Independent Bias

Jindal gave a bad speech, Sanford had an affair, Palin had a news conference to announce her resignation, Huntsman got Shanghaied, and Mitt Romney responded to all of this by having a giant rager of a party.  Er… the mormon equivalent of a giant party (I guess that involves board games if “Big Love” is true-to-life).  Anyway, I appreciate Sarah Palin’s resignation on so many levels.

Those who frequent Independent Bias should be quite familiar with my feelings towards the Governor.  While David Brooks is not my favorite pundit, he made an astute observation when he referred to Palin as a “cancer.”  I’d like to think that her resignation will usher in a new era of Palin-free politics… but let’s be realistic.  This was probably a move to build up a political network prior to 2012.  While some might say that Governors need not resign in order to establish a network to run for office, it does appear difficult to do from Alaska.  Her resignation is both shrewd and despicable.  Yes, I said despicable after mentioning the joy it brought me… I’m a walking contradiction.

While I love the thought of her leaving office early, I hate the way in which she resigned.  She gave an awkward speech with little in the way of explanations.  Instead, it was up to Nick Ayers, the Executive Director of the Republican Governors Association, to provide a modicum of context. Ayers claimed that Palin came to the ” realization that the legislature in Alaska and that some bloggers and activists in Alaska are going to do everything they can to stymie her progress.”  What awful reasoning!  She no longer had a legislature willing to pass everything, therefore she will leave office.  By that logic, we should expect her to resign as President (god forbid she gets elected) if the Democrats control the legislative branch.

Leave it to Sarah Palin to find a way to spoil the one day that I should enjoy her presence.  At least this kicks off the 2012 campaign season!

I have read countless articles on left-leaning websites mocking the media’s apparent obsession with Obama’s smoking habits.  I understand that it appears to be a silly question.  I get that.  I know we’re all sick of the “omg omg obligatory Obama-dog” questions.  However, this is different.

It might seem petty to try an establish hypocrisy within the President’s actions, but think about the deeper philosophical questions involved before you condemn this line of questioning.  Should politicians be able to impose their vision of society on the people of this country?  What makes their vision any better than my own? Clearly we are all human; I’d like to avoid adding god-complex to the list of Obama’s flaws.  I think these recent smoking questions expose the fact that politicians completely disrespect the American people and treat us like children.  Their opinion of an ideal life should not trump my own, so long as I do not impugn the property rights of others.  Granted, the negative externalities associated with smoking could be a cause for legislation.  However, this constant drive to paint smokers as somehow inherently bad is simply idiotic.  It is a choice made by individuals and should not be affected by the personal opinions of politicians.

Obama’s hypocrisy on the issue does become important when we consider the role politicians play in crafting a vision of society.  These do-gooders (about which Bastiat so eloquently warned) assume a god-like role that no human should achieve.  It becomes borderline laughable when the do-gooder in question does not subscribe to the same vision he hopes to impose on others.

Full disclosure: I grew up in New York City (most of my youth occurred under a Republican administration). Political discourse was quite one-sided. I remember hearing politicos bemoan the liberal media and thinking their complaints were unwarranted. I dismissed such claims by telling myself that the media was supposed to question authority.

A Democrat is in office for the first time in my adult life and I must say I have never been more shocked by media coverage. Apparently, the media is only obligated to challenge the President when he is a Republican. Obama has overstepped boundaries with regards to governmental power, but faced little media scrutiny. Why?

The media has framed the Sotomayor debate to appear as a battle between down-to-earth Democrats and racist/insane out-of-touch right wingers. Media outlets consistently use the craziest person they can find as a representative of those opposed to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. They either call up a random fringe group or have Tom Tancredo stop by the show so a liberal can quickly disarm this living straw man with halfway coherent arguments. They never have any moderate individuals presenting cogent arguments. such a misstep has obviously misrepresented the debate. This paradigm has been accepted to such a degree that Republican politicians are afraid to show any opposition.

Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, has once again provided a poignant article about the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. He has put together a list of five questions that would provide great insight into Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy. Unfortunately, members of the media have made questioning Sotomayor appear most unpalatable to the public, which is frankly insane. There are substantive issues that need to be addressed, and asking questions to resolve those issues does not make us racists or petty individuals.

Read the 5 questions.

