Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Sarah Palin responds to accusations of being an accessory to murder

Sarah Palin released a video this morning responding to the trajectory this country and its political talking points have taken since the Tucson massacre of 8 January:


Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

The transcript for this video, in case it disappears again (it was gone briefly due to a technical hitch), follows (courtesy Sarah Palin's Facebook page):

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

- Sarah Palin

Already people are jumping on Gov. Palin's use of the term "blood libel".  But, as was pointed out first to me by Melissa Clouthier, the term was used first by Glenn Reynolds in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal two days ago.  Where was the outcry then?  Oh, wait, it wasn't Sarah Palin saying it then.  But is the term accurate, regardless of who used it?  Some people think so:

Falsely accusing someone of shedding blood is a blood libel – whether it’s the medieval Church accusing Jews of baking blood in Passover matzos, or contemporary Muslim extremists accusing Israel of slaughtering Arabs to harvest their organs, or political partisans blaming conservative political figures and talk show hosts for the Tucson massacre.

And who were these people?  Why, they're the Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin.  I do believe the Jews know a little something about blood libel.

So, that point aside, how was Gov. Palin's speech?  I thought it was well-written and right for this political climate.  Hopefully people will take it to heart.

Monday, January 10, 2011

The Arizona tragedy: the good and the bad responses

There was a lot of good in the responses I have seen to Saturday's Arizona massacre.  Obviously, there was Daniel Hernandez, the intern who rushed to the side of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; I have read that his actions saved her life, and they were obviously heroic.  Also praiseworthy is the group that is organizing to form a blockade against the haters from Westboro Baptist Church (a church whose actions disgust me and many other Christians...how is any form of hate showing the love of Christ?), who are planning to protest at the funeral of 9-year-old Christina Green.  The moment of silence held today by people from both political parties was a good gesture, as have been all the prayers for the victims and the families.

Unfortunately, the good that can come out of the worst of events is overshadowed so much by the pettiness, sniping, and politicizing to a level I don't remember seeing in recent memory.  Almost immediately there were people pointing fingers at the usual suspects, the foremost of whom, of course, was Sarah Palin.  See, her PAC (political action group, for the uninitiated) targeted 20 House districts which voted for McCain-Palin but were held by Democrats.  (The original Facebook post is here, and the comments are going nuts.)  The symbol over each of these districts appears to be cross hairs.  One of those districts belongs to Rep. Giffords.  And so, obviously, by some leap of logic that escapes me, Sarah Palin was responsible for the shootings in Tucson. 

Jim Treacher at the Daily Caller has correlated several people all jumping to the same Palin-is-responsible conclusion here.  As Mr. Treacher says, "it was only a matter of minutes before blame for the incident could be assigned."  And assigned it was, all to the same people.  (And a lot of other people seem to be looking for a roadmap to that same conclusion, including several people who have found this entry on my blog while searching for some variant of "palin incendiary comments".)

But is that really the way to handle this tragedy?  First of all, there is no evidence that the assailant, Jared Lee Loughner, paid much attention to Sarah Palin at all.  Second, thanks to the rush to judgment by the people mentioned in Mr. Treacher's article, there was a counter-push of conservatives and Tea Partiers which can be summarized as "Oh, yeah?  Well, you hate worse!"  And they have a point.  Michelle Malkin compiled what appears to be a master list of liberal hatred toward conservatives, starting with a lot of hatred toward Sarah Palin and George W. Bush and moving toward topic-specific hatred.  (Because of such hatred, this link is NSFW.)

Oh, and third, Neal Boortz reports that Gov. Palin's office is saying the symbols weren't even cross hairs anyway; they were surveyor's marks.  And so Mr. Boortz links to a PDF from the U.S. Geological Survey which uses a very familiar symbol for a "principal point".  (Of course, then Mr. Boortz shows maps from the Democrats showing targets.  Not something that looks like cross hairs--actual targets.  But then, maybe they were just organizing against Walmart.)  There's more on the whole targeting of blame toward Sarah Palin and other like-minded people from Mr. Boortz here.

And fourth?  Sarah Palin weighed in on this herself, in an e-mail to Glenn Beck, as reported by The Right Scoop.  As read by Mr. Beck, Sarah Palin wrote the following:

I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence. Thanks for all you do to send the message of truth and love and God as the answer. -Sarah

Yeah, she's a real purveyor of hatred, isn't she?

So how do I respond to all the sniping right now?  Do I spend several more paragraphs focusing on a Democrat who called for the Republican candidate for the governorship of Florida to be shot?  Do I wax poetic at the absurdity of those who started a petition (signed by 3910 people at this writing) for Sarah Palin to be indicted for the Tucson massacre?  Do I point out, as multiple people linked already have done, that no less than Barack Obama said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"?

