We are Americans!

In my post I entitled "The Media in General and the New York Times in Particular" I decried the tendency on the part of the media and in that case PBS to “create an artificial or false equivalence…”

That is even truer as between the parties. As I watch the present campaign rhetoric and compare it to history I am struck by the fact that Democrats, as a group tend to be more American first and Democrats second, while the reverse is true about Republicans.

This came to me quite by accident as I was reviewing some old material on my computer. I found the following first person description of one who was in the World Trade Center on 9/11. It is very dramatic and I urge the reader to read it here. 

But the point that struck me most of all was the ending of that piece. Allow me to quote it here:

Today the images that people around the world equate with power and democracy are gone but “America” is not an image it is a concept. That concept is only strengthened by our pulling together as a team. If you want to kill us, leave us alone because we will do it by ourselves. If you want to make us stronger, attack and we unite. This is the ultimate failure of terrorism against The United States and the ultimate price we pay to be free, to decide where we want to work, what we want to eat, and when & where we want to go on vacation. The very moment the first plane was hijacked, democracy won.

Compare that to the long running smears against Democrats that I related in my post: "The Election (Discussion)" Allow me to quote:

… for some reason Democrats have always been held to a much higher standard than Republicans. You will remember Joe McCarthy's charge during the Truman Administration of "twenty years of treason." What was worse is that when the Democratic led Tydings Committee "concluded that the individuals on McCarthy's list were neither Communists nor pro-communist, and said the State Department had an effective security program" and "labeled McCarthy's charges a "fraud and a hoax". Republicans responded in kind, with William E. Jenner stating that Tydings was guilty of "the most brazen whitewash of treasonable conspiracy in our history.” The full Senate voted three times on whether to accept the report, and each time the voting was precisely divided along party lines.”

But that is not even ancient history. Ann Coulter, a darling of Republicans recently, wrote: "Twenty years of treason hasn't slowed them down." and charged "50 years of treason.” 

Now compare that to the reaction as shown in the quote above. In response to 9/11 Democrats rallied around the President. They did so even though there were many questions about Bush’s negligence in not stopping the attack. The outgoing Clinton Administration had warned the President that a major attack on the US was a serious threat. It was ignored.

The hijackers were training for the attack in American flight schools, and agencies of the Bush Administration knew about it, but they did not “connect the dots.” The Bush Administration was clearly negligent in a major and dangerous way. But this was not the time for recriminations. Democrats held their fire. The said we are Americans first and partisans second. This was a time for unity.

Contrast that with the way Republicans are treating the attack in Ben Gazi, Libya, (Which by the way is not the capital of Libya and is not where our Embassy is located. What was attacked was a Consulate. The Embassy is in Tripoli.) Again we have been attacked. A time for unity? Not for Republicans! It is, as it has always been, a chance for divisiveness. Not for patriotism. Not for unity. A chance to divide the country on National Security.

Have they, or we, already forgotten how even after 9/11 Al Qaeda continued its terrorist attacks, if not on our territory on the territory of our allies. Have we forgotten the bombing of the London subway, or the attacks on our allies in other parts of the world? Obama put a stop to it even before he tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden. A decimated Al Qaeda staged they Libyan attack in order to seem relevant again. And Republicans, led by Romney and Ryan are giving them the stage they were, and are, seeking.

For shame! For shame!

They wave the flag! They wear flag pins! And they don’t know the meaning of patriotism. Only how to advance their agenda.

And what is their agenda? They accuse the President, “No Drama Obama” of being soft. He may have been in the first debate, but he sure isn’t when it comes to being what he was elected to do. He isn’t the best at blowing his own horn, or exposing the hypocrisy of his opponent, but as President, as Commander in Chief, he is always there.

Ryan during his Debate with the VP criticized Obama on Iran. He claimed that it took Republicans in Congress to toughen sanctions. Wow, we got a bipartisan bill through Congress 421-6 in the House and by voice vote in the Senate and it is promptly signed into law by “No Drama Obama” and Ryan claims this somehow reflects badly on the President and/or Democrats.

But of course no unilateral sanctions by the US has any meaning unless such sanction are imposed by a multiplicity of countries. That has been the genius of this Administration. They got something, that none of these unilateralist could have gotten! They got effective international sanctions against Iran.

