“Progressive”policies are failing the real-world test

In a great piece, Matt Welch, the editor of the libertarian magazine Reason, analyzes the so-called “progressive” policies of the Obama Administration and explains why they are failing both in the foreign and domestic realms. Essentially, Welch argues that it has been so long since progressives have been in power that their ideas have not had to meet the test of being applied to the real world. He also neatly disposes of the canard that the person of George Bush was the greatest obstacle to international cooperation and world peace: “No amount of international do-goodism is going to prevent countries from acting in what they perceive to be their own self-interest.”

Thoughts on Super Bowl XLIV

A few thoughts in the aftermath of the New Orleans Saints’ upset victory last night:

Drew Brees played very well, and no single player is more deserving of the MVP award, not to mention the recognition as a top-flight quarterback he has long deserved. Yet, in a game touted as a matchup between two high-powered offenses, the truth is it was the Saints’ defense that won the game, with multiple goal-line stops of the much-vaunted Colts’ offense, and of course the interception that sealed the game. None of what Brees did would have mattered if the Colts had been allowed to convert on their drives. The age-old saying “Defense wins championships” was no less true in this Super Bowl than it has been in most of them.

In turn, much of the credit for the inspired play of the defense should go to Saints head coach Sean Payton and his defensive coordinator Gregg Williams. The Saints are not loaded with household names on defense – linebacker Jonathan Vilma and defensive back Darren Sharper being perhaps the best known until yesterday. But the Saints have done a tremendous coaching job with this unit, which has quitely played very well all season, and was particularly well prepared over the last couple of weeks for the supposedly unstoppable Colts offense. The Saints worked on facing the no-huddle and on blitz packages designed to put just enough pressure on Peyton Manning to give the Saint’s secondary a chance to make plays. Which is exactly what happened.

Finally, Payton deserves credit for some key decisions. The onside kick to start the second half was not only a bold move, but an unprecedented one in Super Bowl history. Payton correctly judged that it was worth the risk of giving up good field position to the Colts, given that Peyton Manning had just proven he didn’t need it by engineering a 96-yard drive. Then, the successful challenge of the 2-point conversion play. Make no mistake about it: The Saints players executed well on the field, but the roadmap to victory was drawn by Sean Payton and his staff. They outcoached the Colts, who have practically bragged about the fact that their head coach is basically just a  cipher for Peyton Manning. Manning calls the plays and runs the practices, and he does it well, but I think the Colts coaches relied on him too much and failed to game plan well enough for the Saints.

That is not to criticize Manning, whose one ill-timed interception should not obscure a good performance on his part. The Colts overall played a good game; they did not lose the Super Bowl so much as the Saints won it. Media members who are reviving whispers of Manning being a “choke artist” should be ashamed of themselves. Peyton Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game, and deserves to be mentioned alongside names like Montana, Young, Elway, and Staubach. Two days ago, sports analysts were debating whether he may be the best ever at the position. Yesterday’s result should not stifle that debate. If you doubt, go back and look at the stats from previous Super Bowls and see how many interceptions were thrown by the *winning* quarterbacks.

Rather, one might ask if a greater commitment to the running game by the Colts might have helped to keep the Saints’ offense off the field. Running backs Addai and Brown performed well when called upon, and the offensive line run blocks well. Surely the Colts did not draft Brown just to take fake handoffs from Manning.

Overall, the quality of the football on the field was high. There were few penalties, and only the one turnover which is rather remarkable. I would suggest that this had something to do with the fact that the #1 ranked teams with the best records in each conference were facing off against each other – no wild card teams or improbable Cinderellas here. Though you do have to like the back story of the Saints and the city of New Orleans.

For me, the enduring image that I will take away from Super Bowl XLIV will be that of Drew Brees after the game, surrounded by the celebrations, choosing to share his moment not with the crowd but with his infant son, conversing with him and kissing him affectionately as if he was home on his living room couch and not, for the moment, the center of the modern universe.  Brees’s son of course could not have had any understanding of what was going on, but Brees’ choice says a lot about what his priorities are, and set a strong example for millions of other men watching: Family is more important than anything else. If we learn nothing else from Super Bowl XLIV, let it be so much.

