20 September 2005
State of the European Union
Freedom & Progress was taken by surprise at the uncertain results of the recent German election. Earlier this summer, F&P predicted that Angela Merkel would walk away with the election, presuming that the German electorate was tired of the high unemployment, decreasing real estate value, and other indicators of economic stagnation. As it turns, much like France and the Netherlands when rejecting the EU Constitution, Germany has asserted its preference for a runaway welfare state, with heavy citizen dependency on entitlement programs to American-style free market capitalism.
Mark Steyn of the UK's Daily Telegraph opines on the implications of the German election in his article, By the time Germans decide, it'll be too late.
[W]hat does it take to persuade the citizens of "enlightened" social democracies that sometimes you've got to give up the benefits cheque? Guardian and Independent types have had great sport with America over the last couple of weeks, gleefully citing the wreckage of New Orleans as a savage indictment of the "selfishness" of capitalism.
The argument they make is usually a moral one - that there's something better and more compassionate about us all sharing the burden as a community. But the election results in Germany and elsewhere suggest that, in fact, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than lavish welfare and that once he's enjoying the fruits thereof he couldn't give a hoot about the broader societal interest. "Social democracy" turns out to be explicitly anti-social.
Old obdurate Leftists can argue about which system is "better", but at a certain point it becomes irrelevant: by 2050, there will be more and wealthier Americans, and fewer and poorer Europeans. In the 14th century, it took the Black Death to wipe out a third of Europe's population. In the course of the 21st century, Germany's population will fall by over 50 per cent to some 38 million or lower - killed not by disease or war but by the Eutopia to which Mr Schröder and his electorate are wedded.
F&P urges Americans not to go the way of the Europeans, viewing progress strictly in terms of social welfare and entitlement. Remember, F&P always remains open to hearing new ideas and new means to accomplish the objectives of progress such as the end of poverty and hatred as well as greater access to education and healthcare. Since the 1980's, Americans have proven that when large economies rely on more freedom (read: free market, free trade, and a balanced budget), progressive goals can still be desired and achieved.
Mark Steyn of the UK's Daily Telegraph opines on the implications of the German election in his article, By the time Germans decide, it'll be too late.
[W]hat does it take to persuade the citizens of "enlightened" social democracies that sometimes you've got to give up the benefits cheque? Guardian and Independent types have had great sport with America over the last couple of weeks, gleefully citing the wreckage of New Orleans as a savage indictment of the "selfishness" of capitalism.
The argument they make is usually a moral one - that there's something better and more compassionate about us all sharing the burden as a community. But the election results in Germany and elsewhere suggest that, in fact, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than lavish welfare and that once he's enjoying the fruits thereof he couldn't give a hoot about the broader societal interest. "Social democracy" turns out to be explicitly anti-social.
Old obdurate Leftists can argue about which system is "better", but at a certain point it becomes irrelevant: by 2050, there will be more and wealthier Americans, and fewer and poorer Europeans. In the 14th century, it took the Black Death to wipe out a third of Europe's population. In the course of the 21st century, Germany's population will fall by over 50 per cent to some 38 million or lower - killed not by disease or war but by the Eutopia to which Mr Schröder and his electorate are wedded.
F&P urges Americans not to go the way of the Europeans, viewing progress strictly in terms of social welfare and entitlement. Remember, F&P always remains open to hearing new ideas and new means to accomplish the objectives of progress such as the end of poverty and hatred as well as greater access to education and healthcare. Since the 1980's, Americans have proven that when large economies rely on more freedom (read: free market, free trade, and a balanced budget), progressive goals can still be desired and achieved.
President Clinton Gets It
This weekend, President Clinton made rounds on the Sunday shows. Freedom & Progress has always been inspired by how well Clinton can articulate concepts and ideas in such a simple and straight forward way. Moreover, Clinton has this nack for breaking down complex problems and solutions into words and language ordinary people can understand. On NBC's Meet the Press and on ABC's This Week, President Clinton commented on many issues. F&P invites its readers to read the entirety of Clinton's words, however F&P specifically highlights the following:
On the Federal Budget: After addressing the rebuilding of New Orleans, Clinton answered Tim Russert's question on the Federal Deficit.
