Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

"Iraq vs. Darfur – Just What Is a Worthy Call to One’s Conscience?"

An excellent post by the Federalist Society UofW Chapter regarding the left’s hypocrisy on Darfur:

These pictures, taken at the University Temple United Methodist Church across the street from the UW law school, illustrate perfectly the moral bankruptcy, hypocrisy, and vapidity of the left’s foreign policy worldview:

Around the country this weekend, tens of thousands of people marched in favor of the killing of countless Iraqis – the certain outcome if we were to retreat redeploy from that country. Whatever their signs may have said, it was clear what they wanted. They marched in favor of American defeat, in favor of the anti-democratic forces in Iraq, in favor of Fascist Iran’s geopolitical goals. They literally spat at an OIF veteran who dared to disagree with them. Why? Because Bush lied about WMDs, because our presence there only creates more terrorists, and because we’re only there for the oil anyway. (That none of these claims are in any way supported by facts have no impact, remember.) They claim to be anti-war, but the truth is that they don’t care about war unless the US has something to do with it. Or at least, they care far less about mass killings than about being anti-Bush. A call to one’s conscience indeed.

Why are the Christians in Darfur more worthy of being saved than the Kurds or Shi’ites were under Saddam’s Iraq? Why is the sectarian violence (some could say civil war) in the Sudan worthy of sending American troops to battle al Qaeda, IEDs, and an “endless war” in a country without any real government, when at the same time, it is a moral imperative that we guarantee the same deadly results in Iraq by withdrawing immediately?

Why is it that being a super power means we can only use force when it’s NOT related to our national interests? Even if the absurd conspiratorial accusations against Bush lying and terrorizing his way into Iraq were true, how do people who think it is worth American lives to prevent mass sectarian violence not demand we stay there?

There are no answers to these questions, of course. Darfur is hip, Iraq is not. That’s it. That’s the real difference. And Darfur has the added bonus of “never going to happen” because of French, Chinese, and Russian interests there. Which means the high school idealists, college-know-it-all hippies, academics, and other assorted activists can feel good about “making a difference” without ever having to face the consequences which come with the best intentioned humanitarian interventions.

Read the whole thing. It’s not long, and it’s certainly worth it to get a peep inside the empty gourds of leftists who brainlessly chant “No blood for oil!”

January 30, 2007 Posted by | Darfur, hypocrisy, Iraq, moonbats | 1 Comment

Democrats and class envy: it’s all they have

When you’re a functional economic illiterate like most liberals, it’s easy to get sucked into class envy (especially if you’re a non-producer of society). I am not a wealthy man, but I do not begrudge those who are. Hell, I’d like to be one someday. However, were my life to end without the accumulation of millions of dollars, I would have no doubts that I was a success in life nonetheless.

However, according to the left, I should despise those who get rich. I should be resentful. I should violate one of the seven deadly sins by possessing envy. Pardon me, but I think I’ll pass on that. Star Parker has more:

In a Newsweek column titled “How Dems Can Win White House,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., opines about the difficulties that the Democratic Party has had in defining itself.

The senator wonders, enviously, how Republicans have been able to “identify issues that connected to their deeply held values,” reduce them to a few words – eight according to Schumer – and communicate to the American people.

“What are our eight words?” the senator asks.

But Democrats have a very clear picture of who they are. And newly elected Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, who his party picked to give their response to the president’s State of the Union address, knows his party’s message and communicated it clear as a bell.

Aside from the senator’s criticisms about the war in Iraq, the entire substance of his thoughts about what is going on in our country was about differences in earnings. Specifically, about the differences in earnings between CEOs and the “average worker.” “When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s nearly 400 times.”

So, Schumer, listen to your newly elected colleague. He has succinctly summed up what your party is about. I call it the politics of envy.

Wealth, of course, is produced by individuals going to work. Not by politicians getting them ticked off that their neighbor is making more than they are.

But the latter is what the Democratic Party is about.

Webb’s remarks were an extension of a column he wrote in The Wall Street Journal shortly after he was elected in November. In that column, he talked about our country drifting “toward a class based system.” And then, of course, contrasted minimum wage earners with the “average CEO of a sizeable corporation” who “makes more than $10 million dollars a year. . . .”

But do large CEO earnings say that we’re now a class based society? Where do these guys come from?

How about the legendary and recently retired CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch. His father was a train conductor. I think a survey of America’s CEOs would show that most of these men, and women, come from middle class working families and got where they are through hard work. (It is a myth that most rich people inherited their money. The vast, overwhelming majority of wealthy people earned their riches through (cover your eyes, my liberal readers) WORK! – Ed.)

How about Stan O’Neal of Merrill Lynch? O’Neal pulled in a whopping $48 million last year. Somehow, in Webb’s “class based” society, this black man managed to become CEO of this Wall Street monolith.

Here’s something about O’Neal’s background from a profile in Fortune Magazine: “Raised on a farm in rural Alabama during segregation, he was educated in a schoolhouse built by his grandfather (a man who was born into slavery and whom O’Neal recalls with deep emotion).”

Regarding Webb’s claims that most Americans are not participating in our thriving economy, the same Bloomberg news article reporting that Stanley O’Neal’s $48 million payday was up 30 percent from the previous year, reported that the “five largest Wall Street firms paid their employees a total of more than $60 billion last year, up more than 32 percent from 2005. . . .”

All evidence I see is that Wall Street, a barometer of the nation’s health, is booming, that the black grandson of a former slave is running one its largest firms, and that all the employees of the firms there are sharing equally in the boom.

But this message doesn’t sit well when playing to envy, that base human emotion, forbidden by the Tenth Commandment, is your strategy for grabbing onto political power.

