Author Archives: Rob Harrison

The state of the media and the sphere of legitimate debate

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I read an interesting article yesterday on why the Internet weakens the authority of the press (thanks to a link from JMHawkins in the comments on this post on the probable closure of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and why that matters; the post deals specifically with sports coverage, but the points it makes are broader in application).  The article, posted by Jay Rosen on PressThink (which looks like it might be a blog for the blogroll), deals with the following diagram from the 1986 book The “Uncensored War”:  The Media and Vietnam by Daniel C. Hallin:Rosen describes these three spheres in this way:

1.) The sphere of legitimate debate is the one journalists recognize as real, normal, everyday terrain. They think of their work as taking place almost exclusively within this space. (It doesn’t, but they think so.) Hallin: “This is the region of electoral contests and legislative debates, of issues recognized as such by the major established actors of the American political process.” . . .2. ) The sphere of consensus is the “motherhood and apple pie” of politics, the things on which everyone is thought to agree. Propositions that are seen as uncontroversial to the point of boring, true to the point of self-evident, or so widely-held that they’re almost universal lie within this sphere. Here, Hallin writes, “journalists do not feel compelled either to present opposing views or to remain disinterested observers.” (Which means that anyone whose basic views lie outside the sphere of consensus will experience the press not just as biased but savagely so.)
Consensus in American politics begins, of course, with the United States Constitution, but it includes other propositions too, like “Lincoln was a great president,” and “it doesn’t matter where you come from, you can succeed in America.” Whereas journalists equate ideology with the clash of programs and parties in the debate sphere, academics know that the consensus or background sphere is almost pure ideology: the American creed.3.) In the sphere of deviance we find “political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society reject as unworthy of being heard.” As in the sphere of consensus, neutrality isn’t the watchword here; journalists maintain order by either keeping the deviant out of the news entirely or identifying it within the news frame as unacceptable, radical, or just plain impossible. The press “plays the role of exposing, condemning, or excluding from the public agenda” the deviant view, says Hallin. It “marks out and defends the limits of acceptable political conduct.”Anyone whose views lie within the sphere of deviance—as defined by journalists—will experience the press as an opponent in the struggle for recognition.

Rosen analyzes the work of the press in terms of these categories, and makes some interesting points:

That journalists affirm and enforce the sphere of consensus, consign ideas and actors to the sphere of deviance, and decide when the shift is made from one to another— none of this is in their official job description. You won’t find it taught in J-school, either. It’s an intrinsic part of what they do, but not a natural part of how they think or talk about their job. Which means they often do it badly. Their “sphere placement” decisions can be arbitrary, automatic, inflected with fear, or excessively narrow-minded. Worse than that, these decisions are often invisible to the people making them, and so we cannot argue with those people. It’s like trying to complain to your kid’s teacher about the values the child is learning in school when the teacher insists that the school does not teach values. . . .Deciding what does and does not legitimately belong within the national debate is—no way around it—a political act. And yet a pervasive belief within the press is that journalists do not engage in such action, for to do so would be against their principles. As Len Downie, former editor of the Washington Post once said about why things make the front page, “We think it’s important informationally. We are not allowing ourselves to think politically.” I think he’s right. The press does not permit itself to think politically. But it does engage in political acts. Ergo, it is an unthinking actor, which is not good. When it is criticized for this it will reject the criticism out of hand, which is also not good.

This is, I think, essentially correct, and is a more helpful way of understanding media bias than simply using categories of left and right; among other things, it’s a more nuanced model, allowing room for what he refers to as “complications,” such as the point that these spheres cannot be understood monochromatically:

Within the sphere of legitimate debate there is some variance. Journalists behave differently if the issue is closer to the doughnut hole than they do when it is nearer the edge.

That said, to make use of this model it is necessary to map it to the political spectrum in this country; and that, of course, is where disputes arise.  Rosen is clearly a man of the left, and those who engage with him would seem to be even more so; for him, and for them, it seems to be axiomatic that the media’s understanding of the sphere of consensus is wrongly shifted in a conservative direction—and thus, to put the matter in standard terminology, that the media is biased against liberals.  From where I stand, that seems nonsensical.  But then, as Rosen might say, this isn’t really a dispute about the media at all:  it’s a political dispute based on the differing understandings of conservatives and liberals about what properly belongs in each sphere.  As such, it is in fact an inevitable political dispute over the most basic part of any political discussion:  the definition of the terms of that discussion.  This is why Markos Moulitsas (the Kos of Daily Kos, for anyone who might not know) said in his response to Rosen’s post,

The person who controls the [conventional wisdom] controls the terms of the debate. Modern activism is in large part a battle to capture that CW.

Of course, the ultimate purpose of Rosen’s article is to apply this analysis to the rise of the blogosphere, about which he makes an interesting point:

In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized—meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the “sphere of legitimate debate” as defined by journalists doesn’t match up with their own definition.

I think he’s right about that; but in truth, I think he doesn’t go far enough.  It’s not just that journalists’ definition of the sphere of legitimate debate doesn’t match up with “their” definition—it’s that there is no one “they,” and thus that we may wind up with the national conversation being atomized instead as different groups insist on their differing definitions of the various spheres.  We have people, for instance, working very hard to define “Sarah Palin is an idiot” into the sphere of consensus for purposes of political expedience, and others working very hard to move that statement into the sphere of deviance on the grounds that it’s objectively untrue.  The danger of this sort of conflict is that it may tend to replace legitimate debate over issues with arguments over whether issues are legitimate—a sort of meta-debate which is not likely to prove productive.  Disputes over definitions are, as I said, inevitable in any political conversation; but when they’re used as a proxy to avoid actually having the conversation, that’s unhealthy for democracy.  The great advantage of the political blogosphere is that bloggers, unlike journalists, are open about their partisanship, thus putting the inevitable biases in the foreground and allowing readers to take them into account.  The great disadvantage is that one can always use one’s partisanship as an excuse to treat one’s opponents solely on one’s own terms, rather than putting in the hard work to consider them on their own terms, and thus to give them credit for their good intentions.  Doing so may not be the best thing we can do for our own political agenda—but it is the best thing we can do for the health of our country.