MR. RUSSERT: The president said we're going to rebuild New Orleans. It's estimated to cost probably close to $300 billion. How can we afford that? What is it going to do to the deficit? And what should we do about tax cuts and spending cuts?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, in terms of the budget deficit--you know what I think. I mean, I think it was always a mistake for people in my income group to get tax cuts. I think before it was terrible. I think that we shouldn't be-- this--Katrina is going to force us to go back and think about three things. What are our obligations to the poor, there, and in America? What is the role of government? And who's going to pay for it?
Right now our position is--the American government's position, and everybody in the world knows this, this hurts us, is that we should be able to fight a war in Iraq, be aggressive in Afghanistan, deal with this massive expenditure of Katrina, have a big new benefit for senior citizens on drugs, and it should be paid for largely by borrowing money from countries, except for Japan and the U.K. that are not as wealthy as we are. The rest of the money we're borrowing from China, from Korea, from the Middle East. So we go into the debt market--we borrow this money every day to cover our deficit. In effect, we're borrowing the money to pay for Katrina, pay for Iraq, and pay for Bill Clinton's tax cuts. I don't approve of that. I think it's ethically not good, and I think it's terrible economics.
And to George Stephanopoulos:
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.
They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese — We're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina and at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive. And by the way, we don't want to let them buy any oil companies or anything like that.
So what if they just got tired of buying our debt? What if the Japanese got tired of doing it? Japan's economy is beginning to grow again. Suppose they decided they wanted to keep some of their money at home and invest it in Japan, because they're starting to grow?
We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.
On Iraq and Afghanistan:
STEPHANOPOULOS: So we're losing in Afghanistan, at risk of losing in Iraq. What do we do right now? What should the new strategy be?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well as I said, I don't know, because I'm not president, I don't know what his military options are. I don't know how many troops he's got where. But I know my view is if there is a reasonable chance that this constitutional process can be completed and that it will not be rejected under the terms that govern the vote, once that happens, I think that will give another boost to the civilian government. Then, I think that we will know how long it takes to train enough and equip enough forces that they ought to be able to defend themselves. When that happens, I think we can begin drawing down our presence.
But my problem with setting a date certain for withdrawal now is I always assumed that whoever I was competing against was smart. And suppose you were running the Iraqi insurgency, and I know you, and I know how smart you are. If I told you I was going to leave in six months, 12 months, or 18 months, and you could survive that long, there's no way in the wide world you would join the political process.
Now, let's look at the other thing: When the IRA says they're going to give up arms, and they want the international body to observe the blowup, and they want the representative of the Catholics and Church of England, the Protestants to observe the blowup, what does that say? They say they've decided they've got more to gain from the political process than from continuing the conflict.
When 13,000 armed guerrillas and paramilitaries in Colombia give up their weapons and rejoin civil society, and President Uribe, who's been so tough on them, offers them a chance to reconcile, why are they doing that? Because they know they're not going to win anymore, and they want to be part of a political process. [In Rwanda,] when the Hutu soldiers came home in response to President Kigami's welcome and rejoined civil society and did their community atonement work, why did they do that? Because they knew they couldn't win anymore.
So the reason I don't want to see an announcement made is I see no reasonable prospect that this insurgency can be transformed into a political process, and the Sunnis who are alienated will come back if they know all they have to do is wait. It may not work. I've never known whether it would work. All I know is a majority of the Iraqis would like it to work. We'd be better off, and the Middle East would be better off if it did work.
A lot of good Americans have given their lives; thousands of others have been horribly wounded. So I have been in a position where I wanted the strategy to work. Whether it will or not, I don't know. But the only thing I would sacrifice it to is if I thought we were going to lose in Afghanistan. We cannot lose in Afghanistan. We cannot let the Taliban come back. We cannot let Karzai fail. We cannot relax our efforts to try to keep undermining al Qaeda, because that's still by far a bigger threat to our security.
