Blog Status Update

July 22nd, 2010

It’s getting harder and harder to even care about this blog.  Despite my efforts to get people to read it, no one does (over the past month, I have had a grand total of 57 views).  Needless to say, that makes it hard to even bother planning and writing a post.  And of course, not writing frequently makes people even less likely to visit.  It’s a evil cycle.  Add to this the fact that I continue to struggle on Twitter, and it’s enough to make me realize I need a whole new approach to this social media thing.

Thing is, I have no idea what that will be.  If I knew how to do it, I surely would.  I’d be willing to invest time and money into creating a site, but without a clear idea of how that site fits in, it is hard to throw much at it.  I honestly believe I have something to add but the results have not exactly borne that out.  So I guess it’s a matter of sitting down and building something anyway.  It’s really the only thing I can do.

Anyway, the point of this post is to tell the scant few who visit that I am not sure how this moves forward.  I will say this – if you happen to come across this site and like what you read below, please let me know at lehman.brian@gmail.com.  I would be very interested in contributing to other sites, even if only on a very occasional basis.  I want to learn to write, debate, and explain things better, and I feel like this blog has at least done that for me.  In the meantime, I will continue to talk to my small audience on Twitter (BrainLemon).

Whatever I do this will be the place it is located, or if it is elsewhere this will be the place to find a link to it.  I’m sure I will continue to write when the mood hits just because I like doing so!

Are leftists sociopathic?

July 7th, 2010

Being accustomed to the nature of political discourse, it takes a lot to shock me.  Politics often brings out passion in people, and sometimes that passion gets carried away.  Those on both sides can be guilty of this.  But it seems to me there is an important difference between the left and right.  While conservative types can certainly go too far (see birthers) I have never observed the kind of sheer callousness that seems widespread amongst the left.

Today’s example comes from NewsBusters.  A woman tragically decided to take her own life.  This is, most certainly, a very sad occasion and will cause terrible trauma to her family and friends.  On the left, though, what was more important was her occupation – a producer for Fox News.  Because of this, not only was her death not considered tragic – it was considered cause for celebration and something to encourage others do.  As many of us know, Fox News is HATED by the left, for no other reason than it provides a platform for right-of-center opinion.  This hatred is so intense that even a peripheral attachment to it is reason for someone to not receive even the barest empathy.

If this were the only example, we could leave it at this, but sadly it is not.  Over the years there have been numerous examples of leftists exhibiting a truly disturbing lack of basic humanity regarding their political opponents.  This includes frequently wishing for their deaths, wishing them ill, and demonizing viciously.  Again, conservatives can be nasty too, but never to this level.  One has to ask – what happens to a person that makes them feel that way against someone who simply disagrees with them?

I think the answer lies in an important distinction. While libertarians and conservatives generally tend to view liberals as OPPONENTS to be defeated, the other side tends to view us as ENEMIES.  To a true liberal, the forces of the right are not simply people who disagree, but evil people that deserve to be personally harmed.  It is rare for a liberal to even acknowledge the very existence of valid dissent – such dissent must always be caused by sinister motives, never founded on legitimate thought.

All of this is important to keep in mind when dealing with a full-fledged progressive.  You’re not dealing with someone who wants to debate and discuss, to be questioned and reasoned with.  You’re dealing with someone who, once they finds out where your views lie, thinks of you as sub-human and detestable.  If you happen to be associated with a right-leaning network, group, etc., don’t expect even basic decency from the left.  They are simply disturbed people, and it’s simply not worth the time and effort to argue with them.  They don’t want to learn.

Do laws and principles matter anymore?

June 17th, 2010

Before I write anything here, let me make one thing clear.  I have no illusions about the fact that there are some things that, even if they are right, cannot or should not be said for political reasons.  We live in the real world and public figures cannot always say what they honestly think because the political reality is what it is.  Numerous figures have learned this lesson the hard way, most recently Rand Paul who, after making what he viewed as valid comments on the Civil Rights Act, was blasted from all corners.  Paul got a very quick tutorial on what you can and cannot say, and that what you feel is not always appropriate for public viewing.

In this light, when we come today to Rep. Barton’s comments defending BP, I am fully aware that his comments are very likely stupid and damaging, from a political sense.  The media and the left are already using them as a platform to deride Republicans as friends to Big Oil, and other GOP members are making distance from Barton.  What I want to cover is, then, whether Barton’s comments, existing outside of a political spectrum, have any worth to them.  I think looking at this is a good lesson on our current realities and what it means for those who might believe things that are not popular or well-accepted.