Bloomberg news reports: 

Iran’s freefalling currency is turning meat into a luxury, sparking overnight price surges and spurring shoppers to stockpile goods…. Iran’s rial is in a tailspin, having lost more than half of its value against the dollar in street trading in the past two months as U.S. and European sanctions aimed at curbing the country’s nuclear program bite. Riot police yesterday fired tear gas and sealed off parts of downtown Tehran after the currency’s plunge triggered street protests.

Short of military action, whose effectiveness is problematic, and which Romney/Ryan do not advocate, (or maybe they do ---who knows, they make statement all over the map) what more could have been done. It has now been effective beyond any expectation or hope. It might end up bringing the regime down.

But how did we get here in the first place? 

It was Republican Secretary of State, Foster Dulles, and his brother Allen Dulles head of the CIA, in the Eisenhower administration who overthrew an Iranian Democratically elected government and installed the hated Shah, which in turn led directly to the Shah’s overthrow by the Ayatollah.

It isn’t just people. Parties matter. And while Democrats are not angels, (the system will not allow it) the differences between them are like night and day.

They (Republcians – Romney – Ryan) say Obama has not created enough jobs since he took office in January. They do this by counting the job losses the country sustained on the day the President took office. This is an absurd approach. Presidents don’t control events on the day and in the months immediately after they are sworn in. Obama acted fast! He got the stimulus bill signed into law on February 17, 2009 less than a month after being sworn in. It took until the end of March to have an effect. Look at the graph below: 

By April job losses had gone from 850,000 the day he took office to only 200,000 by May and except for a small spike in the middle of summer, the trend has been for the better every year. Republicans have been touting “Unemployment is still over 8%.” Well, it isn’t any more. This is a party that celebrates unemployment. It may not be good for the country, but it is good for the party.

But say Republicans through the mouth of Romney and Ryan does he (Obama) have any other plans. Well yes! On August 2, 2011 Business Insider had the headline “Congress AWOL ON Jobs.” They hold the country hostage and then blame our President. That is their patriotism.

And what of their nominee? He is the Invisible man*! Well, he may not be invisible, but his plans for the American people are top secret. He will cut $5 trillion in taxes, mostly for the rich, and make it up with ------ “it’s a secret.” He will find it in tax expenditures, but not of the most important kind, not the advantaged (for the rich) capital gains tax – that’s off limits. Dividends mostly earned by the rich – that’s off limits. Inheritance taxes, the means by which inherited aristocracies are built – that’s off limits. What’s left –it’s a secret.

           

What nefarious secrets are contained in his tax returns? We don’t know. It’s a secret.

This shouldn’t be a close election. Obama ought to win by a landslide and get a Congress that will work with him. But the American people, or about half of them, are deluded and deceived.

I pray for the future of my country, for I AM AN AMERICAN.

----------------------------------------------------------

*Borrowed from the book by that name by H.G. Wells

The Election (Discussion)

I published "The Election" on August 30, 2012 and was gratified at the fact that I received comments from 18 people.

I was deeply disappointed, however, by the fact that except for Janet Cooke of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania none responded to my plea at the end of my post:

That means contributing money till it hurts. It means joining phone banks. It means doing all that is within our power to forestall the tragedy that looms for our country and posterity.

Janet simply wrote "I'll be volunteering for Obama."

I don’t believe it is enough to express concern about the looming catastrophe. In the end what counts is what we do to forestall it and while the fact that it isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean that my respondents are not doing anything, I fear that this may be so.

As for me, I do put my money where my mouth is. Since January, I authorized monthly charges to my credit card to Obama for America. On August 12, I made an additional contribution of $50 and on August 29 I decided I had better become serious and contributed $1,000 to the campaign. I expect to max out my contributions before November at $2,500.

In addition I have been contributing to the DemocraticNational Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and liberal organization like People for the American Way, environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, Planned Parenthood and countless others. All of these can be accessed by clicking on their name.

I do not expect my readers to match my zeal, but if you care about our country, you ought to do more than nod your head and say the right things.

Now here are a selection of exchanges that I had with my readers, starting with Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ:

While you and I have had some serious disagreements about Obama’s failings, I can only concur that your parade of potential horrors of a Romney-Ryan administration is no exaggeration. Republican legislatures in key states have passed laws that disenfranchise potential Democratic voters and the Republican Party of Texas openly opposes the teaching of “critical thinking”  -- a quality that is so essential to an electorate in a democracy. Then there’s the jingoism: Never hint of apologizing for America (Presumably we’re always right about everything) and you can never tout American exceptionalism enough. It scares me – but maybe another warlike authoritarian plutocracy is just what the world needs! 