Why do politicians attempt to use slang in their twitter posts?  I understand they are limited to 140 characters, but I still find it very strange.  Politico’s Glenn Thrush posted about Senator Grassley’s twitter comments.

“Pres Obama while u sightseeing in Paris u said ‘time to delivr on healthcare’ When you are a ‘hammer’ u think evrything is NAIL I’m no NAIL.”

The language makes Grassley sound like a whiny 14 year-old girl. If politicians (or their staffers) must twitter, then for the love of god choose to write less rather than attempt to “trim” thoughts to fit the 140 character limit. I don’t care what anyone says, getting a staffer to write awkward “tweets” does not make politicians more connected to the youth, it just emphasizes the fact that they are not connected.

My blog posts have been few and far between as of late.  The reason being that I was in the process of moving to DC.  I have finally settled into my new apartment and set up internet access!  I’ll have more time to update the blog. Back to the blog…

California is considering drastic cuts to it’s welfare program.  Thank god.  Studies show that the welfare system promotes dependence.  The majority of people on welfare remain on the rolls for long periods of time.  Additionally, welfare programs tend to be inefficient and wasteful with tax payer money.  With California facing a 24 billion dollar deficit, now is the time to seek true reform. Hopefully, the Governator will handle these changes properly and California will become a fine example for the rest of the country.

for more info, read Cato’s chapter on welfare in their Handbook for Congress

Ilya Shapiro (Cato Institute) penned an editorial for CNN regarding the nomination of Judge Sotomayor.  He perfectly captured the feelings I’ve had for some time.  (see “Merit: the only true metric” from a few weeks ago).  I’m glad CNN posted this on the website, because most of the networks have only reported on fringe groups with incoherent arguments.

In picking Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has confirmed that identity politics matter to him more than merit. While Judge Sotomayor exemplifies the American Dream, she would not have even been on the short list if she were not Hispanic.

She is not one of the leading lights of the federal judiciary, and far less qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court than Judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland or Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

To be sure, Sotomayor has a compelling story: a daughter of working-class Puerto Ricans raised in Bronx public housing projects, diagnosed with diabetes at 8, losing her father at 9, accolades at Princeton and Yale Law, ending up on the federal bench.

Still, in over 10 years on the Second Circuit, she has not issued any important decisions or made a name for herself as a legal scholar or particularly respected jurist. In picking a case to highlight during his introduction of the nominee, President Obama had to go back to her days as a trial judge and a technical ruling that ended the 1994-95 baseball strike.

(full article)

I completely agree with Shapiro’s statements. Sotomayor is certainly qualified; she has the experience. I also do not dispute her intelligence. However, is she the best person for the job? Certainly not. If Obama had said “I want the very best person for this position,” would Sotomayor’s name appeared on the short list? Probably not. As Shapiro illustrates, she has not been an extraordinary Judge with superb opinions. To some degree, I see her as the the left’s Clarence Thomas.

Again, I’m not saying she isn’t qualified or lacks the aptitude to be a Supreme Court Justice. However, it is clear that she was not the best person for the job. Once again this becomes a question of equity versus equality. Equal opportunity should be a goal to which we aspire. It’s somewhat frustrating, as her race was clearly considered in the decision-making process, yet one cannot point that out without being berated. Everyone knows it, but we aren’t allowed to talk about it.  Promoting equity is the only way to transcend issues of race, as opposed to paying lip service to such goals.  Anyway, I digress. Read Shapiro’s piece.

Walking punchline Roland Burris is in serious trouble. The FBI released a tape of a conversation between Blagojevich’s brother and Senator Burris. Burris can be heard saying that he will “personally do something” for the Governor. The tape even shows Burris plotting to make campaign contributions in the name of his attorney.

While it is unclear to what “something” amounts, it is obvious that Burris was basically bartering for a senate seat. This is what I find hysterical. He and his legal team have the testicular fortitude to claim that the tapes exonerate him of misconduct, because the facts showed he never made any contributions. The tapes prove that he was considering making contributions in other people’s names, so how could a lack of transactions in his name prove anything?!

It’s pretty funny. Both he and Blagojevich live in their own fantasy world where misconduct turns “ethically-flexible” individuals into freedom fighters. The two should have their own [distorted] reality show… but for the love of god get Burris out of the Senate. (full article)

Obama has nominated Sotomayor for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. The following quotes from a NYT article should be enough to make anyone concerned over Obama’s choice.

