Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, Ltd.

Archive for the ‘History and Politics’ Category

China has generally proven to be increasingly unwilling to co-operate with America,

via US foreign policy: Speaking too softly | The Economist.

I was pretty disappointed with The Economist’s endorsement of then-candidate Obama during the election, and since then they’ve been pretty meager in their criticism of him.  However, this article shows that President Obama’s attempts to pussyfoot around controversial international issues to avoid offending Iran, Russia, and (especially) China have not had the intended results.  For example:

The Chinese government responded by becoming more assertive. It helped to scupper a deal at the Copenhagen summit on climate change in December and snubbed the American president by sending a deputy minister to a crucial meeting. China has generally proven to be increasingly unwilling to co-operate with America, for example over United Nations sanctions against Iran.

Now, I’m not the biggest fan of the Dalai Lama (as I tend not to like autocrats in general), but at least the administration is showing some backbone by meeting with him despite China’s objections.  The lesson to be learned here is that we cannot ever compromise our principles just to get along with repressive, anti-democratic regimes.

From http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/08/colorado-springs-derangement-syndrome/.

City Councilman from Colorado Springs (my favorite city outside of Texas) Sean Paige, when discussing the cities economic problems:

This is a city with above-average rates of volunteerism and charitable giving. We don’t look reflexively to government to do things citizens can do themselves. And we’re counting on that can-do spirit and civic-mindedness, along with a willingness to consider out-of-the-box solutions, to see us through this budget crunch. (Emphasis mine.)

This demonstrates to me the big difference between classic conservatism and liberalism/progressivism.

I’ve posted a new article on astroturfing and grassroots at Detocqueville.us.  I do intend, by the way, of getting back to analyzing Democracy in America, but for now I’ll be posting short articles are politics over there as the spirit moves me, so check it out.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Poll: When is it OK to “out” anonymous bloggers?.

The above brings up an interesting question about anonymity and the Internet.  It’s been a long time since I ever used a pseudonym or handle exclusively online; even on websites where my user name is not related to my real one, I still tend to sign posts with my first name.  I also don’t have a reason to write anonymously.  I write here the same way I would talk to anyone were we discussing the things I discuss here, and I do tend to look down on the idea of maintaining a different identity online than one maintains in real life.

So, I’m of two minds about ‘anonymous blogging.’  On the one hand, I believe that people should be real and honest wherever they are.  The lawyer from the above article, who had been publishing blog posts under the name ‘Publius,’ (seriously, couldn’t he have come up with something original?) felt that what he was saying online was something he preferred his family and colleagues didn’t know about.  I have to admit that I immediately question why that is.  I’m not saying that he doesn’t have his reasons, I just think that speaks of some level of disfunction in his other relationships.

On the other hand, I don’t think thta it’s usually anyone elses’s business if someone chooses to be anonymous online, and there are definitely ciricumstances where that would be necessary.  For example, a political dissident from an oppressive state would certainly have very good reasons for remaining anonymous, as their activities could bring real harm to their family and friends.

I think the line at which ‘outing’ somone online is fairly clear.  In the majority of cases, it’s not alright.  To out someone requrires you to place yourself in a position of judgement on someone else, and that’s not a good thing.  I feel the same way about people like Perez Hilton who make their job to decide for others when they should be ‘outed’ as homosexuals (which in most cases is much more serious than one’s family finding out your not as conservative politically as they think).  If the anonymous person is using that for harmful reasons (forms of defamation, for example), then the line has been crossed.

Overall I agree with Ed Morrissey’s analysis.  I think Ed Whelan overreacted and overstepped his bounds.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/31/737368/-More-proof-that-its-anti-choice,-not-pro-life

I don’t usually read the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and other liberal blogs; I’m just not masochistic.  My argumentative side goes crazy when I read stuff like that, and I just don’t have the time to respond to people who probably wouldn’t listen anyway.  The above article, however, deserves some sort of response.