On Iraq as the Clash of Civilizations:
MR. RUSSERT: When you talk about religion, how concerned are you that we are, in fact, in a religious war, Islam vs. Christianity?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: A little bit, but I think the important thing--you know, we had the king of Jordan here, who did an astonishing thing several months ago. He brought in the leaders of every major sect of Islam, and none of them would say that the Koran justified the killing of innocent civilians, whether they were Muslims or non-Muslims. My experience has been that most of these terrorists have political objectives which can be clearly defined, and then try to give them a religious overlay. Now, maybe some of the people they get to go do suicide bombings are in the grip of a religious fervor or have been convinced that God wanted them to do this, but religion has been used by people for political reasons, just the way Milosevic used ethnic differences in Bosnia. I still believe behind a lot of this is just cold-blooded power concerns and people fighting over land and resources and all the things people have fought over since the beginning of time.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned that Iraq may wind up with a fundamentalist Islamic regime?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: A little bit. I think there has been an effort to make it a representative constitution, and I think the American ambassador there has exerted extraordinary positive efforts. And keep in mind there are very few countries in the world that have the kind of separation between church and state that we do. It's been a blessing to us. And one of the reasons America is the most religious big country in the world in terms of participation in religious services and devotion to one's faith is that we don't pretend that politics is religion. We don't pretend that politics is perfect and we don't mess up people's ability to practice their faith. On the other hand, Iraq can have a recognition of the role of Islam in the Sunni and Shia traditions and the presence of non-Muslims in Iraq and still have--be a freer place than it was before. We just have to watch it and encourage them, work with them.
On the Federal Budget: After addressing the rebuilding of New Orleans, Clinton answered Tim Russert's question on the Federal Deficit.
MR. RUSSERT: The president said we're going to rebuild New Orleans. It's estimated to cost probably close to $300 billion. How can we afford that? What is it going to do to the deficit? And what should we do about tax cuts and spending cuts?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, in terms of the budget deficit--you know what I think. I mean, I think it was always a mistake for people in my income group to get tax cuts. I think before it was terrible. I think that we shouldn't be-- this--Katrina is going to force us to go back and think about three things. What are our obligations to the poor, there, and in America? What is the role of government? And who's going to pay for it?
Right now our position is--the American government's position, and everybody in the world knows this, this hurts us, is that we should be able to fight a war in Iraq, be aggressive in Afghanistan, deal with this massive expenditure of Katrina, have a big new benefit for senior citizens on drugs, and it should be paid for largely by borrowing money from countries, except for Japan and the U.K. that are not as wealthy as we are. The rest of the money we're borrowing from China, from Korea, from the Middle East. So we go into the debt market--we borrow this money every day to cover our deficit. In effect, we're borrowing the money to pay for Katrina, pay for Iraq, and pay for Bill Clinton's tax cuts. I don't approve of that. I think it's ethically not good, and I think it's terrible economics.
And to George Stephanopoulos:
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.
They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese — We're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina and at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive. And by the way, we don't want to let them buy any oil companies or anything like that.
So what if they just got tired of buying our debt? What if the Japanese got tired of doing it? Japan's economy is beginning to grow again. Suppose they decided they wanted to keep some of their money at home and invest it in Japan, because they're starting to grow?
We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.
On Iraq and Afghanistan:
STEPHANOPOULOS: So we're losing in Afghanistan, at risk of losing in Iraq. What do we do right now? What should the new strategy be?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well as I said, I don't know, because I'm not president, I don't know what his military options are. I don't know how many troops he's got where. But I know my view is if there is a reasonable chance that this constitutional process can be completed and that it will not be rejected under the terms that govern the vote, once that happens, I think that will give another boost to the civilian government. Then, I think that we will know how long it takes to train enough and equip enough forces that they ought to be able to defend themselves. When that happens, I think we can begin drawing down our presence.
But my problem with setting a date certain for withdrawal now is I always assumed that whoever I was competing against was smart. And suppose you were running the Iraqi insurgency, and I know you, and I know how smart you are. If I told you I was going to leave in six months, 12 months, or 18 months, and you could survive that long, there's no way in the wide world you would join the political process.
Now, let's look at the other thing: When the IRA says they're going to give up arms, and they want the international body to observe the blowup, and they want the representative of the Catholics and Church of England, the Protestants to observe the blowup, what does that say? They say they've decided they've got more to gain from the political process than from continuing the conflict.