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees

a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

(full article)

Democrats are trying to claim that she isn’t an activist judge, but I can come to no other conclusion. Hooray for pandering.

I’ve returned to the blog after a brief respite.  I’m in the process of moving and my life has been rather hectic as of late.  However, I find myself sitting by a serene creek in upstate NY.  It is time to return to friday favorites.

News:
-  First and foremost, the Nuggets defeated the Lakers at the Staples Center last night after being down by double digits. It was a big win for the Nuggets, who have a history of losing to the Lakers in the post-season.  The series moves to Denver for the next two games, which could ultimately determine the series (possibly giving the Nuggets a 3-1 lead heading back to LA).  God I hope LA loses.  Then I can watch basketball uninterrupted by random camera sweeps of the crowd that try to tell everyone that Tom Cruise is normal because he sometimes goes out in public. I’m sorry NBA camera guys, nothing will ever make Tom Cruise appear normal.

-  Today, James Harrison officially proved he is utterly insane.  The defensive player of the year came through on his promise to skip his trip to the White House with the rest of the Steelers team that recently won the Super Bowl.  I love how he thinks that a trip is only warranted if Obama truly wants to see the Steelers.  Yes, Mr. Harrison, if the Cards had won the Super Bowl they would have received an invitation instead.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Every team that wins a national championship gets to visit the White House.  So, congrats Mr. Harrison, your skewed perception of reality has cost you a chance to meet a sitting President.

- The Republican Party continues to unravel by making bad decisions.  Some, such as Lindsay Graham, have embraced the idea of keeping Cheney in the spotlight.  I wonder how that strategy session went down… “hey so remember what hasn’t been working for the party? I have an idea, lets keep doing it.  Relax, it will totally work.  I can feel it… this is going to be our year.  Hey I’m in the zone right now… why don’t we call it the year of the Bible.  Man that is two awesome ideas in one session.  You were right, Peyote IS awesome!”

- Nancy Pelosi.  Wow, what a hole she has dug for herself.  The Democrats fomented populism and outrage and it has come back to bite them in the ass.  It is extremely amusing.  She deserves all of this.  She clearly had an understanding of what was transpiring, and now she is treating us as fools.

Entertainment:
TV: Chuck.  For the love of god, NBC, give Chuck another season.
Movies: Star Trek is amazing.  Absolutely amazing
Online Clip: SNL’s Who’s More Grizzled
Blog: Fail Blog Simply hilarious
Music: Sparrow House

Remember Colbert’s appearance at the Correspondent’s Dinner a few years ago?  It was absolutely hilarious and edgy.  However, one cannot use the same adjectives to describe the dinner this year. To be frank, it was far too tame.  Such is the case with most satirical forms of entertainment today.  While The Colbert Report remains amusing, the Daily Show has lost much of what made it popular during the Bush years.  The show no longer contains cutting remarks that strike a comical tone. Instead, we are offered jokes that are supposed to maintain a facade.  We are supposed to believe that Jon Stewart and his contemporaries have continued their habit of holding Presidents accountable through the use of humor.  However, nothing could be further from the truth.  The jokes mock Obama for things like his dog selection, rather than finding humor in substance.  They operate under a guise that allows them to deflect criticism and say “see, we make fun of Obama as well!”  It is rather boring.

Gene Healy of the Cato Institute believes that this deference is also dangerous and opens the door for the use of executive power in an egregious manner.

But there’s a lot to be said for openly mocking the president. When we ridicule our leaders, we remind them — and us — that they’re mere mortals. They weren’t put on earth to solve all our problems, and they shouldn’t be given the power to try.

We’ve had periods in our history when Americans thought it was inappropriate to ridicule presidents. In 1934, comedian Eddie Cantor felt compelled to ask FDR’s approval for a woefully tame radio bit where “Dr. Roosevelt” heals “Mrs. America.” Presidential abuses thrived in that culture of deference. After Vietnam and Watergate, we learned our lesson — at least for a time — and mocked our chief executives mercilessly.

For a year or so after 9/11, we had an unofficial moratorium on presidential ridicule. Time magazine proclaimed an end to the “age of irony,” late-night comics dropped the Bush jokes, and Slate suspended its “Bushisms” feature. The prevailing atmosphere of “hero worship” fed the growth of executive power and helped pave the way for a disastrous war.

(full text)