Thought on worship and idolatry

Posted on by | No Comments

Human beings have an instinctive tendency to idolatry.  That might seem a strange thing to say in the West, where we don’t have big statues standing around for people to bow down to, but it’s true.  For one thing, we were made to worship, and have a bent that way; if we don’t consciously worship God (or some other god), we will usually find ourselves coming unconsciously to worship something else.This might sound like a strange thing to say, but take a look around. Take a look, not at people’s formal religious affiliations, but at where they put their money, their time, and their trust, and what do you see? You see entertainment; you see possessions; you see, perhaps, investments; with some people, you see their ambitions, whether social, political, or economic; you see relationships, certainly; and you see a lot of people who put most if not all of their money, time, and trust, quite frankly, in themselves. Now, some of these are purely good things—for example, if I didn’t spend money and time on my wife and kids, I’d get a lot of questions, not least from them—and none of them are evil; but the pattern is another matter. As Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there is your heart,” and it’s even truer that where your trust is, there is your heart; we might say, going further, that where your trust and treasure are together, there is your true worship, and the true focus of your attention.Worship isn’t just about going and participating in a formal service somewhere, although that’s what we associate with the word; worship is about giving honor, and according someone (or something) a place of particular importance in our lives.  The word “worship,” in its older English form, was “worthship”; it meant to ascribe worth to something, to see that thing as having worth, as being important, and to treat it accordingly. Now, the word “worship” has come to have a more specific meaning, a formally religious one, but that old meaning is still at the core of it—it means to treat something or someone as of greatest worth, and to behave accordingly.This is perfectly natural; indeed, we might say it’s necessary, or even inevitable.  The problem is, in our pride, we resist according that place to God, because doing so means giving up control—or, at least, the illusion of control—and so we have the tendency to turn instead to things, or to the self, to find security and peace and meaning in life instead of turning to God.  That way, by giving pride of place to nothing greater than the self, we remain free from being told what to do (as long as circumstances permit, anyway).  The problem is, in so doing, we put our trust and our hope in things which simply cannot bear the weight, and so—sooner or later—they fail us.(Partially excerpted from “Can You Do This?”)

“Can You Do This?”

Posted on by | No Comments

(Isaiah 41:21-42:9, Matthew 12:15-21)

I said last week that Isaiah liked court scenes, and here we have another one—but this one has a different tone, and a different purpose. God called the nations before him in the beginning of chapter 41 for them to hear his case, offering them the blessings of his kingdom, but they ran from him, fleeing to their idols; and so now, after a word of encouragement to his people Israel, God returns to the courtroom to put the idols on trial. You can just imagine the scene, as the bailiff rises in the court:

Hear ye, hear ye! This court is now in session. The God of Israel is accusing the defendants, the gods of the nations, of deceptive advertising practices and numerous anti-trust violations, on the grounds that they claim to be gods but in fact are not, and thus are claiming rights and privileges which they do not in fact deserve. Will the prosecutor, the prophet Isaiah, please call his first witness?

Your Honor, I would like to call all the defendants to the stand as a group. Let the people of all nations carry their gods into this honorable court, for the LORD, the King of Israel, challenges these gods to prove themselves. Yes, if you claim to be gods, prove it! Tell us what will happen in the future! If you are truly gods, then you must have some sort of control over what will happen next; tell us your plans, and how you are going to bring them about! Marduk—you’re a big one on military power, and certainly your Babylonians have built up quite the empire; but it’s starting to fall apart now, the army isn’t doing so well, and what are you going to do about it? How about you, Ishtar? Your Assyrians played that game pretty well, too, until Babylon ground them into hamburger. What’s left of you? Do you know what will happen in the future?

. . . Your Honor, I don’t think the defendants can answer the question. It doesn’t matter, though—I have another one for them. Tell me, can you explain the past? Can you tell us why everything happened the way it did, and help us to understand the world we live in now? In particular, can you tell us how the world came to be, and why? My God has done all these things for his people; if you are truly gods, you should be able to do the same, because you should remember the making of the world, and you should understand why everything has happened and what it means. If you are truly worthy of the worship you claim, you should be able to help your followers make sense of the world.

. . . Still no answer? How about this: if you can’t tell us where we’ve been, can you tell us where we’re going? How will the world end? What will come after it? If you can’t explain the past or make sense of the present, can you at least tell us what to expect in the days to come? Will the struggles and pains of the past be redeemed at all in the future? Will the injustices of the present ever be made right? Will any good ever come of the bad things that have happened to us? Do our lives mean anything? Or is all of life just one great big joke with a really bad punch line?

. . . Your Honor, the defendants just sit there. Whether they cannot answer, or simply will not, I don’t know, but I don’t think instructing them that they must answer will accomplish anything. Come now, you great blocks of wood, at least do something! No, don’t tell me that you made the sun come up this morning or the rain fall yesterday—the sun’s been coming up every morning since the beginning of time, and the rain falls every year; how do we know you did that? You could just be taking credit for someone else’s work. No, do something new and different—good or evil, it doesn’t matter, just something surprising, something that will amaze and terrify us—something to prove you’re a god, not merely a fraud.

