Do as we say, not as we do

Why isn't this story getting more play?

For those who don't want to watch the two minutes of video, here's a similar story from the L.A Times:

"The people of Egypt have rights that are universal," Obama said. "That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights and the United States will stand up for them everywhere.

"I also call upon the Egyptian government to reverse the actions that they've taken to interfere with access to the Internet, with cellphone service and to social networks that do so much to connect people in the 21st century."

Apparently, the United States will stand up for those "human rights" everywhere except in the United States:

Legislation granting the president internet-killing powers is to be re-introduced soon to a Senate committee, the proposal’s chief sponsor told Wired.com on Friday [Jan. 28, 2011].

Kimberly Dvorak, writing for examiner.com, writes:

Leading the charge are Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) who point to WikiLeaks as a reason to control the Internet cyber space. The bill titled, "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act," would give the president the authority to track critical cyber-infrastructure lists. This legislation would give the president the ability to turn off the Internet without any judicial review. Something the world is now witnessing in Egypt.

However, Senator Collins claims the "switch" would be different in the United States. "It would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency," she explained. "It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant treat."

In fairness to the president, I haven't seen him publicly calling for this legislation, but there is no doubt in my mind that he will sign it if it reaches his desk.

Government wants bigger government

As I thought about what I wrote yesterday, something hit me that was completely lost on me when I wrote it:

Congressman Robert Brady (D-PA) is proposing that the ban against threatening the president be extended to all federal officials (presumably congressmen, judges, etc.) Congressman Pete King (R-NY) is proposing that guns not be allowed within 1000 feet of "powerful federal officials".

I included party affiliations behind each congressman's name to show that the knee-jerk reaction wasn't limited to either party. What didn't hit me at the time was that the limitation on free speech was proposed by a Democrat, and greater gun control was proposed by a Republican. Did these gentlemen forget which party they are members of? I doubt it. Rather, in a rush to take advantage of the crisis and the public's visceral reaction to it, they simply revealed their true, statist colors.

"Tone down the rhetoric"

This is a topic that I really didn't want to weigh in on, but I keep reading about it, and I'm having a hard time not responding to others who have written on it. First, some background: in case you've been living under a rock for the past few days, you've likely heard about Jared Loughner. In response to his shooting spree, much has been written about Mr. Loughner's politics, the politics that may have lead to his actions, and the politics to come.

As to Mr. Loughner's politics, I don't care. In the immediate aftermath of his actions, much was made of his anti-government stance. For many this seemed to place him firmly on the radical right side of the political spectrum. Shortly thereafter, an old friend (acquaintance?) of Mr. Loughner's began tweeting that Mr. Loughner was "quite liberal". And neither side can distance itself from him fast enough. Let's keep our eye on the ball here, though. The shooter is now in custody; he ought to be given a trial and, if convicted, made to answer for his crime(s). The end.

But that's not the end, and we can't keep our eye on the ball. Instead, we're being told to "tone down the rhetoric". Clarence Drupnik, the sheriff of Pima county, where the shooting occurred, has been making news because of comments he made after the shooting, mainly this one:

When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.

I've seen it pointed out that there is nothing inherently political about this statement, and in a vacuum, I would agree. Unfortunately, we don't live in a vacuum, so let's call a spade, a spade. Mr. Drupnik is referring to those on the political right and those who oppose (big) government. (Note that those are two distinctly separate groups.) Based on his statement, Mr. Drupnik thinks that those groups are responsible for Mr. Loughner's actions. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, John Fund thinks that Mr. Drupnik, himself, bears some responsibility for Mr. Loughner's actions. You know who's really responsible for Mr. Loughner's actions? That's right; it's Mr. Loughner.

Unfortunately, though, we're all about to be reminded that our liberty is in the hands of the worst members of our society: those who commit these atrocities or those who pass laws in response to them, take your pick. In its all too predictable knee-jerk reactionary way, congress is already proposing a slew of new laws to "keep this from happening again". Congressman Robert Brady (D-PA) is proposing that the ban against threatening the president be extended to all federal officials (presumably congressmen, judges, etc.) Congressman Pete King (R-NY) is proposing that guns not be allowed within 1000 feet of "powerful federal officials". (Right, the guy who was willing to ignore the law against murder is suddenly going to respect this law. Good thinking, congressman. I'm reminded of the wisdom of Jerry Seinfeld, or at least his writers, here, "You can make all the laws you want, he's still gonna bother people.") What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander, and the gulf between what's acceptable for those in power and those who aren't grows ever wider. Isn't anyone disturbed by the fact that federal officials deserve "more" equal protection under the law than the rest of us mere "people"?

Toning down the rhetoric isn't about restoring civilized debate; it's about stifling dissent. It's about chipping away at rights (supposedly) protected by the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. It's about making abundantly clear exactly who rules over whom. Don't misunderstand; I am unequivocally not supporting threats of or actual violence. However, there are already laws against such things. Passing new ones like those described here are about separating the "rulers" from the "people" so that the people can be better controlled.

