Change The Filibuster?
Why Not Bail Out Buggywhip Makers?
I’m a little behind the times on this one- I had National Guard duty this past weekend- but late last week Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) supported the idea of bailing out newspapers. As a guy who likes newspapers- you know, printed instead of online- I sympathize with the fact that newspapers are going out of business quickly. Unfortunately for my personal desires, that is part of the beauty of creative destruction. As we improve technology, we eliminate inefficiencies in our system, and that is what newspapers increasingly represent.
There is some argument that losing newspapers would lose the generally quality, in-depth reporting that papers pride themselves on. After all, blogs and other online media are not generally renowned for their quality of reporting or in-depth research; they have other strengths, instead. That said, Huffington Post, Fox News, CNN, The Foundry, CNS News and many other sites and news sources are doing a good job of changing that stereotype through hard-hitting reporting, opinions and interviews. As advertising swings more and more online, I suspect old-fashioned reporters will be doing their fine reporting online instead of on paper more and more often. Best of all, they will be able to do it without the government’s money hanging over their heads, subtly or not-so-subtly influencing every decision that is made.
One other flaw with Waxman’s argument: ?There needs to be a consensus within the media industry and the larger community it serves? before the government acts, Waxman said. ?We have to figure out together how to preserve that kind of reporting.? Which media industry will he stop at? The television industry? The online industry? Talk radio? Newspapers? Magazines? Movies? Pornography? Mixed Martial Arts? CNN’s IReporter? If you bail out one, you open the floodgates to bail out the rest. Who’s to say The Economist is more important to society than Sports Illustrated? Both have large readerships, after all, and both represent industries worth billions to the American economy. They provide valuable news to America’s citizens.
Huffington Post has written numerous pieces this year alone defending the value they bring to news and decrying people like Rupert Murdoch for not adjusting to what consumers want. As much as I hate to say it, its writers are correct. Print newspapers provide news a day late, they update once a day and they are just one more thing to carry. Given their support for environmental legislation such as cap-and-trade and fuel standards, liberals such Waxman should be ecstatic that this is happening. Going online saves trees, lowers emissions from vehicles and saves on printing press use (though the servers would need electricity, which causes some harm), among others. The argument that going online will cause harm to our republic is a false one- who says online sources can’t (or don’t, or won’t) continue to use professional journalists? The transition is from print to online- news is still news, though to be fair Americans prefer shorter, less detailed news articles than we used to. But that has been happening even before Twitter and blogs became household names.
Huffington Post Column Supports Politics Over Ethics
It’s true. The author, Mike Lux, says that Democrats should act like loyal Democrats for party’s sake, their own political sakes and for the sake of health reform passage.
Now, to be fair, Lux does a good job of analyzing voting patterns (at least, from a certain perspective), and from the perspective of?a loyal Democrat there is little to argue with what he says. However, given that playing politics is what Americans dislike- isn’t that a big reason that why we voted President Obama in last year?- it seems rather shortsighted. Politics are supposed to be about service to the country, not service to the party, and even the idea that what is good for Democrats is good for America ignores that playing party politics will hurt the Democratic Party as much or more than divisions will.
Race Card Pulled (Surprise)
The AFL-CIO has attacked a Chamber of Commerce ad as “…the same old right wing dog whistle politics.” The ad, which can be seen at The Huffington Post link above, shows a white man being called into his boss’ office to be fired. On the way to the office he claps a worker on the shoulder, and the worker looks at him as he walks into the office. The fellow employee is black.
Personally, I don’t see this ad as racist. I?do see it potentially doing two things: first, it’s covering some of the?necessary ground to appeal to a wide variety of workers in America. After all, nobody is safe?from being fired. Secondly, it is trying to be politically correct in its portrayal of the “everyman” worker, by showing a black person on the same job as a white person. It very well could be argued that the ad was trying to be racially sensitive, by not excluding a black person from the ad. According to Huffington Post, however, “an official with the AFL-CIO, who saw the ad air on Wednesday morning, argued that it was a perpetuation of the stereotype that minorities have a leg up on their colleagues because of affirmative-action policies.”