. . . No? If you can’t answer so simple a challenge, how can you claim to be able to do anything at all? Your Honor, I submit that we have proven our case against the defendants: they are nothing and less than nothing, their work is nothing, they are frauds. Whatever they may be, if they exist at all, they’re only part of the system. They weren’t around when the world was created, they’re as much a part of it as any other rock or stick, and they can’t make anything themselves. They don’t understand anything that has happened and they have no clue what’s going to happen tomorrow, except to guess that it will be the same thing that happened yesterday; they have no understanding of the beginning of things, because they weren’t there, and they can’t conceive of the world ending because they can’t imagine what the alternative might be. All they can do is take credit for the work that the God of Israel does, and draw people away from worshiping him to worship them instead. They are detestable, and they defile those who worship them.

. . . Yes, Your Honor, I realize that isn’t enough. But unlike these pathetic pieces of wood and stone, I have a case. Hear what the LORD says: I stirred up a conqueror in the east, one who will strike from the north; he will trample other rulers underfoot as easily as the potter steps into the vat to mix the water and clay with his feet. I called him, and I predicted his coming far in advance, well before anyone else had ever heard of him. Which of these so-called gods can make such a claim? For all the messages they give their followers, did any of them give any warning at all that my conqueror was coming? No! There was no one who declared it; there was no one who proclaimed it; in fact, no one heard them say anything about the subject at all. Only I, says the LORD, only I announced his coming. I prepared him to deliver my people, and I promised them that he was coming, while none of these other so-called gods said or did anything about him at all. None of them can answer my questions, none of them can explain what I am doing or why, declares the LORD. They are nothing, mere delusion and wind.

. . . Well, as trials go, that one’s pretty much a slam dunk. Of course, it’s easy to say that, since no one has worshiped Bel, Nebo, Marduk, or most of the other gods Isaiah was addressing in a very long time. (Oddly enough, though Babylonian religion is long gone, the religion of their Persian conquerors, Zoroastrianism, is still around; in fact, I went to college with a practicing Zoroastrian.) That doesn’t really make any difference, though; the same questions aimed at our own culture would produce the same results. 

Take a look, not at people’s formal religious affiliations, but at where they put their money, their time, and their trust, and what do you see? You see entertainment; you see possessions; you see, perhaps, investments; with some people, you see their ambitions, whether social, political, or economic; you see relationships, certainly; and you see a lot of people who put most if not all of their money, time, and trust, quite frankly, in themselves. Now, some of these are purely good things—for example, if I didn’t spend money and time on my wife and kids, I’d get a lot of questions, not least from them—and none of them are evil; but the pattern is another matter. As Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there is your heart,” and it’s even truer that where your trust is, there is your heart; we might say, going further, that where your trust and treasure are together, there is your true worship, and the true focus of your attention.

The problem, in other words, is that so many people turn to things, or to themselves, rather than God to find security and peace and to fill the holes in their lives. Most of these things, to be sure, are good in and of themselves, if we keep them in their proper place—and God deeply loves and values every person he has made, whether they return his love or not—but they cannot meet the challenge God offers; they aren’t as important as we often try to make them, and they can’t bear the significance we try to put on them. Just as with the old gods of Assyria and Babylon, when God turns to them and says, “I can do this. Can you do this?” they are silent.

This trial sequence leaves a problem, however: the nations beyond Israel are worshiping things which are no gods, which are in fact nothing at all. They are empty; they have no guidance from God, no source of wisdom and no one to lead them according to his justice. Israel was given that job, but they’ve largely refused to do it. To address that problem, God raises up his Servant—and you’ll note that here, the first time he is mentioned, the focus is on his work as a light to the nations. In Isaiah 49, the second Servant Song, which we’ll consider in a few weeks, the Servant begins by talking about his mission to the Jews before moving to consider his mission to the Gentile world, but here the main concern is for Gentile need. God says of this one “in whom [his] soul delights,” “I have put my Spirit upon him”—which was a major statement in those days; back then, only those whom God had specially chosen for a particular work, like prophets, or the artists who decorated the tabernacle, received his Spirit. But he says of the Servant, “I have put my Spirit upon him, and he will bring forth justice to the nations.”

Now, this word “justice” is that word mishpat again, that we talked about last week; it’s worth repeating here, I think, that this is a concept of justice which isn’t merely punitive, but is restorative. As we said last Sunday, mishpat is all about the restoration of the original created order of the universe, when “everything was right, just, whole, in accordance with God’s perfect will.” As such, justice as we know it is obviously a key part of this idea, but so is peace, because they’re both facets of that same fundamental divine order. The false gods of the nations lead people away from that order and toward chaos—moral and social chaos, yes, but the chaos doesn’t stop there; it always spreads into the physical world. Thus, for instance, treating the world God made with disrespect is morally disordered, but it also disrupts the proper physical order of the world. The work of God’s Servant is to take God’s mishpat, his justice, which he has already revealed to his people through the giving of the law, and bring it to the world.

Note how he’s going to do it. This is not a conqueror, someone who will establish justice through military might or political power; nor is it someone who will call attention to himself and shout down those who oppose him. No, the Servant will come quietly, unthreateningly, with no aggression and no self-promotion. Unlike the demagogue, he will not seek to whip people into an emotional frenzy; unlike the dictator, he will not crush his opponents, nor will he seek to tear down in order that he may rebuild things his own way. Indeed, he won’t even crush the weak, the dying, and the seemingly useless, something powerful people tend to do without even trying; instead, a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not put out. As Old Testament scholar John Oswalt put it, “God’s answer to the oppressors . . . is not more oppression, nor is his answer to arrogance more arrogance; rather, in quietness, humility, and simplicity, he will take all of the evil into himself and return only grace. That is power.”