Is this discussion even worth it anymore?  Or does the discussion of political ideas need to be changed one person at a time, starting with me?  Starting with you?

The change to political discussion, at least for me, has to come as part of a greater transformation.  I today read this post from Scot McKnight, in which he reminded me that "[t]he problem is that human beings are cracked," and in which he said:
But the problem, Mr and Mrs Pundit, is not the Right or the Left. The problem is You and Me. Let’s quit the blame and look inside.

And so my response to the Tucson massacre, as well as to another issue about which I intend to write ASAP (because my most faithful reader asked why I haven't blogged lately), is to remind myself that there are things that I need to change.  I don't think I've demonized political opposites before, but I will redouble efforts not to do so. (No, I'm not swearing off snark.  There's always a place for well-used snark.  But snark must take a back seat to civility when the two don't jibe.) 

So, who wants to join me on this journey?  You, gentle reader, must decide if you want to continue to spew hatred at Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or whoever.  But for me, it's time for this road to end.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

As quickly as it came, "Mega" departs

Well, that didn't last long.

Apparently the 102.7 translator that, just two weeks ago, started simulcasting Mega (103.5 FM-HD2), has dropped Mega in favor of already-on-the-FM-dial KGSR 93.3.  Per RadioInsight.com, this fulfills a prior promise to boost KGSR's signal after its move from 107.1.

As for Mega listeners, depending on the part of the area in which they live, they may still be able to hear Mega on K288FJ, the translator at 105.5.  The catch:  that translator is located in Bastrop.

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

"Mega" returns to Austin airwaves

Courtesy RadioInsight.com:

Mega, the dance format last seen (for those who don't have an HD radio) at 93.3 in Austin, has returned to the airwaves via the translator at 102.7 that once was used for Hill Country oldies station KITY.  Until now, Mega had only been available as the HD2 signal of KBPA 103.5 (Bob FM), or, of course, online.

Of course, Mega was not a ratings success, which is why the format of 93.3 was changed to the still-lamented Hot 93.3 (at least it appears to still be lamented, judging by the number of hits I get from the search terms "what happened to hot 93.3" or some variant).  However, with a low-power translator (which still occasionally is overridden in south Austin by Jack FM out of San Antonio), the return on investment probably doesn't need to be nearly as high, and so my guess is that we'll be seeing Mega at 102.7 for some time to come.

Update:  My guess was wrong.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

2010 Online Red Kettle, and other ways to help out this holiday season

As has been my wont for the past couple of years, I am once again hosting an Online Red Kettle for the Salvation Army, for those who have either already finished their shopping or want to plan out their donations in advance.

So, if you would like to donate through my virtual kettle, you can do so by clicking the kettle below:

(Image courtesy The Salvation Army)


A couple of other ways to help out this holiday season (and, really, any time) are as follows:

If you are in the Austin area, the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas, where, according to what they have said, your monetary donation can go about five times as far as a food donation, as they can buy in bulk and save money.  They do a lot of good work, and we've supported them before.

Also, my online friend (though we disagree politically) Kim Doyle Wille supports (and I believe I have as well, by participating in one of those retweet-this-hashtag-and-we'll-donate-money schemes) Feeding America, which is a more national program than our local food bank, obviously.

All of these options are well worth your support.  Regardless of your where your political and religious affiliations lie this holiday season, let's all help someone out who needs it.

"Snowed In" Nominated for Austin Blogger Award!

Wow.  Until today, I did not even realize there was such a thing as the Austin Blogger Awards.  (Yeah, it's new for 2010, created by local megablog Republic of Austin.)

And I was even more shocked to find that your humble author's blog was one of the five finalists in the category of "Best Local Politics Blog", particularly since a lot of the recent entries concern the decidedly non-local Bristol Palin (as does yet another upcoming entry, which will undoubtedly thrill "toque").  Well, there were also a few about up-and-comer and certain-to-be-2012-TX25-candidate Donna Campbell, as well as a couple of State House-related entries.  And who knows, maybe some nice readers still remember what was, at the time, a rather big scandal involving former City Council member Jennifer Kim.  (It should be noted that one of my local politics blog competitors had an assist in helping me break that one.)

But whatever the reason, I am pleasantly surprised, to say the least, to see my blog honored with four other blogs, all of which are rather well-known, at least by me.  I very much appreciate whoever nominated me.*  Thank you.

So, then, I would appreciate it if you would use the link below and vote for me by 5pm CST on Friday, December 3.