Televised bipartisan health care meeting a good step

As much as I have criticized President Obama and his Administration in this space, I have tried hard to give them credit when they do something right. The White House plans to hold a televised discussion on health care reform with Congressional leaders from both parties. This is a step toward fulfilling President Obama’s previous promises that health care legislation would be discussed publicly and crafted in a bipartisan fashion.

Of course, make no mistake about it, the Administration is only doing this because its hand has been forced – by disagreements within the Democratic caucus and by the loss of a Senate supermajority with Senator Brown’s election. Until recently, the Administration was only too happy to ignore its promises and try to ram through a partisan bill. Now that they can’t, it’s a new ball game, and Democrats are rightly worried that voters will punish them if they fail to keep their promises. As the saying goes, better late than never.

It’s possible that nothing may come of this conference. President Obama remains resistant to starting over from scratch on health care, and it seems unlikely that Republican opposition can be mollified by adding a couple of their ideas to a bill that they detest. Still, an open and inclusive process is an improvement in itself. Most of the biggest legislative achievements over the past hundred years or so came about with bipartisan support. Working with members of both parties tends to exclude extremist ideas and focus on those that can attract more broad support.  It also creates a give and take process – you get one of your ideas in the bill, we get one of ours. This can be time consuming, but as we have seen, one party rule is not necessarily fast or efficient either.

It’s a sad comment on the state of affairs in Washington when the occasion of Democrats and Republicans – and the Administration – actually talking to each other seems like progress. But progress it is, and let’s hope to see more of it.

There are unions…and then there are unions in Zimbabwe.

For those familiar with the recent history of the African nation of Zimbabwe, it often seems like insanity has become the norm arther than the exception in that poor country, which has suffered many hardships thanks to its certifiably insane dictator-president, Robert Mugabe. Holding true to this pattern is Zimbabwe’s union of civil servants, which has just begun striking for higher wages.

Why is this insane? Let’s start with the fact that Zimbabwe’s government and economy are perilously unstable and hanging by a thread. Only the country’s drastic conditions and international pressure forced Mugabe to agree to an uneasy “unity government” with the opposition. The union may believe that they can exploit the government’s weakness, but in fact what they may end up doing is destroying it and giving Mugabe the excuse to return to his preferred form of rule – a ruthless and brutal dictatorship thinly disguised as democracy. Is that really worth the extra pay?

Now, let’s examine the union’s demands in the proper economic context. Civil servants are some of the most educated people in Zimbabwe and their skill level is high compared to the rest of the workforce. It is certainly appropriate that they receive above-average wages. The government has offered a 10% pay increase resulting in an average salary of about $170 per month. That doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but ask yourself if you got a 10% raise last year. Anyway, the union rejected the offer, so the government came back with a much better offer – a basic salary of $236 per month. The union rejected that, too.

At this point, it might be helpful to note that while we in the US are freaking out about an unemployment rate that is hovering around 10%, the unemployment rate in Zimbabwe is in the vicinity of 94%. That means people are incredibly fortunate if they have a job at all. Now, remember I said civil servants should earn an above average wage? The average wage in Zimbabwe is a whopping 30 cents per month. Seriously. That’s not a typo. The official poverty level in Zimbabwe is $41 per month. Source - Wikipedia: Economy of Zimbabwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe)

So a little math: The government’s initial offer was about 4 times the poverty level. The US equivalent (based on 2008 federal poverty level of $11,000) would be about $44,000 annually. Not amazing, but not awful. The government’s second offer was about 6 times the poverty level, or the equivalent of $66,000 here in the US. I think most of us would consider that a reasonable salary for a qualified government official.