From Nancy Vieira, of Bethesda Md:

HEAR! HEAR! SO glad to hear from you again! And, with such a power message, one that I share! I look forward to your formal post at your web site and I will forward the link to family and friends to get the message out! 

Thanks for picking up the pen again! Indeed, scary times are ahead if the Republicans win this election.

From Janet Wood of Toronto, Canada an expatriate from the US:

I have been watching from afar with dismay and wondering what you were thinking. I think you nailed it and I hope people respond. In general, Canadians are aghast at the criticism of Obama, which comes from all sides, and the inability of Americans to see the reality of the world as it is, including their own country, instead of how they think it should be.

Which led to this exchange:

From me:

I think you hit the nail on the head when you write about: "the inability of Americans to see the reality of the world as it is" and that is often true for the Left as much as for the Right. But on the Right there is a total disconnect and a refusal to even consider real facts as opposed to fantasy. Do you still vote in American elections?

From Janet:

You are right about the right. I confess I do not understand the "left.” They are holding Obama to a standard, which does not exist and makes no sense. They seem to feel he could execute his vision in the midst of a global financial crisis--and a US situation, which is not over yet. They also refuse to credit anything of substance. It is Yes, but... It's hard to believe, but they do not seem to understand the danger of the alternative...

Mike Cerrato Esq. of Westville, New Jersey chimed in with:

YES! As usual, you have succinctly (and brilliantly) put what is going through so many of our minds into words. For those of us who really missed your insights, our sincere thanks. And rest assured, I do forward your comments to as many people as I believe will appreciate them. And a few who I know won't, just to really stick it to them in return for ruining so many otherwise pleasant social occasions! Again, thank you.

Mike then added:

One thing I have been mulling over. Do you think it is going too far to accuse the Republicans of treason? I know it doesn't fit the legal definition, but the obstructionism of the last 4 years just to be able to lambaste the President for not fixing the mess they created sure seems to be a ploy to worsen and use the nations' problems for political gain. (And who can say this wasn't an economic war being waged against the country?) Sad to say, I am starting to believe the only way to win this election is to get as obnoxious as the other side has been since President Obama has been in office. 

Also, one other thing I feel needs to be pointed out to counter the notion that Obama had a two year "free pass" before the 2010 debacle. Let's not forget that when he was elected, the country was screaming for "bipartisanship." One of the most frustrating things for me to see was how far the President went to offer olive branch after olive branch to the other side, only to have them reject EVERY overture (including, thank God, some which gave away even more than they could have ever hoped to achieve on their own!) Now they want to crucify him for that as well? Just seems more than a little unfair. Curious to get your opinion on whether you think either of these positions has any merit.

To which I replied:

I can understand your anger and your feeling that what they have been doing is nothing short of treason. I never comment on campaign tactics because if there is one thing I don't pretend to understand is what motivates an ignorant electorate. However, I will say that for some reason Democrats have always been held to a much higher standard than Republicans. You will remember Joe McCarthy's charge during the Truman Administration of "twenty years of treason." What was worse is that when the Democratic led Tydings Committee "concluded that the individuals on McCarthy's list were neither Communists nor pro-communist, and said the State Department had an effective security program" and "labeled McCarthy's charges a "fraud and a hoax". Republicans responded in kind, with William E. Jenner stating that Tydings was guilty of "the most brazen whitewash of treasonable conspiracy in our history.” The full Senate voted three times on whether to accept the report, and each time the voting was precisely divided along party lines.”

But that is not even ancient history. Ann Coulter, a darling of Republicans recently, wrote: "Twenty years of treason hasn't slowed them down." and charged "50 years of treason.” 

Nixon running for Congress smeared his opponent as the "pink lady.”

But the media, which will denounce Democrats for any excess, always gives Republicans a free ride, so much so that Republicans have declared that they care little about the facts: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," said Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster." 

Compare that to the smear directed against Al Gore by the New York Times and the Washington Post - See my post "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore" which you can access by clicking or double-clicking on the title and which I urge you to read, particularly since the Times as recently as today repeated the smear, ironically in an article entitled: "Facts Take A Beating in Acceptance Speeches" where the article asserted: 

"...falsehoods...hampered Vice President Al Gore during his run for president in 2000, when his misstatements on the campaign trail were used to stoke the perception that he could not be trusted in general." And in typical media attempt to seem even handed wrote: "The growing number of misrepresentations appear to reflect a calculation in both parties (emphasis added) that shame is overrated..."