News roundup

I haven't posted much this week, but I've been saving a number of news stories throughout the week that I found interesting. Without further ado, here they are:

Fear of Government

Reason posts excerpts from a couple of authors about this chart. One says that not everybody is afraid of the government as the general feeling seems to be; it's only Republicans. The other argues that Democrats are equally susceptible to this fear when their party is out of power. I didn't find this chart so interesting, as what it shows is fairly obvious. What it did for me though, was highlight exactly how blind (read: partisan) Democrats and Republicans are when their party is in power. If one could take a step back and see the forest for the trees, as it were, one would find that the government acts pretty much the same way no matter which party is in power. They just focus their attention slightly differently.

Flag Burning

Talk about statist. The flag deserves respect? It's an inanimate object, for crying out loud. Justice Stevens thinks that the "U.S. flag and the symbol of liberty it represents" are too important to allow it to be burned in protest. Alright, you bring back the liberty, and I won't burn the flag.

We suck... less!

Pajamas Media explains why the Republicans are going to make big gains in the midterm elections. The story's byline says it all.

Because in the Democratic land of epic, mega, ultra, apocalyptic levels of sucking, those who kinda suck are king.

TSA scanners

The TSA was in the news quite a bit this week after an airline pilot last week decided to stand up to a TSA officer and refuse a pat down after refusing to allow them to look at his naked body with their AIT scanners. The first link there is to a CNN story which talks about how the TSA is planning to institute full body pat downs across the country. The woman who wrote the article was reduced to tears after being groped, and she is a regular traveler.

The second link is to a story written by a woman who thinks that the best way to fight for our civil rights (with respect to illegal searches by the TSA) is to begin writing letters to corporations whose businesses will be hurt if people refuse to be groped and stop flying, altogether. At first, I didn't think this approach had any merit, but after seeing the TSA steel their resolve in the face of that pilot standing up to them, I think the corporations who control the government might be our only chance.

Economic destruction

I have written a little bit about inflation and hyperinflation. Well, this article says that it (hyperinflation) is already taking hold and will be in full swing by spring of next year. The author makes a pretty compelling argument. I'm of the mind that collapse of the U.S. currency and economy are a matter of when, not if, and I suspect sooner rather than later. I don't know if it's going to happen as the author suggests, but I'm also not going to argue that it's not.

Free speech, alive and well

I noticed the 'crawl' along the bottom of the TV screen this morning mention that NPR had fired Juan Williams over some comments that he had made. When I was able to get to a computer, I found a link to this story in my RSS reader. I thought it was fitting that the story came from Fox News since Mr. Williams is a regular contributor to Fox and his fateful comments were made on a Fox program. The linked story cites this quote as the reason for the firing:

I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Mr. Williams's first mistake was prefacing his comments with "I'm not a bigot." Whenever someone prefaces a comment with, "I'm not X", at best, it means that he/she fears that his/her comments will be interpreted so as to paint him/her as X and, at worst, that that person really is X. It's sort of the same way that the phrase "with all due respect" is interpreted as "I have no respect for you".

I have to admit, though, that I don't really see what the uproar about this particular comment is all about. The September 11th attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda, a militant Islamic group. The Christmas Day bomber and the Times Square bomber both cited their religion as reasons for their actions. The U.S. continues to agitate Muslims around the world with its continued presence in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan in addition to indefinitely detaining and torturing people without charges when it is not just killing them both on and off the battlefield. In light of those actions, it seems reasonable to expect further violence to be attempted, if not perpetrated, against the U.S. by the very recipients of this U.S.-style democracy. I'm not sure that being nervous about flying with a Muslim is entirely irrational.

Glenn Greenwald takes up the case against Juan Williams this morning. In his article, some more context is provided for Mr. Williams's comments. Immediately prior to the earlier quote, Mr. Williams said this:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don't want to get your ego going. But I think you're right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality.

This was said in response to Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" which had aired just previous to Mr. Williams's comments in which Mr. O'Reilly had said:

The world is on edge because millions of Muslims accept violence and enable jihad. In order to correct the economy and the terrorist threat, those [referring also to the fact that private businesses are not hiring] things must be understood and stated.

These two statements properly deserve all of the outrage, in my opinion. Millions of Muslims do not accept violence and enable jihad. The U.S. government, itself, says that there are probably less than 100 Al-Qaeda members fighting in Afghanistan. It admits that many are probably hiding in Pakistan, but even being generous would probably place the total number under 1,000. Muslims make up almost a quarter of the world's population. If they all really supported violence and jihad, even if merely millions of them supported it, they would have destroyed the U.S., whose military only numbers about 1.4 million, quite decisively a long time ago. In fact, most (the percentage of "radical" Muslims is almost infinitesimal, but still prevents one from saying "all") Muslims are peaceful, preach peace, and abhor the violence perpetrated in their religion's name.

I'm not really sure how I feel about Juan Williams being fired by NPR. To be honest, I don't care enough to try and decide. He may have been a good reporter, but I never cared too much for his opinion pieces on various Fox shows. What is interesting to me is the outcry from the political right that his free speech rights are being violated because NPR gets a significant portion of its funding from the federal government. (Funny, that in this instance, they are, all of a sudden, civil libertarians.) Eugene Volokh contends that acceptance of government funds does not, on its face, make one a government actor and therefore obligate one to protect the free speech of others. I tend to agree. To argue the opposite is to open up a Pandora's box of (further) government intrusion into private affairs. As Mr. Volokh reasons, there is nothing preventing Congress from attaching strings to funds that it allocates (which it has not done in this case), but I would argue that Congress shouldn't be allocating funds to private businesses in the first place.