So what wages, pray tell, is the union demanding? They say they will not return to work for less than a minimum salary of $630 per month, or 15 times the poverty level – the equivalent of $165,000 in the US!   I feel fully confident that if US government workers made a *minimum* of $165,000/year there would be an armed taxpayer uprising. Even the SEIU would be embarrassed.

Honestly, this is like mugging a homeless person and looking in his wallet for $100 bills! These guys even make the baseball players’ union seem easy to deal with.

What is really going on in Zimbabwe is a society that has totally collapsed. The union has no faith that this government is going to last and they are out to beg, borrow or steal whatever they can get while they still can. They see a government that for the past ten years has not cared about the plight of its people, so why should they care about anyone other than themselves? And yet they are hammering the final nail in the coffin of their own people.

There is a lesson here for Americans. This is the ultimate end of the road that we embark on when we engage in attempts to pit one group of Americans against another politically and economically – rich vs. poor, white vs. black, men vs. women, labor vs. management etc. Scapegoating and race/class warfare is exactly what has destroyed Zimbabwe, and it can destroy America too if we let it. It was John F. Kennedy who said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” It was Benjamin Franklin who said, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Enlightened self-interest is the fundamental principle that has made our economy successful. But exclusive self-interest can just as easily destroy it. I hope that America’s unions take a lesson from the sad example of Zimbabwe.

British heroin addicts warned of anthrax risk

Apparently it’s not safe to get your heroin in the UK anymore. Supplies there are contaminated with anthrax:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=9756055

I’m sure that British heroin addicts will take this warning to heart. I guess they will have to stop using heroin for a while now that they know it’s dangerous. After all, they don’t want to die accidentally from anthrax before the heroin kills them, now do they?

Why most international organizations are useless

One of the principal differences between the Right and Left in the area of foreign policy has to do with international organizations. The Left loves them, the Right hates them. Whether it be the UN, the World Court, or any of a hundred other organizations, the Left believes that international organizations are more moral actors than individual governments, and that we would all be better off if everything were decided by these groups rather than by individual nations acting to further their own selfish interests. The Right counters that these organizations, by their very multilateral nature, are inefficient and ineffective.

Case in point: Last May, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights issued a finding against the government of Kenya. The Commission found that that the Kenyan government violated international law by forcibly evicting members of the Endoroi tribe in order to turn their land into a wildlife park.  At a recent summit, the African Union, which groups together the heads of state of most of the nations of Africa, recently confirmed and endorsed that finding. The Left is hailing this decision as a “landmark decision that sets a precedent for recognizing the land rights of indigenous people in Africa.”

So what’s the problem? The evictions in question took place in the 1970s -over thirty years ago. That’s right, it took thirty years for African organizations to agree that booting native tribes off their land is bad. How much comfort do you think the Endoroi people will take from this “landmark decision”? You can rest assured there is a zero chance of any of them getting their land back.

By contrast, imagine if the United States, at the time of the expulsions, had acted unilaterally, without “consulting with our allies.” The US could have denounced the expulsions and warned the Kenyan government that if it did not reconsider its actions, all US aid to Kenya would be cut off. Given that Kenya was quite a bit poorer back then, such a threat would have carried a lot of weight.

As an analogy, imagine if there was a road delta near your home with grass that had become overgrown and needed to be cut. You could contact the Town and ask them to do it and be told that there isn’t enough funding. You could try to get a bunch of neighbors together to chip in to get it taken care of , only to find that half of them don’t care and some actually like the grass the way it is. Or you could take your lawnmower and just go do it.

I am not saying that all international organizations are without merit. It’s good to have venues where nations can communicate and talk about their issues. It’s good to have groups that can coordinate long-term initiatives like disease eradication and shared water usage. But when there is a need for timely and effective action to solve an immediate problem, such as a troublesome dictator developing nuclear weapons, international organizations by their very nature are basically useless.

McCain calls out federal census for $2.5M Super Bowl ad

Senator John McCain wants to know why the federal government is spending $2.5 million on a 30-second commercial to air during the Super Bowl. The commercial is to remind people about this year’s 2010 federal Census.