Frankly I do think there have been some instances of treason on the part of Republicans, but it is not kosher for them to be accused of such things. Christopher Hitchens, not a partisan wrote:

“In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon and some of his emissaries and underlings set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. The means they chose were simple: they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. In this way, they undercut ... the talks...”

I think to undercut an Administration's peace negotiations is treason.

I also think the Reagan Administration committed treason on the subject of the hostages in Iran. I can't prove it, though I think the media, if they had investigated, could have. Iran refused to release the hostages until right after the election. Why? I am convinced that Reagan emissaries offered them inducements not to. Had Iran released the hostages before the election, Carter, quite possibly, would have won.

But no, I don't think the present outrageous behavior, can by any stretch of the imagination, be considered treason.

Sally Share of Fort Lee, NJ expressed this view:

I agree with you 100%. It is so distressing. I don't understand how a nation can be persuaded to vote for a party that does not have it's best interests at heart. It is so Orwellian. Are we a nation of fools? Downloaded your posting. Would it be OK if I forward it to a few of my friends?

To which I readily assented and encouraged.

Roger Streit of West Orange, NJ questioned one of my assertions with:

A small point is that supply-side economics may not be touted in “textbooks of the Chicago school.” I don’t know either way. For a long discussion of supply-side economics, go here:

To which I replied:

I don't know whether the Chicago school still teaches Supply Side economics, but the article to which you refer me, mentions the Chicago School and Milton Friedman as, at least, one of its main sources.

Barbara Valentino Crowley Baptiste Moreus of Port St. Lucie, Florida expressed herself as follows:

This election is really p*ssing me off because I have an awful feeling that there is a very good chance they will get in (hate to even mention the party or names) .... I find it absolutely amazing....as their platform alienates:  Teachers, Women, Gays, Seniors, Hispanics...and, multi-cultural America on a whole....as evidenced by one look at the hundreds of faces in the audience filled, save for a few token ethnic "individuals," strategically placed! Great show for WHITE SUPREMACY rally! And, btw, I doubt of the milk toast Puritan Tea Partiers included Eastern Europeans...just the Western European roots of our founding fathers... OK Leaving the soap box.... Thank you for writing.

Eric Offner of Manhasset Hills, NY of set forth his view on this and I believe all elections with:

I really appreciate your view. I agree with your analysis. It is interesting that I reach a different conclusion for my vote. I will be told I am wasting my vote. The opposite is true.

And Sonya Leopold of San Augustine, Texas chimed in with:

So good to hear from you again and to read your intelligent, impassioned report on the state of affairs in this election period where you lay out so clearly what the real issues are. Thank you, again!!!

A contributor who wishes to remain anonymous wrote:

You have written an excellent well researched commentary on the election and I agree with your views almost 100%. Please keep up your good work at least until the election, and you can then go back to your personal tasks in November, December and in 2013. Probably the reason that Romney will not release his tax returns is because his evangelical supporters, many of whom believe that Mormonism is a cult, may be offended and turned off by the huge donations he has probably made to the Mormon Church.   

Here in Connecticut a Republican woman named Linda McMahon is running for the US Senate and she has no qualifications other than having been a founder of the World Wrestling Federation. However I am afraid that she has a good chance of winning because her Democratic opponent, Congressman Chris Murphy seems to be bored with the campaign, and is hardly visible. He has not even solicited a donation from me. I am hopeful, but not confident, that the Presidential debates will tip the election in Obama's favor.

Finally Leonard Levenson of Manhattan, NY wrote a long exposition of his views as follows:

I was moved by you recent letter about this election. I agree with you that this election is about the creation of an emerging Oligarchy in the US. The disparity between rich and poor in the US today is greater than at any time since the roaring 20's and far greater than the days of the war on poverty under Johnson. It is not an accident that the greatest jump in the stock market since WWII occurred in the 60's under Kennedy and Johnson and under Clinton in the 90s. We did well under Eisenhower but that was probably caused by the spending spree following the end of the war. 

The present Republican Party seems intent on limiting the vote of minorities by discouraging immigration, by passing burdensome laws dealing with voter registration and by excluding Felons from voting (in some states for life) no matter how minor the crime. The worldview of the present Republican Party harks back to meanest period of economic and social life in our history. It glorifies the Laissez Faire Capitalism of the Robber Baron era of the 1890s and the small mindedness of Victorian England. It begrudges aid to the poor even though all Federal and State aid for food stamps and welfare did not exceed $100 billion dollars last year in a Federal budget in excess of 1 trillion dollars and State budgets of an equal amount.  