When 13,000 armed guerrillas and paramilitaries in Colombia give up their weapons and rejoin civil society, and President Uribe, who's been so tough on them, offers them a chance to reconcile, why are they doing that? Because they know they're not going to win anymore, and they want to be part of a political process. [In Rwanda,] when the Hutu soldiers came home in response to President Kigami's welcome and rejoined civil society and did their community atonement work, why did they do that? Because they knew they couldn't win anymore.
So the reason I don't want to see an announcement made is I see no reasonable prospect that this insurgency can be transformed into a political process, and the Sunnis who are alienated will come back if they know all they have to do is wait. It may not work. I've never known whether it would work. All I know is a majority of the Iraqis would like it to work. We'd be better off, and the Middle East would be better off if it did work.
A lot of good Americans have given their lives; thousands of others have been horribly wounded. So I have been in a position where I wanted the strategy to work. Whether it will or not, I don't know. But the only thing I would sacrifice it to is if I thought we were going to lose in Afghanistan. We cannot lose in Afghanistan. We cannot let the Taliban come back. We cannot let Karzai fail. We cannot relax our efforts to try to keep undermining al Qaeda, because that's still by far a bigger threat to our security.
On Iraq as the Clash of Civilizations:
MR. RUSSERT: When you talk about religion, how concerned are you that we are, in fact, in a religious war, Islam vs. Christianity?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: A little bit, but I think the important thing--you know, we had the king of Jordan here, who did an astonishing thing several months ago. He brought in the leaders of every major sect of Islam, and none of them would say that the Koran justified the killing of innocent civilians, whether they were Muslims or non-Muslims. My experience has been that most of these terrorists have political objectives which can be clearly defined, and then try to give them a religious overlay. Now, maybe some of the people they get to go do suicide bombings are in the grip of a religious fervor or have been convinced that God wanted them to do this, but religion has been used by people for political reasons, just the way Milosevic used ethnic differences in Bosnia. I still believe behind a lot of this is just cold-blooded power concerns and people fighting over land and resources and all the things people have fought over since the beginning of time.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned that Iraq may wind up with a fundamentalist Islamic regime?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: A little bit. I think there has been an effort to make it a representative constitution, and I think the American ambassador there has exerted extraordinary positive efforts. And keep in mind there are very few countries in the world that have the kind of separation between church and state that we do. It's been a blessing to us. And one of the reasons America is the most religious big country in the world in terms of participation in religious services and devotion to one's faith is that we don't pretend that politics is religion. We don't pretend that politics is perfect and we don't mess up people's ability to practice their faith. On the other hand, Iraq can have a recognition of the role of Islam in the Sunni and Shia traditions and the presence of non-Muslims in Iraq and still have--be a freer place than it was before. We just have to watch it and encourage them, work with them.
16 September 2005
Tucker Carlson
Freedom & Progress has always appreciated the punditry of Tucker Carlson. While clearly a dedicated conservative, Tucker is always fair, constantly provocative, and quite challenging. F&P also appreciates Tucker's new show on MSNBC, The Situation. Apparently, Tucker is not doing so well in the cable news ratings race. F&P hopes that changes.
Last night's Situation was particularly engaging. The link to the entire transcript is below, but F&P would like to highlight two exchanges.
The first exchange is between Tucker and Louisiana's lieutenant governor, Mitchell Landrieu.
CARLSON: But as a philosophical question, why should the rest of the country pay to rebuild your city? I mean, if my house gets hit by lightning and burns down, I have no expectation that someone else is going to pay for it.
LANDRIEU: Well, I think that‘s a fair question, although we‘re talking about the largest devastation that the country has seen. I think that this particular region of the country is an economic engine for the rest of the country, especially emanating from the port of New Orleans.
There have been other disasters in the country that the American people have paid for. In 1976, we actually bailed out the city of New York when they went bankrupt. San Francisco has had some troubles over time with fires and the sort.
And you know, so I think this is part of the American landscape. I think the president said it very well, that you really can‘t imagine the United States of America without the metropolitan area of New Orleans. So you know, this is an investment on behalf of the American people that I think, if made wisely and well, will be repaid many, many, many times over by the southern part of the country.
