JANUARY 7, 2009

We really are built for political debate. The more important question is what the legitimate boundaries for the debate are. If the boundaries for debate are too wide or too narrow we risk poor outcomes. An example of the former would be if Congress took up the question of allowing 65 year olds to be "euthanized" to save on medical costs (yes, I believe a modified more "reasonable" version of this is coming our way---after all, are not "right to die" laws on that path? What is the word most linked to "rights"? Responsibility). An example of "too narrow" is one party debate. Roger Simon in Unhappiness in Obamaland implicitly makes this point. He believes the debate in Congress will clearly exist among Democrats in many areas, just not the important ones, such as the "Stimulus Package", Nationalized medicine and others.

(posted at 10:08 am by Mike Rulle)

-

What is interesting about the political news of late, to me at least, is the repetitiveness of it all. This tends to deaden the emotions on certain issues. This can be both good and bad. For example, when Bobby Rush in Illinois tries to raise racial issues (when there really are none---the State's black Secretary of State is the person who won't "certify" "Blago's" choice of Roland Burris) in the seating of Roland Burris in the Senate (which I have stated from the outset should be allowed), my sense is everyone yawns Burris Circus and the Politics of Race. This is a good thing. When Americans of all races are bored with discussing race, that is a pretty good indicator race is less of an issue. However, when there are continued critiques on the proposed economic actions by Obama, which frankly most politicians on both sides seem to generally support, that too is beginning to generate yawns. This is not a good thing. The risks of "yawning" are  outlined by Charles Krauthammer in his recent column. The risks in most simple terms can be called "Socialism".

(posted at 9:45 am by Mike Rulle)

  

This is a useful "thought experiment" Would You Have Been A Nazi? Anyone who saw the Woody Allen comedy Zelig recalls the crazy funny images of "Zelig" inserted into Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl's "newsreels". One of the many insights of this movie is the recognition that man is a social conforming species. A reason for this thought experiment's usefulness is it can help tone down the self-righteousness of much of our public discourse. I am not speaking of "civility". One can still be passionate about one's position. But recognize that you are considerably less than perfect.

(posted at 8:33 am by Mike Rulle)

  

Have you heard that "Senator" Al Franken has been banned by NBC from appearing on its Network?  Neither have I. But Ann Coulter apparently has Coulter v. The Counter-Coulter. How is it that Coulter keeps publishing best sellers yet is viewed in the media as a pariah?  The reason is she mixes comedic hard edged sarcasm with political critique---aimed at the left. The sarcasm is certainly no worse than we would see from liberal political comedians such as Lewis Black, who is funny; or the formerly funny "Senator" Al Franken. The answer to the Coulter question is obvious and Brent Bozell spells out why in his column.This kind of censorship is brought to you from the promoters of the ludicrously named Fairness Doctrine

(posted at 8:05 am by Mike Rulle)

International economists, Peter Boone and Simon Johnson, essentially argue for even greater deficit spending and greater monetary easing Obama Plan Is Bold, but Not Bold Enough. It is difficult to understand how a crisis which supposedly was created by an increase in total leverage can be solved by a massive further increase in total leverage. In Atlantic City this is called "doubling down".

(posted at 7:45 am by Mike Rulle)