Unfortunately, I have been discouraged by the lack of firm and vigorous leadership of Obama and blue dog Democrats. If Obama were Lyndon Johnson or TIP O’Neal or FDR, I believe the Senate would not have been able to block meaningful legislation by a small minority of senators. Obama's record on Civil rights has not been good and he has cow-towed to republican objections to closing Guantanamo. He has been responsible for vigorously deporting large numbers of illegal immigrants until just recently and has not used the "bully pulpit" effectively to push his program. However, these failings are as nothing compared to the disaster that would befall this country with a Romney win.   

I am chilled by the prospects of a Supreme Court made up of a majority of Alitos', Thomas' and Roberts' for the rest of my lifetime. I am depressed by the prospect of a cruel and insensitive Government which believes the answer to crime is more and harsher punishment; that the answer to poverty is for the poor to work longer and harder for less pay and the answer for the sick who cannot afford medical care is to die.  

However, in my more optimistic moments I think of other periods in our history when hysteria and hatred have taken over until the American people came to their senses. I think of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1802, of the "know nothings" and anti immigration movements of the 1840s, of slavery from the early 17th century to 1865, of the robber barons of the post Civil War, of Jim Crow for 100 years, of the Palmer raids of the 1919-1920 period, of McCarthyism, of Vietnam and of Bush era politics. I think of Lincoln and his hope that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time". We survived all of these calamitous periods and I hope that we could survive a Romney Presidency if that disaster should befall us.

This required a response and accordingly, I wrote:

Good to hear from you, and I appreciate the contents of your remarks in most of what you say.

                       

However, I must take exception to your third and fifth paragraphs.

                       

As to the third paragraph, we have been over this in previous discussions and I am surprised and disappointed that you raise this again now.

           

I guess once a mindset gets set, it is hard to let it go. But rather than repeat all that has been said in the past, I refer you to my posts "The Trojan Horse - Comments," "The Trojan Horse – Comments II", and "The Trojan Horse – Comments II (continued)" where you graciously conceded, "You may have a point when you suggest that my anger at Obama is really disappointment at the lack of progress that I hoped for. Perhaps no Democrat could have made any substantial progress against the know nothing Republicans. I think I would have preferred a battle royale (even a losing one) than accepting a weakened Health Care Bill, an inadequate deficit reduction bill and the many other compromises, which Obama probably was forced to make."

                            

The problem of course is, and has always been the totally unreasonable expectations that the election of Obama aroused. I anticipated this and warned against it, when I posted my commentary "Obama Walks on Water"

I might add that even as early in the President's term as August of 2011 I wrote of his long list of accomplishments. Please see "The Achievements of Barack Obama."

But this is in particular bad taste when the point that I made in my last post is that this election is not about Obama. It is about the future of America and posterity.

Which brings me to the last paragraph of your comment. Yes the US survived other terrible periods in its history. But that totally misses the point. It is like saying that the Jews, as a people survived the Holocaust, or that African-Americans survived slavery and Jim Crow. Yes, the nation and the world go on, but the tens of thousands who die for lack of health care do not. Those who are denied an education are not only set back, but so are their children and often it is multigenerational. What counts is people, as people, as individuals and as groups. They suffer, even if the nation and they survive, and to make light of such suffering is unbecoming.

Even Syria will survive. But at what cost?

The Deficit Reduction Committee I and II (Discussion)

I posted and distributed my commentary "The Deficit Reduction Committee" on November 28, 2011 and "The Deficit Reduction Committee II" on December 4, 2011. I received comments on both and would like to take this opportunity to share them with you. On the first of the two posts:

Ernest Hauser of the Bronx, NY responded to the following observation, which I made:

So we have ended up with $1.2 trillion cuts going into effect beginning in 2013. $600 billion of that will be in defense spending which is in addition to a cut of $450 billion previously agreed to. Not the worst of all possible outcomes, and in 2013 the Bush tax cuts will expire. No Congressional action is needed. Beginning in 2013 the deficit will be reduced over the following ten years by 6.1 trillion. The hammer of using the deficit to justify attacks on needed spending will be gone. Not bad negotiating by our President.

with:

I don't think for one minute that the Republicans having bet and lost will let things go; they are already planning to cut the defense dept budget out of the deal. The generals are planning to cut the medical benefits for dependents and retirees rather then losing one planned multi-billion $ carrier or another new plane.