To begin, I do think Barton, however inelegantly, may have a point.  The behavior of the Obama team regarding BP has been aggressive and often bullying.  By no means should BP be immune from being treated harshly – their mistakes are going to cause massive damage and cost to the Gulf region.  But doesn’t there come a point where things are pushed too far?  I know it may make political sense and be popular, but does the Obama administration have the right to force them to pay into a fund without any kind of legal backing to do so?  In short, can they essentially do whatever they feel like, given that the public accedes to it?

I realize this point is mainly theoretical, as reality is what it is, and as I said above, Rep. Barton’s comments may certainly be seen as stupid and foolish.  But given how the Obama administration has behaved, I think there is something to be said for standing up for BP a little, however hard it may be and however ignominious BP may be at this point.  We would be wise to understand that at some point, principles have to be worth something.  I don’t know if this is the best example, as BP is considered such a bad guy at this point, but I feel like the point has to be made that we should not let politics make us afraid to say what is true.  In this instance, if the Obama administration is indeed acting illegally, I think we should say so.  We can’t just let them do what they want out of fear of being attacked.

I say all of this because I feel we have a group in power now whose first instinct is to pounce and savage opponents.  They have shown no regard for law or process.  We need to at some point realize this and understand that their goal is in fact to terrify us into not stating the truth.  Regardless of the specific instance at hand, we must realize that these guys are essentially bullies, and mentally prepare for what will surely be many battles ahead.  By standing on principle we can show them to be what they are.

Soccer and American opinion

June 12th, 2010

As I write this, the World Cup is just beginning, and soccer fans both here and abroad are in heaven.  And as even American sports media obsesses over this event, it is impossible to avoid, bringing out a dislike for soccer that is almost as passionate.  For in America, where soccer has been promoted for decades, the sport remains quite unpopular.  It helps a little bit to try and understand American positions on soccer.

First of all, it does well to reiterate the level of effort that has gone into trying to make soccer popular in the US.  Many people have devoted great time and money into this goal.  For as long as I can remember, sports and news media have attempted to drill into American brains how popular the sport is worldwide, how it is the “authentic” version of “football,” how all the cool countries in Europe dig it.  We have been taught how uncultured we all are for not appreciating the strategy and beauty of the game.  In short, there has been a lot of work put into convincing Americans to like soccer, up to and including the establishment of a professional league in the States.

And yet despite this, the game’s popularity is very limited here.  In fact, perhaps the effort itself may have caused part of this.  Americans can be a stubborn people and we don’t like being told what to like.  Especially when we are told that international and Europeans like it.  Call it silly, but Americans have a certain pride about them and a resistance to follow world opinion.  Many Americans have a gut distrust of the UN, for example, and mocked John Kerry when he spoke in 2004 about following their lead.

Beyond this, though, the reasons for soccer’s unpopularity extend beyond this.  The fact is, soccer is just a really boring sport.  It is played on a gigantic field, meaning it takes a long time for plays to develop.  It is very low scoring, with 90+ minute games often ending with just a couple goals scored.  Fair or not, the players are viewed as very prone to diving and being dramatic, which I think rubs Americans the wrong way.  It doesn’t help that our teams are largely made fun of even by natives (with the notable exception of the women’s teams).  In the end, most Americans have very little reason to follow soccer.

All of these factors combine to form the nearly intransigent distaste for association football.   I really can’t see the game ever becoming popular in the States.  We resent being told we have to like it, and when we do watch it, we are bored.  So what possible chance does the game have?  Especially when American football is so popular, baseball (a true American game) remains big, and other sports take the rest of our time up.  I, for one, have no interest in it, and I think many sports fans are the same.  So could we stop trying to force it on us?

Cut off the cancer

June 5th, 2010

I would like to share a small experience I had yesterday, and what I feel it means for the Tea Party movement as a whole.

Yesterday, a list that I have been on sent out one of the most ridiculous birther pieces I have yet seen.  It included full-blown pictures of Obama’s supposed Kenyan birth certificate, along with the farcical assertion that his Hawaiian certificate was “forged”.  I immediately emailed the list owner, asking him why he would send out this nonsense.  His reaction?  In what barely amounted to English, he ended up challenging me to meet him face to face, if I was “man enough”.  Really – this was a reaction expected of a child, not a fully grown man.

I had to reach the conclusion, then, that at least this one group has been completely taken over by birthers, and I think that many groups around the country have suffered the same fate.  They are indeed like a disease that slowly infiltrates a group, turning otherwise intelligent people into raving loons.  And every group they take over quickly turns into a conspiracy-theory cesspool that has no hope of being a legitimate player in politics.  It is like a cancer, and once it takes the brain, the creature is rendered useless and dead.