CARLSON: As I said, I think it‘s probably the greatest city, certainly one of them, maybe the greatest city in the country, and I can‘t wait to see it rebuilt.
But aren‘t you worried that, especially on the heels of your governor‘s announcement last night that she thinks that the rest of the country, the federal government ought to pay 100 percent of the clean-up costs, that people are going to say, “Gee, we‘re paying for this war in Iraq. Gas is almost $4 a gallon. Kind of annoying that we‘re picking up the whole bill.”
LANDRIEU: Well, I am concerned about that. I would remind the American public, though, a large percent of this nation‘s oil and gas comes from off of our shores. We‘ve been sending billions and billions of dollars to the federal fist (ph) and really have not been getting our fair share back over the years.
I think that the American public understands that this was an American tragedy that requires an American response, and to date, America‘s response has been very generous and wonderful.
However, I do think that six months from now, when we‘re on the next big story, which I‘m sure is going to happen sometime soon, that it‘s going to be very difficult, it‘s going to be very hard, it‘s going to require tremendous sacrifice. And there will be fundamental debates that take place about who, how much, when, how, what it‘s going to look like, who‘s going to do it and what it is that we‘re trying to rebuild.
F&P opines that political soothsayers ought to keep an eye on the young lieutenant governor. Mr. Landrieu appeared articulate, sharp, and deeply authentic in his concerns and opinions.
The other exchange worth highlighting from last evening's Situation was this exchange with Chuck D:
CARLSON: And I think this just misrepresents what‘s happened. There were a lot of white victims of Hurricane Katrina, a lot of black, a lot of Indian victims. I just don‘t think there‘s an intrinsic race angle and it seems wrong for you to suggest there is.
CHUCK D: Let me tell you man when I look at New Orleans and one day I was looking at one news station, it could have been CNN, it could have been MSNBC, I forgot, it showed back how it used to be, remembering New Orleans and it showed like just a whole lot of white folks touring through New Orleans and, you know, that was admirable but the reflection on New Orleans is the fact that it‘s a black city. The majority is black, black mayor for the last two or three terms.
CARLSON: Yes.
CHUCK D: And for the first time you had a lot of Americans that didn‘t even know the makeup, the racial makeup of New Orleans when I know when I visited New Orleans it was just a disproportionate amount of poor people who just didn‘t get service by either the city, the state, or the country when it came down to figuring out what its needs were. Come on, the levee system going back to what, when was the levee system built?
CARLSON: Well, it was built hundreds of years ago and it‘s received...
CHUCK D: Hundreds of years ago.
CARLSON: It‘s received hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government in the past five years and it‘s still broke, which tells you something about the leadership in New Orleans.
CHUCK D: No, Tucker, listen.
CARLSON: But here‘s the point. Wait, but you make a great point. Hold on. You just said something really interesting. You said it‘s a black run city. It‘s had a black mayor for a long time and it has a heavily black city council. It‘s got a black chief of police. It‘s got a black Congressman. So, why is it necessarily the result of white racism when the people of that city aren‘t served by their leaders who are black?
CHUCK D: Because when they yell loud enough they‘re not heard. I mean, look, if Hoover Dam could stop the raging Colorado River, I‘m pretty sure that they could have came along with a strong enough levee system to stop Lake Pontchartrain.
But now, you know, here‘s the fears. The fears where racism really turns its ugly head on what‘s going to happen to New Orleans, (INAUDIBLE), probably the black people that have moved out probably won‘t be able to afford to get back in and New Orleans, the new New Orleans is fears that it will probably be one of the most magnificent cities and probably will be protected against a hurricane ten.
And then this exchange on the infamous Kanye West statement:
CARLSON; Well, but hold on. I just don‘t—I‘m sorry to get hung up on one thing but you keep accusing Bush of racism or applying that Bush is a racist and...
CHUCK D: No, I will have to echo Kanye West‘s statement.
CARLSON: OK that Bush hates black people or whatever.
CHUCK D: No, no.
CARLSON: But wait a second.
CHUCK D: Kanye West didn‘t say hate.