To which I replied:

They can plan all they want, but executing is another matter.

As far taking defense cuts out of the deal, the President has already said he will veto it if they get through both Houses of Congress, with a 60 vote threshold in the Senate. As for the generals they don't run the defense establishment. The President as Commander in Chief does.

As for medical benefits for military retirees, see the observations of Albert Nekimken below.

Republicans have boxed themselves into a corner and have been outwitted by Obama.

Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia added this observation:

Bravo on a well-written and well-conceived comment. 

 I would add the reminder that Robert Gates also told congress before he departed that the uncontrolled growth of health care (and pension?) costs for the military was unsustainable and must be reformed. (Which without having seen Hauser’s comment appears to be a rejoinder to it)

On the point of what the correct size and scope of the U.S. military establishment ought to be there is clearly a large gap between the views of Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans believe fervently that the U.S. (apparently due to its Christian, moral superiority and exceptional mission in the world) must retain the ability to dominate the world everywhere by force of arms, while Democrats believe that the U.S. is, and should be, only one of many major players in world events. Further, Democrats see attempts by Americans to assure military domination as counter-productive. By coincidence, the primary beneficiaries of the Republican view are defense contractors

And, as we know, one of the largest contributors to the general federal deficit is Medicare and Medicaid. All evidence accumulated to date corroborates that the problem is a lack of control on the "spending" side of the system and the primary causes are an open checkbook to vendors of medical supplies and services, excluding doctors who have already been squeezed hard by prior reforms. To my mind, this forces us to reconsider either a single-payer federal health care system for all citizens, civilian, military and members of congress, or a system of private health insurance that is highly regulated by the federal government as are utilities with limits on profit margin and controls on prices as well as coverage. As an aside, the "individual mandate" idea was ill-conceived from the beginning. National healthcare needs a dedicated source of revenue such as general tax receipts or a national sales tax on all goods and services.

Regarding your criticism of the media for not doing their job, I disagree insofar as we do want news reporters to maintain a line between factual journalism and comment, or other editorial analysis. Your real criticism seems not that the facts are not being made available, but that the analysts have been prostituted into eviscerating their own logical conclusions.

 Overall, I think your views of the consequences of the failure of the supercommittee are accurate.

I did not respond to the observations on Health Care, but I disagree, and will address this subject at a later time, when the subject is Reform of our Health Care System.

On the second of my two posts Robert Malchman responded to my analysis of a Krauthammer column with:

 Does anyone who doesn't believe in Fox News-eque fairy tales, lies and manipulations take Charles Krautkopf -- excuse me, Krauthammer -- seriously? Debunking Krauthammer is like debunking Santa Claus, if instead of a merry, gift-giving elf, Santa were a bitter, miserly troll. I can see taking on politicians who at least have some influence, even nutjobs like Herman Cain because his 9-9-9 plan needed a response like the 4.5-4.5-4.5 one you provided. But using your skills on someone like Klownhammer is like using a flamethrower on a strawman.

To which I issued the following challenge:

Who do you think would be a worthy columnist for a critical analysis of their views? If you would like, nominate someone, and if you are so inclined, I would be happy to have you suggest a particular column for dissection. Would George Will be better? Ann Coulter? Bill Kristol? You name it!

Malchman retorted:

Will and Kristol are at least serious people. Coulter is a self-promoter who believes in nothing but her own self-aggrandizement; her goal is simply to shock and to draw attention to herself, so the best thing one can do is to ignore her. (Did you know she was two years ahead of me in law school? I only knew her by sight, but she did not have the reputation for being insane yet, only a Federalist Society-style conservative; that's what leads me to believe her public persona is an act.)

           

To which I repeated my challenge by saying:

 I await your nomination. Hopefully, a specific column, but if that is asking too much, your choice of a columnist and I will look for a column. There is no rush. Give it some thought and find a column that would be a challenge.

No specific nomination came, but I am considering a column by Ross Douthat entitled: “An Argument Against Redistribution," which has more meat to it, for rebuttal.

In the meantime your comments and observations are welcome and will be distributed with attribution, unless you request to remain anonymous.


With the holidays fast approaching I will take a sabbatical until after the New Year has rung in. Until then חנוכה שמח, Joyeux Noël and Feliz Año Nuevo or Happy Chanukah, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.