It is my firm position, then, that this sickness must be cut off immediately whenever it is discovered.  Unfortunately, this can be tough, as it can hit even otherwise stalwart folks, who might otherwise be allies and sources of information.  But once birtherism earns its place as a legitimate idea in someone’s mind, they are compromised and must be cut off for the good of the movement as a whole.  If we do not remove this ugliness from our midst, it will continue to infect and eventually destroy the long-term viability of the Tea Party movement.

My policy, then, is what I would also urge others to do – when you hear someone talking about birtherism, do a little probing, and if you find that this person genuinely believes Obama is not a citizen, cut off ties.  If you follow them on Twitter, unfollow them, even block them if you have to. You can argue with them if you so desire, but most likely to no avail.  Their minds have been captured by what can be referred to as Obama Derangement Syndrome – that is, a tendency to believe literally insane things about Obama due to an intense personal hatred of him.

The quicker we do this, the sooner we can minimize the damage done overall.  I would, then, strongly advocate a no-tolerance policy.  It is the only way we can avoid becoming a laughingstock and maintain the integrity needed to be a long-term political player.

On perfection in baseball

June 2nd, 2010

There are a few things that animate people on Twitter like no other.  In my sphere a major political event does the trick.  Other potential culprits include a popular TV show, awards show, or movie.  But often all of these pale compared to a major event in sports.  One team winning, another losing, an amazing accomplishment, or an athlete’s stupid behavior can all get Twitter going quite well.

Tonight’s event was the near perfect game by Armando Gallaraga of the Detroit Tigers.  In the next 24 hours many people will see the video, so I won’t bother posting something that will be on many sites and on TV.  The short story is this – an umpire, Jim Joyce, blew a call on the final out, ruling a runner safe when he was clearly out.  This blown call resulted in a single hit that destroyed the perfect game.  Fans of all allegiances were justifiably outraged.  Within seconds, all manner of nasty things were being said about the ump.  Only after he graciously apologized for his error did the attacks die down.

Now, clearly an inevitable result of this event will be the resurrection of the debate regarding instant replay in baseball.  Replay is something well known to fans of football, hockey, tennis, and other sports.  Each of these sports utilizes cameras and technology to help correct erroneous calls.  Fans have become completely accustomed to the football challenge especially, and the red flag that signifies such a challenge.  I don’t see any significant movement in play to go back to the days before the challenge.  The idea essentially amounts to this – fans want the right call to be made.  With the game often on the line, being accurate is important.

With baseball, though, some fans tend to react quite differently.  This is largely because baseball, unlike football or hockey, has a great deal of romance to it.  It is deeply linked with American history and is viewed as a quintessentially American thing.  Baseball fans, then, view any change to the game with skepticism, especially one that removes what is viewed as part of baseball’s “magic.”  These fans, then, argue that instant replay expansion would destroy the crucial human element of the game.  To them, the failure of the umpires to make perfect calls is one of the important parts of the game.

In my view, these fans are misguided.  I can understand the need to preserve the “essence” of baseball – it is my favorite sport, after all.  But fans that refuse the introduction of modern technology into baseball are ignoring the fact that such technology could potentially eliminate many of the questionable or flat-out wrong calls that plague every team.  When something as meaningful as a perfect game is on the line, it is simply too big to be robbed by an obvious human error.  The fans who oppose replay seem to be fetishizing this sort of preventable error, as if the baseball gods will be pleased that we kept their sport unblemished. (Though, in terms of blemishment, I’d say baseball is pretty damn damaged already by widespread steroid abuse.)

An analogy I could make here is to those who are purists in the political arena.  There is a certain subset of any political group that insists on total purity, and in candidates meeting every requirement and proper opinion.  They are willing to accept defeat and minority status in order to maintain such standards.  In a similar way, baseball fans who oppose replay seem willing to accept that their beloved sport will be filled with easily-correctable mistakes, including earth-shattering ones like tonight’s, in order to maintain the sanctity of the sport.  They are willing to see history prevented, games lost and won wrongly, records affected, and seasons changed by generally honest mistakes that could be erased.  And all to preserve this sense of baseball as something more than a sport, in almost a religious fashion.