And why is Webb obsessed with $10 million CEOs, who actually are producing something (Stan O’Neal is in charge of a firm with 50,000 employees that produces $50 billion in revenue)? Why isn’t he concerned about the 42 NBA players who earn more than $10 million? How about the top ten movie stars, all of whom earn well more than $10 million?

Where, of course, the Democrats’ politics of envy mindset also takes us is to wonder about how the rest of the world might look at all Americans. The World Bank defines poverty as earning $1 a day. That means that a minimum wage earner in the United States earns 40 times as much as the world’s poorest people.

How many people on this planet earn $1 a day? About 320 million. More than the whole population of the United States.

What we need, in this country, and around the world, is freedom and hard work. Not envy.

The problem of the party of Webb and Schumer is not communicating their message. It’s having the wrong one.

January 30, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, minimum wage, Webb | Leave a comment

Slate’s liberal: "How is Hagel courageous again?"

Mickey Kaus, liberal columnist for Slate, weighs in on the left’s favorite new Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel (RINO-NE):

Why, exactly, is Sen. Chuck Hagel showing “courage” in conspicuously denouncing the Iraq War now that virtually the entire American establishment has reached that same conclusion–now that Hagel is virtually assured of getting hero treatment from Brian Williams and Tim Russert and long favorable profiles in the newsweeklies?

OK, maybe Hagel’s not so courageous. Maybe he’s just right. Except that he chose, as the moment to make his flamboyant speech, not the vote on the imprudent war itself–he voted for it–but a vote to withdraw support for a last-ditch surge strategy that even the NYT’s estimable, on-the-scene pessimist Sabrina Tavernese thinks “may have a chance to work.” Was this the right time–it certainly wasn’t the courageous time–for a speech like Hagel’s? Was he serving the nation or himself?

Saying “the war was wrong but the surge is worth a try”–that would be courageous. There’s no ready-made constituency eager to cheer a pol who says that.

Bucking your party to actively fight against the war when it would have made a difference–that would have been courageous.**

Hagel hasn’t done either of those things. Instead, he let loose at the precise moment when letting loose was least brave and least timely. Lest the MSM miss the point, his eruption took the form, not of arguing that his Republican colleagues were wrong, but of denouncing them for, in effect, being cowards, unlike you-know-who:

If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes. … Don’t hide anymore; none of us.

Never mind that the anti-surge resolution Hagel has cosponsored is all about hiding. It has no binding effect. But it does provide Senators who supported the war a convenient bit of late-inning skepticism they can point to when trying to save their skins.

Hagel also deployed the hoary I’ve-been-in combat-so-I-know-these-are-real-men-and-women-“fighting and dying” pitch–as if his fellow senators didn’t realize they were real men and women. The I’ve-Been-There meme is to Hagel (and John Kerry) what the “mommy” meme is to Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer–a guilt-tripping, self-glorifying unique selling proposition that attempts to confer on the speaker a special capacity for insight that renders actual persuasive argument unnecessary.

And gee, after getting huge MSM play for lecturing the Senate on how courageous he is, and how he has special understanding as a combat veteran, Hagel is considering a run for the White House! Funny how that happens.

But hey, as long as the MSM gets to talk to a “Republican” who pays lip service to being anti-war, they’re giddier than Ted Kennedy at a tour of the Jack Daniels distillery.

January 30, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, media bias | Leave a comment

Night & Day

Today’s N&D courtesy of Neal Boortz:

For example, from 2003: “I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision.” Oh really? You carefully reviewed the information? Carefully reviewed the intelligence? So you didn’t make your decision lightly, Senator Clinton?

Well, sometime in the last four years she must’ve fallen and bumped her head.

Now in 2007, things sure have changed mightily: “So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.” But wait, Ms. Rodham! We thought you carefully reviewed the information? That means you didn’t just take Bush’s word for everything. So … wasn’t your fact-finding exercise every bit as faulty as was the president’s?

Continuing with Shrillary’s duplicity:

During her first visit as a presidential candidate to early-caucus state Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke out strongly in favor of boosting the production of ethanol in the United States.

But that’s a complete turnaround from her earlier actions regarding the alternative fuel, which is made from corn – and could provide a big boost to the economy of agricultural Iowa.

At a town hall meeting in Des Moines, the state capital, on January 27, Clinton said: “I believe we’ve got to take a strong stand on limiting our dependence on foreign oil. And we have a perfect example here in Iowa about how it can work with all of the ethanol that’s being produced here.”

According to an article in the Chicago Tribune cited in a release from the Republican National Committee, Clinton “took questions and spoke of boosting production of ethanol.”

And the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clinton “genuflected before ethanol, which is big business in Iowa.”

But as a Senator from New York, Clinton has voted at least 17 times against measures promoting ethanol production, the RNC noted.

During a question-and-answer session in 2004, Clinton was asked about “her outspoken opposition to legislation that would double the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive,” the Des Moines Register reported at the time.

“She was momentarily stumped by a question as to why she opposed the ethanol mandate, but then said she was concerned that it would raise gasoline prices for her constituents.”

Clinton reportedly said: “I have to look to first protecting and supporting the needs of the people I represent right now.”

In 2002, Clinton even signed a letter that read in part: “There is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol.”

It’s not surprising that Clinton would have a change of heart regarding ethanol when addressing Iowa voters, considering that the ethanol industry generates $2.49 billion in total sales back to local communities, according to the Iowa Corn Growers Association.

Also, “more than 14,750 Iowa jobs are affected by ethanol,” the Association notes, “including 2,550 directly related to ethanol production.”

Flip-flopping isn’t a trait unique to Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam), is it?

January 30, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, hypocrisy, Night and Day | Leave a comment