CARLSON: What about the—what about the...
CHUCK D: Wait, wait, wait, Tucker.
CARLSON: Doesn‘t like black people.
CHUCK D: No, he didn‘t say doesn‘t like.
CARLSON: What did he say?
CHUCK D: He said doesn‘t care, does not care for black people.
CARLSON: If you don‘t care about—if you don‘t care about people who are dying...
CHUCK D: If the media makes the mistake...
CARLSON: ...you hate them. I mean it‘s the same thing. You don‘t care about people who are suffering in New Orleans you‘re a hater in my view.
CHUCK D: No, you can‘t say it‘s the same thing. It would be like, you know, you just don‘t acknowledge them and you kind of feel like they are not even there and often black people in this country feel that, you know, unless our back is up against the wall that we‘re not acknowledged at all.
Now, F&P did not engage in the debate over what role, if any, race played in the Katrina response, but many pundits have. Tucker asserted his opinion (which is a fair representation of conservative opinion on the matter) and allowed Chuck D to assert the opinion that he and many intelligent and educated Americans of all races share. Both sides had equal time and both sides were persuasive.
F&P congratulates Tucker Carlson for playing fairly in a tough game and always holding his own. Who knows, maybe one day, your humble author will be invited into the Situation.
Last night's Situation was particularly engaging. The link to the entire transcript is below, but F&P would like to highlight two exchanges.
The first exchange is between Tucker and Louisiana's lieutenant governor, Mitchell Landrieu.
CARLSON: But as a philosophical question, why should the rest of the country pay to rebuild your city? I mean, if my house gets hit by lightning and burns down, I have no expectation that someone else is going to pay for it.
LANDRIEU: Well, I think that‘s a fair question, although we‘re talking about the largest devastation that the country has seen. I think that this particular region of the country is an economic engine for the rest of the country, especially emanating from the port of New Orleans.
There have been other disasters in the country that the American people have paid for. In 1976, we actually bailed out the city of New York when they went bankrupt. San Francisco has had some troubles over time with fires and the sort.
And you know, so I think this is part of the American landscape. I think the president said it very well, that you really can‘t imagine the United States of America without the metropolitan area of New Orleans. So you know, this is an investment on behalf of the American people that I think, if made wisely and well, will be repaid many, many, many times over by the southern part of the country.
CARLSON: As I said, I think it‘s probably the greatest city, certainly one of them, maybe the greatest city in the country, and I can‘t wait to see it rebuilt.
But aren‘t you worried that, especially on the heels of your governor‘s announcement last night that she thinks that the rest of the country, the federal government ought to pay 100 percent of the clean-up costs, that people are going to say, “Gee, we‘re paying for this war in Iraq. Gas is almost $4 a gallon. Kind of annoying that we‘re picking up the whole bill.”
LANDRIEU: Well, I am concerned about that. I would remind the American public, though, a large percent of this nation‘s oil and gas comes from off of our shores. We‘ve been sending billions and billions of dollars to the federal fist (ph) and really have not been getting our fair share back over the years.
I think that the American public understands that this was an American tragedy that requires an American response, and to date, America‘s response has been very generous and wonderful.
However, I do think that six months from now, when we‘re on the next big story, which I‘m sure is going to happen sometime soon, that it‘s going to be very difficult, it‘s going to be very hard, it‘s going to require tremendous sacrifice. And there will be fundamental debates that take place about who, how much, when, how, what it‘s going to look like, who‘s going to do it and what it is that we‘re trying to rebuild.
F&P opines that political soothsayers ought to keep an eye on the young lieutenant governor. Mr. Landrieu appeared articulate, sharp, and deeply authentic in his concerns and opinions.
The other exchange worth highlighting from last evening's Situation was this exchange with Chuck D:
CARLSON: And I think this just misrepresents what‘s happened. There were a lot of white victims of Hurricane Katrina, a lot of black, a lot of Indian victims. I just don‘t think there‘s an intrinsic race angle and it seems wrong for you to suggest there is.