Now, some will look at him and see that he doesn’t crush the weak, and they will conclude that he is weak himself; but far from it. Verse 4 begins with a bit of wordplay that doesn’t come through in the NIV: the words translated here as “falter” and “be discouraged” are forms of the same words used to describe the wick and the reed. The point, I think, is that the Servant himself will not be a smoldering wick or a bruised reed, but rather a man of great strength of character and will; the attacks and the pressures which weaken and defeat others won’t deter him or slow him down until he has accomplished his purpose of establishing justice in the earth. This is a good thing, for his ministry, both his teaching and his actions, is the only hope for justice the world has.

In verses 5-9 we have, you might say, God’s initial marching orders to his Servant; and notice how he begins: “Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it.” This might seem an odd digression, but in fact it’s nothing of the sort. The Servant’s rule will not be some new imposition on the nations of the world; rather, it will be the continuation and renewal of the plan of the one who created them. It is God who created everything and who keeps it going every minute by his will; it is God who created us and gave us life and identity and awareness; and it is God who sends the Servant to carry on and intensify his sustaining work.

In verse 6 God sets out the overall mission statement for the Servant: “I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations.” His mission begins with his own people, with the nation of Israel. Though God’s people had broken his covenant with them beyond repair, he refused to give up on it or them, and so he would send his Servant to fulfill and restore it; though the Jews had every reason to believe that their relationship with God was hopelessly broken, he came to proclaim to them that God’s covenant love had never and would never let them go. It is also in this that he is the light to the nations; for the darkness of the dungeon and the blindness to which verse 7 refers are the darkness and blindness into which idolatry plunges us, because idolatry exiles us from the source of all light and all good things. But into this darkness shines the light of the relentless love of God, which will not let us go.

It is only God who can do this, for it is only he who is not bound to and by the cycles of the world; for all others, what goes up must come down, but not for him. Thus he says, “See, the former things [which I predicted] have taken place, and new things I now declare.” Idols can’t declare new things, because they can’t do new things; but God can, and does, in the world and in our lives. We aren’t trapped by what has gone before; we aren’t limited by what we can imagine. We are limited by who God is, because he isn’t going to do a new thing that contradicts his character and his will—but anything that God desires to do, he can do. No one expected Jesus, no one of his time ever saw him coming; even to his own people, he was unimaginable, inconceivable—but not to God. God isn’t restricted to doing only what he’s done before, the same way he’s always done it—and therefore, neither are we. 

As we work to develop a new vision for ministry, a new plan and a new approach, it’s easy to doubt that there’s any point—and certainly, we need to learn the cautionary lessons of the past, not just the encouraging ones. We do need to take counsel of what has been tried that hasn’t worked, even if only to remind us that just because we do a new thing, it doesn’t mean we’ll find success. That’s why the important thing is not to come up with our good ideas—even our best ideas—and draw from the best of the conventional wisdom to produce the best plan we can, and then ask God in on it; rather, we need to seek his will, to find out what new thing he’s preparing to do, so that we can get in on that. In Christ, we aren’t locked in by the past, because in him, God has done a new thing, and we have been set free for his future.

This is shameful

Posted on by | No Comments

According to the Anchorage Daily News,

The Army is terminating retirement credit for time served in a largely Native militia formed to guard the territory of Alaska from the threat of Japanese attack during World War II.The change means 26 surviving members of the Alaska Territorial Guard—most in their 80s and long retired—will lose as much as $557 in monthly retirement pay, a state veterans officer said Thursday. The pay claims of 37 others have been suspended. . . .The action comes almost a decade after Congress passed a law qualifying time served in the unpaid guard as active federal service. The Army agreed in 2004 to grant official military discharge certificates to members or their survivors.

This is just wrong.  For what it’s worth, it sounds like this doesn’t come from the Army itself, but from somewhere in the DoD:

The reversal follows an analysis by the Department of Defense that determined that the Army is not authorized in the law to count territorial guard service for the purpose of calculating retirement pay, said Lt. Col. Richard McNorton, the Army’s human resources command in Alexandria, Va.”The focus is to follow the law,” he said. “We can’t chose whether to follow the law. We have to follow the law.”

Whether that’s a reasonable interpretation of the law or just the sort of thing you could expect some government bean counter to come up with, I don’t know, but it needs to be set right—and if that means changing the law again, then we need to change the law again.  These are people who served this country, and they’re now old and vulnerable; it’s not appropriate to try to save money by taking away benefits our government had agreed to give them for their (unpaid) service.  I think the state of Alaska has it right on this:

“This is earned income and it’s not being paid,” said Jerry Beale of the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.Gov. Sarah Palin said the state is pursuing a remedy for “these brave Alaskans, who did so much for the cause of freedom during a time of great national peril.” . . .”It took nearly 60 years before the federal government honored these defenders of our territory for their service,” Palin said in a statement. “While most died waiting for this recognition, the few who survive are now being told their Territorial Guard service is not worthy of federal recognition. This is unacceptable. These people are no less heroic than the militias at Lexington and Concord, or the defenders of the Alamo.”