I come at it from the complete opposite direction.  I’ve long thought, for instance, that computer assistance could be used in many parts of the game.  While I am sure such changes won’t be adopted, I’ve thought computer-assisted strike zones and safe/out base calls could be implemented using current technology.  Both of these changes would be accepted in time and eliminate a huge amount of uncertainty and frustration for players, managers, and fans.  And in time, such events as occurred to tonight could be avoided entirely.  The game would change, for sure, but it would be into one where winning and losing is not affected by an umpire being distracted or a constantly changing strike zone.  And I, for one, think that it would be a better game for it.

Repealing DADT – an important step

May 27th, 2010

Tonight brought news that the House of Representatives has approved an amendment that will repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the military.  For my cave-dwelling friends, this policy in effect demands that gays serving in the military must never be asked about their orientation, and in turn must never reveal it lest they be dismissed from service.  The policy is a relic of an era when it was feared that open gays would cause severe disruption to the workings of the military.  To that effect, it was decided that in order to still permit gays to serve, they must effectively pretend to be straight for the duration of their service.

The policy itself is wrong for many reasons.  To summarize a few of the big ones:

  • It accepts the premise that being gay is something that is shameful and must be hidden.  This is, at base, a religious and moral judgment that has no place being used to justify policy.
  • It suggests that our troops are all raging homophobes who are unable to handle gays in their midst.  It also suggests troops are not smart enough to know who is gay to begin with.
  • It results in the dismissal of perfectly qualified, patriotic soldiers whose only sin is not being straight.  Just from a logical perspective, this seems like a silly reason to reject otherwise fine people.

These reasons could go on and on, but that has been done in other places in great detail.  My own view is this – it is an outdated policy that has no place in a society that endeavors to be fair and tolerant.  Those aren’t just buzzwords – we need to move towards being a country that accepts any personal choice that causes no harm to others.  In that regard, repealing DADT is an important step in that direction.  My hope is that we can continue this trend, though we have a long way to go.

Those opposing it need to ask themselves some serious questions.  First, is your opposition based in whole or in part on a view that homosexuality is sinful and wrong?  Second, if you do believe it is wrong, do you feel that this belief should be translated into public policy?  If so, then you should ask yourself why you feel like you have the right to impose your views on others, and whether you truly believe in personal freedom.  I’m sad to say many of my conservative friends will fall into this category.

Why rooting for the Phillies is rooting for freedom

May 19th, 2010

While lying in bed last night, a few thoughts occurred to me.  Consider the following:

  • The Pennsylvania Senate election is going to be hotly contested
  • Philadelphia votes overwhelmingly Democratic
  • The World Series could potentially end right around Election Day

With those facts established, consider this.  If the Phillies were to go to the World Series, it would greatly distract the citizens of Philadelphia.  Trust me – we love our baseball and when the Phillies won the Series two years ago, it was basically a region-wide party.  If the Phils were to go to the World Series and win, the whole city would be in party mode and no one would care about the election.   Or at the very least, turnout would be lower due to hangovers.

If Philly is distracted, the lockstep Democrat voters would not turn out, and Pat Toomey would have a much better shot at winning the race.  It is my position, then, that by rooting for the Phillies to win the World Series, you are essentially rooting for freedom.  A Phillies win helps a Toomey win which helps America.  So, if you are a patriot, you will surely join me in cheering on the Philadelphia Phillies!

Of course I’m only half-serious.  But in an election as important as this one, we all have to put aside our differences!

Unacceptable Candidates

May 16th, 2010

Clearly, it is still early on to be speculating about potential 2012 Presidential candidates.  We should be focusing on the 2010 elections as much as possible.  But, like every other political dork out there, I cannot resist observing and commenting on who appear to be the current frontrunners. I think it can help one tell where the party is currently.  In particular, I am curious to see how the Tea Party movement has affected things, and if the party really has taken a step towards truly limited government.

Judging by the results of a recent poll posted at NRO, it would appear that the effect may be smaller than we had thought.  For starters, the emphasis the Tea Party has seemed to place on fiscal conservatism, as opposed to social conservatism, has not dented the approval of candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.  One can perhaps see the appeal of Sarah Palin, being the icon she has become to many.  But it is very, very worrying that Huckabee is even in the picture.  He is both an aggressive social conservative (and, I believe, a bigot), and not a good fiscal conservative at all.  He is a populist entertainer, and that’s being kind.

If the Republican Party is going to continue to embrace the style of Palin and Huckabee, we are in big trouble.  Both are mainly popular amongst white Christians.  Needless to say, that is a major part of the party base but not near enough to win any future elections.  To win these elections, the GOP needs to focus on the issues that matter to people at this point in time – things like massive spending, expanding government, unemployment, and energy.  In focusing on these over the past couple years, the GOP has regained the help of many previously dispirited Americans and made a good case against those who say the parties are no different.