CHUCK D: Let me tell you man when I look at New Orleans and one day I was looking at one news station, it could have been CNN, it could have been MSNBC, I forgot, it showed back how it used to be, remembering New Orleans and it showed like just a whole lot of white folks touring through New Orleans and, you know, that was admirable but the reflection on New Orleans is the fact that it‘s a black city. The majority is black, black mayor for the last two or three terms.
CARLSON: Yes.
CHUCK D: And for the first time you had a lot of Americans that didn‘t even know the makeup, the racial makeup of New Orleans when I know when I visited New Orleans it was just a disproportionate amount of poor people who just didn‘t get service by either the city, the state, or the country when it came down to figuring out what its needs were. Come on, the levee system going back to what, when was the levee system built?
CARLSON: Well, it was built hundreds of years ago and it‘s received...
CHUCK D: Hundreds of years ago.
CARLSON: It‘s received hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government in the past five years and it‘s still broke, which tells you something about the leadership in New Orleans.
CHUCK D: No, Tucker, listen.
CARLSON: But here‘s the point. Wait, but you make a great point. Hold on. You just said something really interesting. You said it‘s a black run city. It‘s had a black mayor for a long time and it has a heavily black city council. It‘s got a black chief of police. It‘s got a black Congressman. So, why is it necessarily the result of white racism when the people of that city aren‘t served by their leaders who are black?
CHUCK D: Because when they yell loud enough they‘re not heard. I mean, look, if Hoover Dam could stop the raging Colorado River, I‘m pretty sure that they could have came along with a strong enough levee system to stop Lake Pontchartrain.
But now, you know, here‘s the fears. The fears where racism really turns its ugly head on what‘s going to happen to New Orleans, (INAUDIBLE), probably the black people that have moved out probably won‘t be able to afford to get back in and New Orleans, the new New Orleans is fears that it will probably be one of the most magnificent cities and probably will be protected against a hurricane ten.
And then this exchange on the infamous Kanye West statement:
CARLSON; Well, but hold on. I just don‘t—I‘m sorry to get hung up on one thing but you keep accusing Bush of racism or applying that Bush is a racist and...
CHUCK D: No, I will have to echo Kanye West‘s statement.
CARLSON: OK that Bush hates black people or whatever.
CHUCK D: No, no.
CARLSON: But wait a second.
CHUCK D: Kanye West didn‘t say hate.
CARLSON: What about the—what about the...
CHUCK D: Wait, wait, wait, Tucker.
CARLSON: Doesn‘t like black people.
CHUCK D: No, he didn‘t say doesn‘t like.
CARLSON: What did he say?
CHUCK D: He said doesn‘t care, does not care for black people.
CARLSON: If you don‘t care about—if you don‘t care about people who are dying...
CHUCK D: If the media makes the mistake...
CARLSON: ...you hate them. I mean it‘s the same thing. You don‘t care about people who are suffering in New Orleans you‘re a hater in my view.
CHUCK D: No, you can‘t say it‘s the same thing. It would be like, you know, you just don‘t acknowledge them and you kind of feel like they are not even there and often black people in this country feel that, you know, unless our back is up against the wall that we‘re not acknowledged at all.
Now, F&P did not engage in the debate over what role, if any, race played in the Katrina response, but many pundits have. Tucker asserted his opinion (which is a fair representation of conservative opinion on the matter) and allowed Chuck D to assert the opinion that he and many intelligent and educated Americans of all races share. Both sides had equal time and both sides were persuasive.
F&P congratulates Tucker Carlson for playing fairly in a tough game and always holding his own. Who knows, maybe one day, your humble author will be invited into the Situation.
15 September 2005
Greatest Satirical Column Ever
08 September 2005
Liberty vs. Security
National Public Radio's Morning Edition had a very interesting story this morning about the significant increase in the amount of government documents being classified since September 11, 2001. According to the report, in 2005, more than twice the amount of document were classified than in 2001.
The NPR story brings up just one subject in a much larger issue, that is, the inherent tension in pursuing the twin aims of liberty and security. In American governance, one must consider that principles of freedom ought be pursued the fullest extent possible. Included in such principles is the idea that an American citizen should and must be mindful of government action. The only way to diligently perform a citizen's duty to be so informed is to be able to monitor government documents so as to ensure accountability. Thus, the Freedom of Information Act, and other such laws are crucial to keeping an informed citizenry.