HT:  Conservatives4Palin

Channeling Dubya, Part III

Posted on by | 1 Comment

Match the speech to the president:

[T]he world has watched with growing concern the horror of bombings and burials and the stark picture of tanks in the street. Across the world, people are grieving for Israelis and Palestinians who have lost their lives.When an 18-year-old Palestinian girl is induced to blow herself up, and in the process kills a 17-year-old Israeli girl, the future, itself, is dying—the future of the Palestinian people and the future of the Israeli people. We mourn the dead, and we mourn the damage done to the hope of peace, the hope of Israel’s and the Israelis’ desire for a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors; the hope of the Palestinian people to build their own independent state.America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.  For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.  To be a genuine party to peace . . . Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel’s right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.The Palestinian people are blessed with many gifts and talents. They want the opportunity to use those gifts to better their own lives and build a better future for their children. They want the dignity that comes with sovereignty and independence. They want justice and equality under the rule of law. They want freedom from violence and fear.The people of Israel have just aspirations, as well. They want their children to be able to ride a bus or to go to school without fear of suicide bombers. They want an end to rocket attacks and constant threats of assault. They want their nation to be recognized and welcomed in the region where they live.Now, just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians. . . . Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care, and who’ve faced suffocating poverty for far too long. Now we must extend a hand of opportunity to those who seek peace.Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is key to realizing their own aspirations—and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state. Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom and purpose and dignity. Such a state will help provide the Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbors.Lasting peace requires more than a long cease-fire, and that’s why I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security.We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation—a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security. We meet to help bring an end to the violence that has been the true enemy of the aspirations of both the Israelis and Palestinians.

President George W. Bush, or President Barack Obama?  The answer will be posted in the comments.

Lemon socialism

Posted on by | 3 Comments

What a great coinage.  That’s how Robert Reich describes our current economic model, as the bailouts spread:

Put it all together and at this rate, the government—that is, taxpayers—will own much of the housing, auto, and financial sectors of the economy, those sectors that are failing fastest. . . .It’s called Lemon Socialism. Taxpayers support the lemons. Capitalism is reserved for the winners.

Too true.  Painfully true, in fact.  It’s not the sort of thing one usually hears from liberals (especially under circumstances in which even conservatives have been advocating big government spending), but that only makes his comments all the more important, and the warning they contain all the more urgent.HT:  Jennifer Rubin

Latest anti-Sarah Palin tactic: Tie her down

Posted on by | No Comments

The latest effort by liberals in their ongoing campaign to neutralize Sarah Palin is to keep her from leaving Alaska to attend events like CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) on the grounds that she’s “not putting Alaska first” if she does events outside the state.  Now, I realize that folks on the Left don’t really care whether this is true or not; they simply want to use this to accomplish two things:  one, to keep her from providing leadership and energy to a national GOP that badly needs both; and two, they hope, to chip away at her popularity in Alaska enough that they can defeat her in next year’s election.  That said, they clearly think that Alaskans will buy the charge, or else they wouldn’t be complaining about this.  For my part, I hope that the people of Alaska don’t buy it, because to do so would be remarkably short-sighted.To explain why I say this, let me use myself as an example.  I have more reason to think about Alaska than most Americans in the Lower 48.  I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, in western Washington, near the coast.  I have friends who live in Alaska year-round, and others who spend part of the year up there.  My parents have made several trips to Alaska; in consequence, my three girls have a number of Alaska books and T-shirts.  When I was looking for a church in 2006-07, there were congregations in a couple places in Alaska that I really wanted to talk to, until my wife reminded me that my mother-in-law would filet me alive if I took her grandchildren that far away from Michigan.  (We ended up in Indiana instead.  Less scenic, but definitely safer.)And how often did I think about Alaska before I started researching Gov. Palin?  Occasionally.  Very occasionally.  How often do I think about Alaska now?  A good deal more often.  I know a lot more about the state, its issues, and its contributions to the health and strength of our nation than I did.  Why?  Because of Gov. Palin—because her arrival on the national political scene brought her state into the national political consciousness in a whole new way.As a consequence, I think it’s fair to say that for Gov. Palin to be speaking and making appearances around the country, including on major media, would not be putting Alaska second or shortchanging her home state (as long as she continues to carry out the responsibilities of her job, at least, which I have no doubt she will); rather, for her to do so would be a real benefit to the Great Land, because in keeping her own profile high, she will keep Alaska’s profile high as well—and that can only be a good thing for this most federally-dependent state in the Union.

Why America needs Sarah Palin

Posted on by | No Comments

This is Gov. Palin’s 2009 State of the State address, which she wrote herself; the video of the speech is posted at the end of the text.  For those who may have forgotten (since it’s been so long, on a national level), this is what a conservative government looks like:

Thank you. Our good Lieutenant Governor Parnell, President Stevens, Speaker Chenault, lawmakers, Native Leaders, my dear family, and all Alaskans. Thank you for this opportunity.First, please join me in thanking those who protect our freedoms that allow us to assemble—our good men and women in uniform—they are America’s finest, our U.S. military.It’s been quite a year since we last gathered in this chamber. Just two days ago we witnessed a shining moment in the history of our country. Millions of Americans are praying for the success of our new president, and I am one of them. His work is cut out for him, but if President Obama governs with the skill, grace and greatness of which he is capable, Alaska’s going to be just fine. We congratulate President Obama.And, for keeping the homeland safe, and being a friend to Alaska, I thank President Bush.2008 was the year when America looked to Alaska, and one of our own sprang to national attention. There was political drama, controversy, lively debate, a few awkward moments and in the end, some disappointment. But what a glorious debut for a unique Alaskan—and we congratulate our former Senator Mike Gravel.In the history of Alaska, it was also the conclusion of a long and distinguished Senate career. We look forward to working with his successor, Senator Mark Begich. The best to our new man in Washington. And to working with long-serving Representative Young and Senator Murkowski. Congratulations on her worthy committee assignments.Tonight, I’m pleased to see new faces here, and I appreciate all who have sworn to uphold our constitution. Newcomers, some say we have some pretty strong differences among us, and, well—subtlety is not always one of our strong points. But we try to keep things friendly and civil, and we’ve been known to actually succeed.I used to wonder if the occasionally rough edges of politics were unique here under the Great North Star. But I ventured out a bit this past year, and I tell you that, as partisan quarrels go, ours really aren’t so bad. At our best, we are forthright in our opinions, charitable in our judgments and fair just like the people who hired us to work for them.Today, when challenges may seem as high as Mt. McKinley, and change as constant as the mighty Yukon flows, and political events send shockwaves through our foundation like the ’64 quake—what do Alaskans do? We climb Denali, we forge the river, we rebuild a stronger foundation on higher ground. When it matters most, lesser differences fall away. Just like family, Alaskans unite.It was this kind of determined action that turned the northland wilds into a territory, a territory into a state, and that state, across 50 years, into a land of industry, opportunity, and enduring beauty. And now that perseverance is needed again, as we go through a time of testing for our country—a time of economic worry for many Alaskans—a time of challenge to the wisdom and resolve of state government.Governor Wally Hickel said he feared more than any economic depression—a depression of the spirit. Alaska, it’s time we revive the optimistic, pioneering spirit that our founding mothers and fathers birthed in our State Constitution! As we celebrate statehood—let that spirit rise now, and our actions correspond as our founders intended.See, we have that choice, how to respond to circumstances around us. As public servants, will we draw from a servant’s heart the resolve to put pettiness and power struggles aside and work together for the good of the people? We have the choice. I speak for the entire Palin/Parnell Administration when I declare we choose optimism and collaboration and hard work to get the job done.It starts with a frank assessment of our economy and our budget. We have natural advantages to defer some effects of the global recession. Our banks have good liquidity, our credit market is relatively strong, home foreclosures are lowest in the nation. That’s the upside of a regional economy. The reverse side, our unemployment rate is about the national average—over seven percent, which means thousands of Alaskans need jobs. And when our budget is 90 percent reliant on the value of energy resources, there are consequences.Two years ago at this podium, I urged spending restraint. I asked that billions of surplus funds be deposited in state savings. This struck me as a simple precaution against, as I described it, massive single-year cuts down the road, if and when we faced tougher times. You legislators agreed, so we can now meet our challenge in a stronger position.And you understood the challenge is not just to think fast and change plans when the price of oil suddenly falls, affecting revenue by billions of dollars. The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices.With prudence, you built our reserves—that was good planning. This national economic downturn that’s spread to the energy market—it found us prepared. And that’s more than many states can say about their financial situation.When oil prices and state revenue are on the rise, as was the case, there’s temptation to assume it’ll go on rising forever, and to spend accordingly. Since prices fell, there may be an equal temptation to draw heavily on reserves or, for some, to be tempted to tap the permanent fund earnings or tax our hardworking families.No. With the budget, the aim is to keep our economy on a steady, confident course. The aim is—with discipline—we protect our reserves and promote economic growth.Now, unless the price of a barrel of oil dramatically increases, soon, we’re looking at a potential revenue shortfall in excess of a billion dollars this year. So with a close eye on price, we need to be willing to curtail spending as needed. If there’s a shortfall, there are options. It’ll take a cooperative spirit all around to see us through the uncertainty.I had proposed we start with an overall reduction of seven percent from last year’s expenditures. This is a real reduction, not just a reduction in the rate of spending increases—as cuts are often defined elsewhere. That’s transparency in budgeting—just as the public saw when we put the state’s checkbook online. We stand ready to work with lawmakers—who hold the purse strings—to amend the budget, as we receive revenue updates in weeks ahead.Last year, we all expected another surplus. But even then, with record high prices, I chose prudence and directed state commissioners to cut millions in operating costs.  Finding efficiencies even during times of plenty—that’s common sense fiscal responsibility.  Now, obviously, circumstances have changed that even international seasoned oil experts could not predict, requiring us now to adjust even more. Therefore, I am implementing a hiring freeze, exempting public safety, and I am restricting non-essential purchases. These actions reduce the draw on savings as we monitor revenue for the rest of 2009.For too long, Alaska’s economy has struggled with fluctuating revenue due to global commodity prices.  In a volatile economy, numbers are not fixed, but principles are. We’ve followed the same principles from the start of this administration: fiscal discipline, limited government, and responsible stewardship.At a time when other state legislatures are staring at multi-billion-dollar deficits, and when our federal government proposes a deficit in excess of a trillion dollars this year alone, we have all the cautionary examples we need in the virtues of living within our means. With less revenue, we have an obligation to spend less money.With our share of federal funds and Congress’ stimulus package, our obligation is equally clear: we must ensure these public funds serve vital needs—as is the case of infrastructure for our gas pipeline, needed by the nation; and the Kodiak Launch Facility, adding to national defense. President Obama pledged not to let this stimulus package devolve into the past familiar scene of politicians lining up for obscure earmarks. This is reform at work.Thankfully, in the state, these past couple of years we’ve allocated billions for roads, ports, schools, and other vital public works. That money hits the streets and grows the economy this year—so the private sector creates, and we keep, many thousands of good Alaskan jobs through this.  