I definitely think the AFL-CIO is stretching here; however, I’m open to interpretations on this ad. Being a young white guy from New Hampshire, I don’t see much as racist or race-baiting on either side, though as a conservative I tend to see it more from the left. Earlier this year, however, I didn’t interpret the New York Post cartoon?as racist, but a black friend told me it “brought us back” 100 or more years. (To clarify this friend is no Al Sharpton when it comes to race issues.) I will readily admit to?missing racially-sensitive goings-on in America, so I welcome comments and corrections on my interpretation of this ad.
Marine Commandant Causes DADT Problems for President Obama
Huffington Post had an article yesterday?following up on?a Washington Times article?in which the Commandant of the Marines, General James Conway, “has emerged in internal Pentagon deliberations as the most outspoken opponent of permitting gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military, according to a former senior Pentagon official.”
Whatever one may think of DADT, the Huffington Post article is very misleading- it makes Conway appear to?be acting?insubordinate with absolutely no evidence to back the insinuation up. One sentence stands out: “To the extent that [law professor] Mazur is correct, then it may be important for the White House to take Conway out to the woodshed.” So let me?get this straight: a general is giving his professional opinion to his Commander-in-Chief in private. This is the same Commander-in-Chief who is discussing?Don’t Ask Don’t Tell internally with this general and other senior military personnel.?Taking these two facts Huffington Post leaps?off the proverbial cliff by assuming the general is out?of line based on information from?one unnamed former senior official? Give me a break.
General Conway, as a senior military official, will probably follow his Commander-in-Chief’s decisions. This is what senior military people generally?do, following the chain-of-command,?unless they resign. Very few challenge in the open, which is insubordination and something that is very much a career-breaker, and generally deservedly so. Giving one’s professional opinion in closed-doors sessions about an issue one is an expert about is certainly not insubordination, and Huffington Post should be professional enough to understand the difference, as should their “law professor” source.
The Shadow Knows: Robert Novak (1931-2009)
Conservative circles are dismayed by the news of Robert Novak?s succumbing to a brain tumor first diagnosed last year which forced him out of the full glare of the public spotlight.? Novak seemed, to this young conservative, like the kind of man one could ask a question of and truly expect an honest answer.? I remember reading his memoires, The Prince of Darkness, in which he recounts his five decades as the man lurking in the shadows of DC?s cavernous hallways.? He was a bad ass.? HuffingtonPost has a video clip of Novak after a brief skirmish with James Carville in which he storms off the set.? When someone is interested in politics during the years of their youth, they pursue politics with a significant amount of thumos that explains the swagger of so many Legislative Aids on the hill (deserving or not; and a majority tend to occupy the latter).? Prince of Darkness was an expose of a flawed individual who knew the secrets, knew the people, and attended those notorious ?cocktail parties? without remorse; a sort of Maltese Falcon-esque Humphrey Bogart.? I wonder if I would be labeled a ?cocktail elitist? for having drinks in DC with friends of mine in attempts to rub elbows with influential people like David Frum, Christopher Hitchens, Ann Coulter, or whoever else First Fridays invites out.? I?ve realized, any place (like my favorite stomping ground, Union Pub) that shows Chicago Bears and Nebraska Cornhusker football games cannot be ?elitist.??
There are myriad obituaries and tributes dotting the internet; and what is interesting is seeing how the two sides of the Conservative Movement are treating his death.? John Podhoretz?s piece seems rather curt to the average reader, while more ?Paleoconservative? periodicals are treating the event with a little more somber reflection on the man?s contributions to political life.? I did not agree with a great many of Novak?s positions, especially regarding the two recent wars in the Middle East, of which he stood against from the standpoint of a prudent conservative.? This leads to what I believe to be one of the most interesting takes on Robert Novak?s death: Stacy McCain?s article.?
David Frum?s attack on anti-War conservatives established an irreconcilable schism in the Conservative movement.? Novak was lumped in with the anti-war ?paleocon? faction, with good reason mind you; but ?unpatriotic? was a terrible charge to levy against him and many of the others.? I don?t believe that Novak took too seriously David Frum?s charge.? I don?t know for sure, but I imagine if he had been asked what he thinks of anyone who considers him ?unpatriotic,? I imagine he might respond much as he did when asked about the Valerie Plame affair:? ?The hell with you!??
-rj