However, one must realize that not all government action should be freely monitored. Put simply, there are areas of governance that would be jeopardized by information being freely available to anyone. There is no doubt that National Security (common defence) is the area most jeopardized by the free flow of information. Put simply, in order to keep its citizenry safe and secure, the government must take away a certain degree of freedom.
The propriety of extent to which liberty is sacrificed for the sake of security is judged by history. However, as the NPR story notes, one can all-too-easily imagine that a government employee will, by nature, err on the side of secrecy, if there is any potential for harm as a result of disclosure.
And we, the People must be resolved to have faith in those decisions.
Freedom & Progress welcomes a discussion.
The NPR story brings up just one subject in a much larger issue, that is, the inherent tension in pursuing the twin aims of liberty and security. In American governance, one must consider that principles of freedom ought be pursued the fullest extent possible. Included in such principles is the idea that an American citizen should and must be mindful of government action. The only way to diligently perform a citizen's duty to be so informed is to be able to monitor government documents so as to ensure accountability. Thus, the Freedom of Information Act, and other such laws are crucial to keeping an informed citizenry.
However, one must realize that not all government action should be freely monitored. Put simply, there are areas of governance that would be jeopardized by information being freely available to anyone. There is no doubt that National Security (common defence) is the area most jeopardized by the free flow of information. Put simply, in order to keep its citizenry safe and secure, the government must take away a certain degree of freedom.
The propriety of extent to which liberty is sacrificed for the sake of security is judged by history. However, as the NPR story notes, one can all-too-easily imagine that a government employee will, by nature, err on the side of secrecy, if there is any potential for harm as a result of disclosure.
And we, the People must be resolved to have faith in those decisions.
Freedom & Progress welcomes a discussion.
07 September 2005
Here Today, Gone Tomorrow
Foreign Policy is celebrating its 35th anniversary by speculating what concepts, which seem significant today, will no longer exist 35 years from now. To do so, Foreign Policy asked sixteen thinkers from across the ideological spectrum to so speculate. These thinkers include Richard N. Haass, Peter Singer, Christopher Hitchens, among other heavyweights. Freedom & Progress finds this a particularly fascinating thought experiment. So, enjoy the link and let us know your thoughts.
06 September 2005
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, RIP
When learning the news of the Chief Justice's passing, Freedom & Progress paused in humility and admiration at the totality of Mr. Rehnquist's remarkable life. When this author entered his first year in law school, of all the opinions 1L's are assigned to read, the ones most looked forward to were always Justice Rehnquist's. The man's impeccable skills at logic and frightening ability to reason left a tremendous impression that, inter alia, led to the creation of Freedom & Progress.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was a true believer in his brand of Goldwater-inspired conservatism. Unlike today's conservative-coalitions, Rehnquist held principles of Freedom (as opposed to Christian virtue) as his guiding beacon. While personally disagreeing with many progressive principles, as Chief Justice, Rehnquist would uphold progressive laws, so long as they were created and passed by legislatures, as opposed to the Judiciary.
Freedom & Progress only hopes that the thirty-years likely to be served by nominee John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are served with the same integrity, authenticity and consistency as Rehnquist's term.
Rest In Peace, Chief.
For further reading:
Rehnquist the Great
Tennis and Top Buttons
Hail to the Chief
Gentleman of the Court
Conservatives and the Supreme Court
Chief Justice Rehnquist was a true believer in his brand of Goldwater-inspired conservatism. Unlike today's conservative-coalitions, Rehnquist held principles of Freedom (as opposed to Christian virtue) as his guiding beacon. While personally disagreeing with many progressive principles, as Chief Justice, Rehnquist would uphold progressive laws, so long as they were created and passed by legislatures, as opposed to the Judiciary.
Freedom & Progress only hopes that the thirty-years likely to be served by nominee John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are served with the same integrity, authenticity and consistency as Rehnquist's term.
Rest In Peace, Chief.
For further reading:
Rehnquist the Great
Tennis and Top Buttons
Hail to the Chief
Gentleman of the Court
Conservatives and the Supreme Court