We can stay on that path of investment in growth with continued support for essential construction projects that will—literally—build this state.Now, we can’t buy into the notion that for government to serve better, it must always spend more. Reductions we support are a chance to show the true measure in public policy. Simply increasing budgets every year, a common government practice, is no guarantee of success. More often, it’s an incentive to failure. Good public policy is accountable for results, and focused on critical priorities.We promised public education reform—so schools can plan ahead, and bureaucracies do not smother a school’s creativity or a student’s aspiration. We now take the next step in our three-year education plan—to offer every young Alaskan—rural and urban—the opportunity to learn and work and succeed in the world. We’ll fully forward-fund all our school districts with more than a billion dollars—that’s more than 21 percent of General Fund expenditures. Education is that high a priority. We’ll focus on early learning, vo-tech and workforce development, an enhanced University, streamlined operations, we’ll hold schools accountable, and we’ll encourage opportunities for students with special needs.One of the great privileges given to me last year was the chance to be a witness for the truth that every child has value; to say to special needs children that they are beautiful and loved. And needed. We learn more from them than they from us. Across America, a great change is coming in public policy affecting these children, and Alaska can lead the way. This is a part of the culture of life where every child is cherished and protected.In this chamber, we share a commitment to serious health-care reform. We’ve learned from experience that all the answers do not come from Washington. When Congress turns to health-care reform this year, we look to our delegation to make the case for greater competition, more private sector choices, and less litigation in the health-care market. But we’re not going to wait. Here, reform can move forward without delay.I look forward to working with you on adjustments to kid’s health insurance. We’ll fund more early screening – for example, for autism—because early detection makes all the difference. We’ll focus on preventing disease and promoting healthy living. I’ll ask that physical education be incorporated into daily school schedules, too.We have alarming levels of heart disease, diabetes, childhood obesity—and all of these maladies are on the rise. Now, I won’t stand here and lecture—for very long—but health care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: we could save a lot of money, and a lot of grief, by making smarter choices.  It starts by ending destructive habits, and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise. In my case, it’s hard to slack when you have the ever-present example of an Iron Dogger nearby. But many of us could use a little more time in our great outdoors—and when you live in the Great Land, there’s no excuse.Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, but government policy can help. Our new Alaska Health Care Commission will recommend changes that affect the well-being of Alaskans far into the future. So, a healthier Alaska via personal responsibility, and subsisting more on our pure and plentiful Alaskan food sources! It’s why we protect our waters and soils from pollutants, and it’s a reason we manage our wildlife for abundance.To ensure this, we’ve successfully brought the Habitat Division back into Fish and Game, as I promised. Our biologists have protected game by eliminating predators from calving grounds and we’ll further protect herds, some of which are at precariously low levels of abundance—thus ultimately promoting the population growth of every species.We’re building viable personal use and commercial fisheries in some of the most controversial and complex fisheries in the world, dealing with half a dozen foreign countries, including Japan, Russia and Canada. We’re establishing sustainable seafood stocks, and limiting salmon bycatch in the trawl fishery. We’ve increased research on salmon runs, and we’re building new hatcheries for vibrant industry.As the largest and only Arctic state, we’re studying climate-change through our DEC-led subcabinet. And we’re suing the federal government for misusing the Endangered Species Act. There is an attempt there to use the ESA to impose environmental policies that should be debated and approved legislatively, not by court order or bureaucratic decree. Alaskans have shown through our protective laws that we’re willing and able to protect our magnificent wildlife, while developing our God-given resources, by using conservation laws as they were intended. We’ll challenge abuse of federal law when it’s used just to lock up Alaska.Vital projects now underway show how much science and technology have improved in a generation, greatly reducing risk to the environment. Continued work in Cook Inlet and on the North Slope, new drilling at Nikaitchug, new exploration in NPRA—these projects and more will be carried out with the safest methods. My administration has dramatically ramped up oversight. We demand the highest standards of stewardship and corporate responsibility, because we want to pass on this Alaska that we cherish to our children and grandchildren and beyond.And just as we strive to keep our environment safe, we’re dedicated to keeping Alaskans safe. We’ve finally filled vacant trooper positions this fall and we have several innovative initiatives moving, like a Highway Patrol Bureau focused on road safety and DUI enforcement. And I’m excited about the Troop to Trooper program, which offers our National Guard hometown heroes careers in law enforcement.These priorities should be a powerful incentive to think clearly and act decisively—not politically —in pursuit of funding them with our next economic lifeline: the gasline. Without revenues from developing clean natural gas, priorities can’t be funded, and we will deplete reserves within a decade. Working together, we’re developing a 10-year plan to keep a healthy balance in the Constitutional Budget Reserve. We’re laying up stores, until strong revenue comes in with the flow of natural gas to feed hungry markets here and outside.Unfortunately, some focus only on potential obstacles when they discuss projects like the gasline: the giants in the land preventing us from gathering fruit. But as I recall, we’ve already slain a few giants. Remember TAPS 30-some years ago? Alaskans were told the oil line was impossible. And then, all those years when this capitol was filled with talk about a $40 billion gasline, but that’s all it ever amounted to—talk, and closed door deals? Working with you, we shook things up, and passed Ethics Reform and AGIA and ACES. By inviting the private sector to compete for the right to tap our resources, we now have two major efforts underway to commercialize gas—without surrendering Alaska’s sovereignty.The big line will be the work of years. Last month we took another step closer to steel pipe when we signed the license with TransCanada-Alaska. To further develop, we’re commissioning preliminary work on a road to Umiat, and pursuing a road to Nome. We