If, instead, a strong social conservative is nominated, the conservative-libertarian coalition that has powered the Tea Party movement would shatter.  Quite simply, libertarians and conservatives are worlds apart on social issues.  To the average libertarian, for example, the idea of supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is an absolutely unacceptable attack on freedom, and a gross abuse of power to satisfy a base that is, sadly, largely anti-gay.  Yet Palin, Huckabee, and other social conservatives like John Thune find this to be an acceptable use of power.  This type of thing shows the existence of the always-present fault line inherent in the GOP.  Were the fracture to happen, it would demolish the GOP and any chance of winning anything but the reddest of red states.

We must, then, reject and shy away from any candidate that would further such a break.  The above mentioned candidates would all do so to some degree.  Huckabee and Palin are just two well-known examples of politicians who believe in a sort of “freedom for me, but not for thee” ideology that makes libertarians’ skin crawl.  Their positions on economic issues are largely sound, but when it comes to issues of personal freedom they hold some atrocious views.  Their voices are welcome in the party, but they must not be allowed to become seen as leaders, let alone the party nominee.  That would be a complete disaster.

Quick Hits Volume 1

May 6th, 2010

Sometimes you can’t come up with a topic that deserves an entire blog entry by itself.  This has been the case this past week or so.  I’ve had a few ideas but nothing that I thought could produce a whole entry.  Thus, I am introducing Quick Hits, essentially a series of brief comments about various subjects.

  • First of all, I would like to follow up on the comments being made across many of the blogs I follow regarding the flooding disaster in Nashville (and Middle Tennessee at large).  To put in mildly, the pictures have been shocking, and yet it has hardly been mentioned across the media.  The current damage total is exceeding $1b and will surely climb – to my knowledge much of the city is still flooded.  I want to thank my Twitter friends for their updates on the situation.  I think a large part of the reason the media seem to be ignoring it is because it doesn’t suit one of their narratives.  Unlike New Orleans they can’t make a point about racism or an incompetent Republican president.  The people of Nashville seem to be helping each other out and taking care of themselves.
  • I also have had some time to think about the Arizona immigration law.  The insane and ignorant comments of a number of people on the Left caused me to seriously look at my own position.  There is nothing like agreeing with Al Sharpton to make you rethink things.  Now, I still think it’s a bad law.  It is ripe for abuse and will likely catch mainly the most harmless of illegal aliens.  But the idea that this somehow is violently racist or Nazi-like is freaking insane.  People are asked for their “papers” all the time, and as I understand it, with the new amendments to the law it can only be during another police action and something like a driver’s license would suffice.  I don’t see it as especially Hitleresque when I’m asked for my ID at the bar because I look young.  So please, can we stop with the insane rhetoric?
  • Media ignorance has also been on full display lately.  In an audio byte that’s making the rounds, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer explains her exasperation that the Times Square bomber ended up being Pakistani.  I think it in a nutshell summed up both the extreme PC side of the media that hates taking about Muslim terrorism, and the nasty side that wanted the bomber to be a Tea Partier.  This was expressed perfectly by the idiotic, despicable mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, who suggested the bomber was someone who was “mad about the health care bill.”  Another example of media malfeasance?  This past Sunday’s exceptionally left-leaning panel on ABC’s this week, as pointed out over at Jimmie Bise’s blog.  From my view, Bill Maher is one of the most atrocious human beings out there and has no place anywhere respectable, but he wasn’t even the most liberal member there (that likely goes to Katrina vanden Heuvel).  The panel was basically three far-leftists, one left-leaning moderate, and George Will.  The fact that this seemed balanced shows a great deal about the MSM.
  • Finally, a brief word of warning to some of my brethren.  I think we need to avoid becoming like the Left was during the Bush administration – obsessively negative, not even giving Obama the slightest bit of slack.  Now, I believe Obama has been terrible in many ways, and I also believe he actively resents criticism.  But I will always recall a statement I read years ago regarding Keith Olbermann’s treatment of Bush – that he doesn’t even give Bush the “benefit of humanity.”  That is, people like Olbermann did not even treat Bush like he was a human being, but rather some sort of evil demon.  We must avoid doing the same with Obama, as much as we dislike him.  Let’s be careful about saying some things, like suggesting he bombed the oil rig in the Gulf, wants Americans to be killed by terrorists, or similar things.  Let’s squash the poisonous birther nonsense, not even giving it the slightest credence.  By doing so, we maintain credibility, which is crucial when we are trying to convince independents.