before their passage, it's very possible that many businesses and investors held off purchases and big spending until after the tax cuts kicked in.
Let's take a look at where we are now. We are almost a mirror opposite of 2003. Instead of anticipating tax cuts and postponing activities, businesses are anticipating tax increases and hurrying to do what they can to earn before the taxes go up. As I see it, the rush by businesses and investors to get while the getting is good is boosting this weak economy. Once President Bush's tax cuts expire, there won't be nearly as much effort to work for less. I see a deeper recession if the tax cuts expire, and I'm not the only one seeing it.
"In a worst-case scenario, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and failing to fix the AMT could result in (1.5 percent) of fiscal drag in 2011 on top of the 1 percent fiscal drag we expect to occur as the Obama fiscal stimulus package unwinds," Deutsche said in a note to clients. "If the recovery remains soft/tentative through early next year, this additional drag could be enough to push the economy to a stalling point."
The opinion runs counter to that of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who said earlier this week that allowing the cuts to expire would not cause the economy to re-enter recession. The administration has proposed letting most of the tax cuts stand, but eliminating the ones for the top-tier earners.
Deutsche compared the situation to Japan in the 1990s, when the government let tax cuts expire and cut stimulus, leading to another leg down in the recession and ensuring the nation's "lost decade" of no economic growth.
Our Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says that letting the tax cuts expire wouldn't cause the economy to re-enter a recession. And government said that the multi-billion dollar stimulus would hold unemployment at 8%, but we are sitting at 9.5%. The administration doesn't have a good record when it comes to foreseeing the results of their actions. Heck, our Treasury Secretary has a hard enough time just paying his own taxes.
How could we get out of our current recession? I have a plan that would do so in just three easy steps. But Congress would never do it because it means reducing their power. And they can't have that.
Posted by Captain Midnight | 7/29/2010 8:00:00 PM
Permanent Link | Tags | Email
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Cartoon Wisdom III
Here is the third of my posts inspired by an editorial cartoon this week. Today's was drawn by Michael Ramirez back in May, and it's more applicable today.
One of the complaints about the Arizona bill, as expressed by President Obama, was the terrifying scenario of some peace-loving Hispanic family going out to get some ice cream some evening and getting detained by the Arizona police for the crime of Driving While Hispanic.
Baloney.
The Arizona law specifically states that a person cannot be stopped merely because he looks like he's not an American. That person must first be doing something that warrants police attention like shoplifting, speeding, violence, etc. And then only if the officer has a reason to suspect that the person in question was here illegally could he then ask about his citizenship. In Mexico, the police have the authority to detain and question anyone they like and ask about their citizenship, but I've already written about the problems with illegals crossing the southern border.
I said that this cartoon is more applicable today because U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton struck down parts of the Arizona law:
The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton included one requiring a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested if the officer believed the person was not in the country legally.
Bolton also halted provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times and making it illegal for people without proper documents to tout for work in public places.
Opponents of the Arizona law are applauding this ruling of Judge Bolton. One of their arguments against the law was based on it creating a patchwork of laws in the U.S. instead of one coherent law, but the Arizona law is merely enforcing the federal laws already on the books. How is that creating a patchwork of laws? On the other hand, there are plenty of sanctuary cities in the U.S., cities that have declared themselves friendly to illegal aliens and provide them sanctuary from federal laws. That is where the true patchwork of laws is in effect, but the federal government doesn't say "boo" about them because the federal officials agree with them, regardless of what the law actually says.
Law professor William A. Jacobson wrote about this ruling today:
The Judge's reasoning, particularly that the status check provision violated the 4th Amendment even as to persons already under arrest, applies just as easily to [outstanding warrants, child support orders, and non-immigration identity checks].
With a federal government which refuses to take action at the border until there is a deal on "comprehensive" immigration reform, meaning rewarding lawbreakers with a path to citizenship, this decision will insure a sense of anarchy. The law breakers have been emboldened today, for sure.
As it stands this afternoon, it is perfectly rational for someone faced with the choice of obeying the immigration laws or not, to choose not to do so. The choice of lawlessness makes a lot more sense than spending years winding through the byzantine legal immigration system, because the end result will be the same but lawlessness gets you here more quickly.
When the law and the federal government reward lawlessness, something is very wrong.
And finally, Rush Limbaugh put it pretty succinctly -- "It is no longer illegal to be illegal, but it is illegal to ask someone about their immigration status."
Posted by Captain Midnight | 7/28/2010 10:45:00 PM
Permanent Link | Tags | Email
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Cartoon Wisdom II
Here is the second in my posts inspired by an editorial cartoon. Today's edition was drawn by Bruce Beattie last month.
Look! It's an oil-drenched bird bringing the guy his dividend check. Oh, the tragic irony!
Eh, not so much.
See, President Obama strong-armed BP into ponying up $20 billion to fund clean-up along the Gulf Coast and to help people whose businesses and livelihoods have been affected by the spill. But try as I may, I can't find anything in either Section 2 or 3 of Article II in the Constitution that grants President Obama the authority to tell a foreign-owned company how to spend its money here. But much of what President Obama has done so far has been outside of his Constitutional powers.
But back to the dividend checks. The $20 billion isn't coming from the coffers of BP. Instead, BP has suspended paying out any dividends to its stockholders to raise the money. So who is being given the bill for the BP payout? Could be you, if you own any BP stock or mutual funds that contain BP stocks, and about 40% of BP is owned by Americans. I sure hope you aren't living off your investments, because President Obama has just taken some of your money.
What should he have done? There are billions of unspent stimulus money that should have been used. Then President Obama could have recovered the money by using the Justice Department to sue BP for any criminal negligence that contributed to the disaster. That would have freed up money to people harmed by the spill as well as keep paying out dividends to BP stock-holders.
Posted by Captain Midnight | 7/27/2010 9:00:00 PM
Permanent Link | Tags | Email
View all comments