need access to our resources. Alaskans—especially in our smaller communities, the heartbeat of Alaska, with truly so much potential—we need jobs for income and achievement. Responsible resource development—including drilling, mining, timber and tourism—means more jobs, instead of more government.Now with the big line, every enterprise—every great thing worth doing—involves challenges. But we can be confident in this enterprise because it’s founded on the fundamental interests of our state and nation. America needs energy: affordable, abundant and secure. With international conflicts, war, and environmental concerns, laws and markets seek safe, clean energy, and that’s what we offer. The last president supported a gasline, and so does the new president. Because even the most promising renewable energy sources are years from general use, between then and now, we need a clean interim fuel to power our grid and heat our homes. Natural gas is ideal.In Alaska, all roads lead—well, really we only have the one, North—but it leads to the North Slope, and to the central importance of our North American gasline. America’s security, Alaska’s revenue, Alaskan careers, affordable fuel, even our ability to finally diversify our economy—all these hinge on the success of this great undertaking. I assure you: The line will be built—gas will flow—Alaska will succeed.Ironically, our people are blessed with owning the richest natural resources in the country; here we’re getting ready to flow four-and-a-half billion cubic feet of gas every day in a huge line; yet we’ve been more vulnerable than other Americans to every rise and fall in energy prices. Even though we own the resources. The solution for our state is much the same as for the rest of our nation—only the source is ours and much closer to us, so delivery can come sooner. We’re facilitating a smaller, in-state gasline with legislation we’ll hand you next month. My goal for this in-state line is completion in five years. It will carry 460-million cubic feet of gas every day to energize Alaska.Previously, we’ve relied on a diminishing gas supply from Cook Inlet, and expensive diesel, and a mix of government subsidies, and not enough conservation—but that is not sustainable. And it shouldn’t take another spike in energy costs to stir us into action. Alaska will help achieve energy independence and security for our country, and we can lead with a long-needed energy plan for America. But let us begin with energy security for ourselves.This includes meeting my goal of generating 50 percent of our electric power with renewable sources. That’s an unprecedented policy across the U.S, but we’re the state that can do it with our abundant renewables, and with Alaskan ingenuity.In our energy plan, for the first time, Alaskans will see cooperation among our utilities. We’ll introduce legislation creating the joint utility corporation to finally accomplish this. No more fractured efforts to generate power along the Railbelt via so many different utilities, headed in so many different directions. We will have coordinated power generation that will finally make sense for consumers.Energy is key. Governor Hickel spoke of the undeniable tie-in between energy and poverty, energy and peace and life. He said, “Our answers begin with energy. Freedom depends on it, so does hope.”For goals of hope, opportunity, and self-sufficiency, government is not the answer, but government can help with energy challenges. In villages, our weatherization programs provide jobs and reduce the cost of living. We continue to support bulk fuel purchases, PCE, power plant upgrades and many projects that foster opportunities and self-sufficiency. We’ve got to row together as one crew—that’s the only way to reach these goals.Now, we need more oil in the pipeline, too. So we strictly enforce state laws and contracts with oil companies. We’ll hold them accountable with those contracted commitments they signed, to develop our resources—as we are expected to keep our word to them. Our reformed oil production formula, ACES, helps them with strong incentives to keep capital re-invested, and it’s working with new developments, as DNR just announced a banner year for new companies entering our competitive oil and gas arena.Alaska, there will come a day when our success is not measured in barrels. The goal is multiplicity—an economy made strong by a wealth of petroleum, but no longer solely dependent on it. And again, the test of leadership is to be prepared. We need a plan. Business leaders, local officials, and other stakeholders, we all agree for our economic future, we need this. Like the saying, “Fail to plan? Then you plan to fail.” To that end, I issued an administrative order this week calling for the state’s first comprehensive economic strategy.Like our unprecedented energy plan rolled out this month, the Alaska Legacy Plan is the first of its kind. It will determine practical strategies to implement today and for the next 50 years. In the past, organizations have studied our strengths and weaknesses. They offered generalized suggestions for change. That’s good, we’ll utilize that. We propose a strategic action plan for private sector and government to stimulate and diversify the economy. We’ll need participation and common sense from those who make this economy run—namely, the small-business owners who do the hard work—they create jobs. That’s where the best ideas are.This will be the road map for activities and investments, to grow us strong, here in the Great Land of plenty. With our ideal, strategic position on the globe as the air-crossroads of the world; with our massive size, with stores of potential, with our spirit, with our people—together we will plot the course.I have confidence in Alaskans, in their judgment and groundedness. Even more so after the journey I completed on November 4th. I learned more about fighting the good fight, facing long odds, the need to protect family—my own and our Alaska family—and putting Country First even when voters put you second. Not unlike Alaska’s journey.When I took my oath of office to serve as your Governor, remember, I swore to steadfastly and doggedly guard the interests of this great state like a grizzly with cubs, as a mother naturally guards her own. Alaska, as a statewide family, we’ve got to fight for each other, not against and not let external, sensationalized distractions draw us off course.As an exciting year of unpredictable change begins, we, too, have our work cut out for us. And we’re all in this together. Just like our musk ox, they circle up to protect their future when they are challenged. We’ve got to do the same. So now, united, protecting and progressing under the great North Star, let’s get to work.Thank you. God bless.

He’d better get used to this

Posted on by | 3 Comments

Politico‘s Johnathan Martin and Carrie Budoff Brown report,

President Barack Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a deputy defense secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.”Ahh, see,” he said, “I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can’t end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I’m going to get grilled every time I come down here.”Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter’s shoulder and staring him in the eye.”Alright, come on” he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. “We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys—that’s all I was trying to do.”

Candidate Obama got away with treating the media like that; President Obama, though, is going to find that that sort of behavior isn’t going to wear well.  If he doesn’t want to make enemies of the media, he’d best get used to answering their questions.HT:  The Weekly Standard