McCain said, “The census happens every 10 years. Everybody knows it happens.” While that may not be entirely accurate among the non-political crowd, the simple fact is that the Census is not optional. We are required by law to participate. Why should the feds be spending $2.5 million to convince us to do what we have to do anyway? It’s like airing an ad that says, “Remember, tax day is April 15, don’t forget to pay your income taxes.”

Given the state of our economy, couldn’t we either have refrained from spending the $2.5M that we don’t have, or at least spent it on something helpful? In McCain’s words, “We shouldn’t be wasting $2.5 million taxpayer dollars to compete with ads for Doritos!”

Of course, this is red meat for conservative voters, and McCain is facing a conservative challenger in the Arizona Senate primary. But it’s also right up McCain’s alley as a long time spending hawk.

Beginning of the end for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?

It’s starting to look that way. President Obama wants to end this policy and allow homosexual men and women to serve openly in the US military.

15 years ago, when President Clinton first considered the question, there was heavy opposition from within the armed forces to what they saw as a politically motivated move being forced on them by Washington. The result was the compromise “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, in which homosexuals were allowed to serve provided they did not disclose their orientation.

I stress the word “compromise”.  I’m not aware of anyone who ever viewed DADT as an ideal solution to the problem. I supported the policy as the best way of moving forward – I thought it was the right call at the time and have never had cause to reconsider that judgment.

However, a lot of time has passed since then. Attitudes toward homosexuality have evolved, not only in society as a whole but within the military itself. There is a new generation of soldiers who came into the armed forces with gay and lesbian friends and generally are scornful of the DADT policy. Also, the very fact of DADT has allowed individuals who, while not publicly “out”, are basically known informally to be homosexual, to serve in combat in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, other servicemen and women have become more comfortable with the idea of “sharing a foxhole” with a homosexual soldier – because they’ve done it.

In other words, unlike in Clinton’s time, there is now substantial support *within the armed forces* for doing away with DADT. For those of us who take seriously issues like unit cohesion and morale as they affect military capability, this is an extremely important point. When you add the fact that our armed forces are stretched thin to the bone, with every able man and woman a valuable asset, the military may well feel that it cannot afford the luxury of foregoing the services of men and women willing to serve their country but unwilling to make a secret of a central facet of their identity.

But make no mistake, this is a major change for the US military. It will be far-reaching, and there will inevitably be wrinkles that have to be worked out. So I support the position taken by Defense Secretary Gates: We’re going to do this, but we’re going to do it carefully and thoughtfully and not in a rush. If that means a year or more before the new policy is fully implemented, so be it. There will be time for all kinds of official studies to show, in the words of one GOP Congressman, “concrete, in-depth evidence that readiness concerns require a change and that such a change would not degrade wartime military readiness in any measurable, significant way.” This will give the politicians the cover they need to vote a change in policy – cover they don’t have at present and would not be eager to go into the 2010 elections without.

There is reason to be optimistic about the military’s ability to handle this well: when President Truman ordered the racial integration of the armed forces, it was accomplished much more rapidly and smoothly than in civilian society. I believe that DADT was a policy that served its purpose when it was created. I also believe that its usefulness is coming to an end and it is time to move forward with a new policy that is better suited to the military of the 21st century – but as with a military mission, we must lay the groundwork first before sending in the troops.

Florida’s Tim Tebow to star in pro-life Super Bowl ad

It’s been a while since there was anything controversial about the commercials aired during the Super Bowl. But this year promises to be different.

Even if you don’t follow college football, you have probably heard the name Tim Tebow. Star quarterback for the University of Florida, Tebow is the first player ever to win the Heisman Trophy as a sophomore and the first to both rush and pass for 20 touchdowns in a season.

Now set to enter the NFL draft this spring and begin his professional career, Tebow has made an unusual choice. He has agreed to star in a Super Bowl ad sponsored by conservative Christian group Focus on the Family. The ad tells the story of Pam Tebow (Tim’s mother)’s difficult pregnancy, during which she was advised by doctors to have an abortion to protect her own health. She refused, and gave birth to Tim.