(Image courtesy Austin Blogger Awards)

*No, I didn't nominate myself, as far as I remember, and if I did, I probably would have kept my nomination to some category such as "Least Often Updated Local Blogs".

Thursday, November 18, 2010

On a personal note...

Hello, "toque" of Hamilton, Ontario.  Thanks for the link.  Though I must say I feel a little like I'm being stalked here, what with you hitting my blog multiple times yesterday.

I'm sorry you think I'm an idiot for supporting the positions of a politician you don't like, and for voting, legitimately*, for her daughter on a reality show.  And I have to say, I see a little disconnect between your saying that you are a Christian and your calling us "these idiots"--in the same paragraph, no less.  I don't think you're an idiot, as I have no idea who you are.  But as you seem to know me so well, perhaps you can elaborate as to why my voting for Bristol makes me such an idiot, and why it is so much worse than, say, voting for Sanjaya.  (I'm pretty you know who Sanjaya is, given your more than eight thousand posts on a reality TV message board.)

Or are you, perhaps, one of many people blinded by hatred--yes, hatred--for Sarah Palin, to the point that you think anyone who might agree with her politically is either evil, stupid, or both?

In any case, the traffic is appreciated.  But you might remember that someone on the other side of the screen is still entitled to an opinion even if that person disagrees with you.  You're entitled to think I'm an idiot, just as I'm entitled to think you need to rethink your opinion.

Kthxbye.

* I never said everyone voting for Bristol was cheating in my last post.  I certainly am not.**  Yes, I know a few people are.  I may have to revisit the topic.


** Heck, the kid's using half the household votes for Kyle.  Stop the presses, it's a Disney Channel conspiracy!!!!11!!

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Politics and Prizes: Are conservatives pushing Bristol, and if so, so what?

The successful run of Bristol Palin on ABC's Dancing With the Stars has caused reactions that run the gamut from delight in her success to vitriol at those awful right-wing conspirators to total indifference.  (Strangely, one person I know spends way too much time telling people that he doesn't care about things like this, which lead me to believe that he does care about things like this...)

I've written before about the haters, but now, in addition to their constant whines of "she's not a star" and various cheap shots and simply untrue statements about her character, some people have gotten it into their heads that Ms. Palin is the object of a large-scale conspiracy to cheat the system because all these Tea Partiers (I won't use their favorite term) are voting for her.

First of all, yes, there are definitely a lot of people who want to vote for Ms. Palin.  Yes, part of that, apparently, is something called "Operation Bristol", which seems to be spearheaded by online talk show host Tammy Bruce. She explained it in a recent tweet:


And in addition to "Operation Bristol", there are, in fact, a lot of other Sarah Palin fans who want to vote for her daughter, especially after the same hatred some directed at Sarah was directed at Bristol.  For both of these women, the amount of hatred some people have dished out is way, way out of proportion with their station in life.  (And yes, that was true even when Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska...some people--and I could name names, but I'm not gonna give them the attention they seem to so desperately want--threw everything in the book at her in the form of bogus ethics charges, nasty online rumors about her marriage or her fifth child, etc.  No one deserves that, even if they are a governor, or even a president.)  When I, and presumably others, see someone unfairly on the receiving end of that ugliness, we try to defend the one attacked.

Plus, Bristol is an underdog.  People love an underdog, unless they're blinded by partisan hate, and judging from the tweets every week when Bristol survives, a lot of people are so blinded. 

And, in my opinion, for what it's worth, Ms. Palin has shown a vast improvement in her dancing since this competition began.  But let's call a spade a spade.  A lot of people just like Bristol Palin, even if you don't.  (I've written about why that is the case here.)  And no amount of whiny tweets, whiny blog articles, or whatever else--such as this Tampa Tribune article linked by Free Republic (in which Bristol is unfairly characterized as having "stumbled her way through two dances" when in fact this week was her best week)--is going to keep me from voting for her.  (What will is a child wanting to vote for Kyle Massey because of having watched way too much Disney Channel.  But I digress.)

If you don't like that people are voting for Bristol, talk to ABC, which allows audience voting to determine half the score, or to Fox, which started the audience-determined reality competition craze in this country with American Idol.  They know that the audience voting is what keeps people watching, and occasionally the audience isn't going to vote for the judges' favorites.  Remember Kris Allen?  Steve Wozniak?  Sanjaya?

(Aside:  Firefox's spellchecker does not flag "Wozniak".  Somehow I'm not surprised.)

Besides, do you folks think that people are just stupid? Or that Bristol is somehow undeserving of public support because--gasp--she's related to a conservative?  Do you really think that accolades aren't given to people on the other side of the political spectrum, simply because they are on the other side of the political spectrum?