Satchel Robinson, the writer of the above article, attempts to generalize about the pro-life movement from the specific act of the murderer of Dr. George Tiller, and this is where you basically don’t have to read any more of the article.  Robinson commits one of the most egregious acts of illogic so often perpetrated by political punditry, both left and right, which is to apply the actions of a single individual of small group of individuals to a larger group.

I am quick to point out that the right often does the same thing.  There have been plenty of left-wing terrorists (Bill Ayers, for example), yet it would be absurd to say that every liberal is violent and wants to blow up the Pentagon.

What’s interesting is that Robinson contradicts himself.  He essentially blames Bill O’Reilly for influencing the murderer (who, by the way, Robinson never mentions by name, as if the name doesn’t matter because, in Robinson’s view, he’s just a stand in for every pro-lifer) while criticizing Bill O’Reilly’s criticism of music, video games, and the internet as influences on youth violence.

The problem here is that you can’t have it both ways.  Either we’re blaming the “influences” or we’re not.  Robinson rightly points out the ridiculousness of O’Reilly’s freak-outs over youth culture, and then immediately turns around and does essentially the same thing.

What I dislike the most about Robinson’s article is that fact that at no time does he actually blame the person who is actually to blame.  A murder was committed.  The murderer is entirely to blame.  Robinson should quit trying to shift the blame wherever it is politically expedient.  But, of course, liberals have been trying to mitigate individual responsibility for years.

http://www.diddlysquat.tv/theplot.htm

I’m not sure what to think of this. I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show today, and Rush mentioned, as he often does, his opinion audit by the Sullivan Group, which showed him to be “almost always right 99% of the time.” I always love comments like this; it’s part of the reason that I like Rush so much. I have a natural sarcastic bent (runs in the family), so I love the use of sarcasm that is done so seemlessly that it throws people into confusion. It often provokes an emotional response that brings out the truth of people’s feelings.

However, there are times that even I cannot quite tell if someone is being sarcastic or not. I did a quick Google search on Rush’s opinion audit, just to see what would come up, and I found the above link to a site called Diddly Squat, purporting to expose Rush’s errors and his plot to “dumb down dittoheads.” The whole “plot” focuses on the Sullivan Group opinion audits, and, in fact, on the phrase “almost always.” The site points out quite right that “almost always” is a meaningless phrase, but then totally gets wrong why that’s important. “Almost always” is purposefully chosen precisely because it points out the sarcasm in what Rush is saying.

What’s funny for me about this is that Leftists and others who can’t stand Rush often strike their foot on the sarcasm. They hate it when he says things like “talent on loan from God” or “serving humanity just by showing up.”  It riles them up in a way that shows their lack of understanding.  Now, it has to be admitted that there are plenty of Conservatives who also lack an understanding of sarcasm and have similar reactions to Leftist commentators, so I’m not suggesting this is just a problem with the Left.  But it’s still funny.

My problem in looking at this site, however, is that I can’t decide if it’s actually serious or not.  I’ve been looking for evidence that the whole thing is just a joke, but the barbs launched at both Rush and President George W. Bush suggest that it’s actually serious.  This is hard for me to believe because I usually assume that people are smart, and the sarcasm, the poking fun at himself, is so obvious in Rush’s delivery that I just can’t see how people don’t get it.  However, sometimes they don’t and some of them are just unhinged enough to create a site like this.

So I leave it to you to get a laugh out of this site for whatever reason you want.  Personally, I’m laughing because I think the guy’s completely insane, and for some reason I think that’s funny.

Nancy Gibbs has an article in Times Magazine for May 4, 2009 (which I just got in the mail today) in which she discusses the idea of Texas seceding from the Union.  This reflection was brought on by Governor Rick Perry stating (I’m quoting from the article)  “he thought the U.S. was still a ‘great union,’ but ‘if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come of that?’”

In her hurry to engage in some standard East-Coast-style jabs at Texans’ pride in their state and moralizing about secession (where she finds it necessary to bring up President Lincoln), Ms. Gibbs misses the larger issue: the relationship between the federal government and the states.  Federalism is, in fact, much more important than Gov. Perry joshing a bit about secession (especially considering that reminiscing about Texas being its own country is basically a state past-time). Read the rest of this entry »