There are two interesting aspects to this ad. First is the fact that nobody can remember a political issue ad such as this airing during the Super Bowl before. CBS – the network carrying the game this year – used to have a longstanding policy against “controversial” ads, but they have since loosened their rules. Except during a Presidential primary year, there’s rarely anything big going on politically when the Super Bowl is played, so there’s little incentive to spend the megabucks to pay for such an ad. Needless to say, pro-choice groups are lobbying CBS to kill the ad; surprisingly, CBS appears to be standing firm for the moment.

The second question is whether this is a good decision by Tebow. Well known at school as a devout Christian, no one doubts the sincerity of his motivation. But the NFL tries hard to avoid political controversy. Tebow and whatever team he ends up playing for will want fans to be eager to buy a Tebow jersey regardless of their political views. If taking a strong stand on this issue alienates half the fan base, that will cost Tebow and the NFL real money. I could even imagine certain teams rating Tebow lower on their draft boards over something like this.

Of course Tebow should not have to forego the right to speak his views simply because he plays football. There are many, many NFL players who are pro-life and also quite public about their Christian faith. But there is a difference between answering questions honestly – like beauty pageant contestant Carrie Prejean did – and going out of your way to shove your views in everyone’s face, like Barbra Streisand. Focus on the Family and its leader James Dobson have been particularly prone to controversy in the past. Choosing to associate yourself with them for your first foray into politics is like choosing to associate with Al Sharpton for your first foray into civil rights.

What do you think? Is it a good idea to have these kinds of ads during the Super Bowl? Is Tebow doing the right thing by speaking out?

Global warming myth continues to unravel

Ever since those leaked emails surfaced showing British climate scientists deliberately trying to distort data and squash criticism, it seems like more and more cracks continue to appear in the facade of global warming as “settled science”. For example, the International Panel on Climate Change has been forced to admit that one of its assertions – that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 – was not based on solid science. In fact, it was based on one media interview with one scientist, in which that scientist never even used the date 2035.

To make matters worse, it turns out the IPCC knew the item was unsubstantiated, but included it in the report deliberately to frighten Asian countries that get water from the glaciers. They deliberately ignored questions about the claim that were raised when the draft report was issued. This is really the smoking gun that proves what I have been saying all along about a hysteria lobby that is willing to say anything in order to scare people into doing their bidding.

Additionally, we now have proof that the claim that global warming will cause more frequent and stronger natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes is equally without scientific foundation. Much criticized by skeptics when it was dramatically illustrated in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, this turns out to be based on one unpublished report which specifically stated there was insufficient evidence to establish a tie to global warming. So much for rigorously peer-reviewed “settled science.”

In fact, the only “settled science” about global warming is this: Carbon dioxide is a gas which, in sufficient atmospheric quantities, can cause a “greenhouse effect” in which heat becomes trapped. There are other gases, such as methane, that have a stronger greenhouse effect.

It is a long way from that simple science to the conclusion that carbon dioxide produced by industrial sources will inevitably cause an irreversible global warming with catastrophic consequences. You have to get there by starting from a political philosophy that fossil fuels, heavy industry and people who profit from them are bad and should be punished or eliminated. Then you have to ignore the long-term climate records of the earth and evidence of the significant role played by other factors such as solar activity. Follow it up with a healthy dose of deliberate deception and you’ve got yourself a multi-million dollar advocacy industry that promises to provide employment and research grant funding for decades to come by feeding on people’s fear. Nice little recipe, indeed.

How does the story end? Same as the heterosexual AIDS epidemic. When it’s all over, no one shows a shred of remorse for having enthusiastically fed the machine, instead insisting that they were fooled just like everyone else. All the fingers point in a circle, the money gets pocketed, and in a few years there’s a new ManBearPig to start the game all over again.