Take, for example, the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, which has previously honored such comedy legends as Richard Pryor, Bob Newhart, and Bill Cosby.  To whom was this prestigious prize given this year?

Tina Fey.

Tina "I can see Russia from my house" Fey.

Really?

Tina Fey, while a talented writer, actor, and comedian, almost certainly got this award, along with a good portion of her name recognition, for impersonating one Sarah Palin, and for the damage that did to public perception of Governor Palin, who, as much as SNL-watchers might want to believe it, is not an idiot.  Other than that, Ms. Fey had a fairly nice career, but nothing to compare with last year's winner, Mr. Cosby.  Can you tell me that politics--specifically, left-wing politics--did not play a role in this?

Don't believe it?  The Washington Post seems to.  And so does Ms. Fey:

A lot of Sarah Palin in today's Style section. It was inevitable: First, there was Tina Fey, launched to zeitgeist heights by her Sarah Palin imitation, receiving the Mark Twain Prize, and of course it came up in her acceptance speach, as she "offered some mock hands-across-the-political-divide commentary," writes Paul Farhi.
The rise of conservative women in politics, [Fey] said pointedly, is good for all women, "unless you don't want to pay for your own rape kit . . . unless you're a lesbian who wants to get married to your partner of 20 years . . . [or] unless you believe in evolution." The lines played first to nervous laughter and then to not much laughter at all.

Or, if you like, we can go back a few years to when the Dixie Chicks won multiple Grammy Awards for their song "Not Ready to Make Nice", basically a collective thumbing of their noses at people who did not care for Natalie Maines's anti-Bush statements.  Given that the song did not receive a lot of airplay on many country stations, it certainly didn't win because of a groundswell of support from radio listeners.

And, oh yeah, how about last year's Nobel Peace Prize?  You might recall that it was awarded to President Obama, partially because, as Thorbjørn Jagland put it, "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason."  In layman's terms, President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize because he was not George W. Bush.

These three examples are just the first ones that came to mind.  I could find more.  A lot more, I'd bet.

So, yeah, at least part of Bristol Palin's success on Dancing With the Stars is political.  But don't ever tell me that the other side doesn't do this too.  And don't complain because our side is doing it back.

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

The light-bulb question revisited

Rick Perry's recent visit to The Daily Show appears to have been well-received by most.  With that said, though, PolitiFact took issue with a few of the comments that he made on the show; apparently he has made the same types of comments in his book, Fed Up!  Our Fight to Save America from Washington (Disclaimer:  I get paid if you buy through this link.), and PolitiFact, styling itself as a shining beacon of truth, feels the need to revisit statements it made earlier.

One of PolitiFact's statements piqued my interest, as it was something on which I have opined before, namely, the phasing out of incandescent lamps over the next few years.

(Aside:  those not in the lighting business call them "light bulbs", but from what I have seen, those in the business call them "lamps", "luminaires", etc.  One person once told me, rather haughtily, that "bulbs" are those things you plant in the ground.)

Now, PolitiFact rated Governor Perry's statement that Washington is "even telling us what kind of light bulb we can use" as Barely True.  But is that a fair assessment?  Well, let's look at PolitiFact's assertions.

What we found: In 2007, Congress voted to improve the efficiency of light bulbs. President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act, which set energy efficiency standards for kinds of incandescent lamps (light bulbs), incandescent reflector lamps (like track lighting in your kitchen), and fluorescent lamps, according to a December 2007 summary by the Congressional Research Service.

So far, so good.  The EISA was what eventually came from Congress after some rather clunky earlier attempts

PolitiFact continues:

Our search for instances of the government directing which bulbs residents can use unearthed a June 2010 editorial in the Washington Times objecting to Federal Trade Commission-issued regulations of light-bulb labels. The editorial says the regs were ordered by Congress as part of its 2007 decision to force the more efficient, curlicue-shaped compact fluorescent light bulb "on a public that so far has refused to embrace it willingly. Beginning Jan. 1, 2012, the editorial says, bureaucratic rules will phase in, and" conventional 100-watt bulbs "will be first on the contraband list."

It sure sounds as if Washington is meddling with the types of lamps one can use to light one's home, office, or wherever, doesn't it?  PolitiFact doesn't think so:

Jen Stutsman, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Energy, told us that conventional incandescent bulbs are not expected to meet the efficiency standards Congress set, though the government expects manufacturers to improve incandescent technologies to meet the higher standards or consumers will move to compact fluorescent light bulbs, LED technologies or halogens. She said new standards for 100-watt bulbs take effect in January 2012. New standards for 75-watt bulbs start in 2013 and standards for 60- and 40-watt bulbs start in 2014.

Stutsman said the expected shifts aren't equivalent to the government telling Americans which light bulbs to use. "Under no circumstances does it say that a consumer must purchase a specific type of light bulb," Stutsman said.

No, but it makes it impossible for a plurality, if not a majority, of the American people to get the traditional light bulb they want.  Ms. Stutsman is being generous in saying that "conventional incandescent bulbs are not expected to meet the efficiency standards Congress set".  It is simply not possible for a traditional tungsten filament incandescent lamp to meet those standards.

And why is that?  Well, let's look at the EISA itself, specifically Section 321:

`GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated Lumen Ranges Maximum Rate Wattage Minimum Rate Lifetime Effective Date 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1490-2600                   72             1,000 hrs       1/1/2012 
1050-1489                   53             1,000 hrs       1/1/2013 
750-1049                   43             1,000 hrs       1/1/2014 
310-749                   29             1,000 hrs       1/1/2014 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the morning of January 1, 2012, the country will wake up to discover that the 100-watt incandescent lamp (which produces about 1750 lumens and therefore falls into the first category) is no more, replaced with a 72-watt bulb with something other than a tungsten filament, since the tungsten filament is pretty much the same as it was when Edison perfected it.  (Oh, and guess what:  it'll be more expensive.)

So, in that respect, if you wanted to buy a regular old 100-watt light bulb in January 2012, the government very much would have mandated that you could not do so.  I call that a lot more than a Barely True.

(Postscript:  I know the reasoning behind these moves.  I know why some people like incandescent lamps and why others don't.  I also have already said that I believe that LED lamps will be in the mainstream within five years.   I'm not trying to debate lighting at this point.  It just serves as an example of nanny-state government on the rampage.  Rick Perry was pointing that out, and PolitiFact, I believe, had to get rather technical in an attempt to score a cheap point against him.)

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Where Do We Go From Here?

As in 2008, one side won big in yesterday's elections.  This year, though, the winning side was the side that did not win in 2008.  So what happens next?  Well, as in 2008, I have a few thoughts, some of which are recycled from back then:

Democrats:

1. Now is the time to congratulate the Republicans who just retook the House. Pray that God blesses them, and all our country's, and our world's, leaders with much-needed wisdom.

2. That doesn't mean that there is not room to oppose the policies and programs desired by the Republicans. Of course there's room for that. But there's a way to oppose a policy without tearing down a person.  Both sides are sadly experts on tearing people down.  Enough is enough.

3. It is time to decide if the current policies of the Democrats--specifically, the vast expansion of the federal government and trillion-dollar deficits, which can only lead to much, much higher taxes--are reasonable and proper for this country to follow.  The voters seemingly have said that they are not.

4. And that leads to the next action item: do not let the MSM and quasi-conservative pundits tell you that the problem was that your side did not get its message out.  Trust me, you did.  It was rejected.

5. Like it or not, the other side holds a better hand at this time. There will be opportunities to work with them on items that are important to both sides.  For example, you may have noticed that you're running out of time to avoid having a nasty tax increase (about which I wrote here) hit the American people.

6. Absolutely, positively, don't be jerks about it. Yes, the voters resoundingly disagreed with you. That doesn't mean they're any less intelligent or more evil, or that they hate people. (And, as I've said before, they're overwhelmingly not racists.)  Do not sink to the level to which some on your side descended six years ago. Remember the disparaging cries of "Jesusland"? The contempt directed toward middle America? Jim Treacher will remind you, if you really want to revisit that era. (Some of his examples of that behavior are NSFW/language.)

Republicans:

1. Yes, by all means celebrate this win. Realize, though, that in most instances, you did not earn it, in all seriousness.  This was a repudiation of the Democrats' policies and their absolute overreach with regard to the size and job of the federal government.

2. Remember that it is possible for people to oppose your policies, too, without being evil, stupid, or whatever.

3. There will be opportunities to work with the Dems on policies, but remember, you were elected because the majority of voters want government to change course from the direction in which it was headed, not just during the Obama Administration, but during most of the Bush Administration as well.  Don't compromise the principles the voters affirmed.

4. Can we stop the infighting, please?  I see people all over Twitter saying the Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate (no, they didn't), and of course, the quasi-conservative pundits have taken shots at Sarah Palin since the day her VP candidacy was announced.  Stop already.

5. Again, do not be jerks about it. And don't go around telling the other side its viewpoint is invalid because our side lost this one.  I may disagree with your opinion, but that doesn't invalid it.

And for everyone: be thankful it's over, and enjoy the Christmas ads!