I recently sent the following letter to the New York Times:
To the Editor:
As “NASA’s Black Hole Budgets” (editorial, Nov. 24) noted, NASA has a “culture that has lost control of spending.” As a former employee, Alan Stern has seen this problem first hand. Unfortunately, the solution he offers is little more than a call to just try harder. Politicians can’t be counted on to “turn from the self-serving protection of local NASA jobs.” Moreover, the problems he describes in NASA are not unique to the space agency; they are the results of systemic flaws in the bureaucratic system.
We should be treating the illness rather than the symptoms. This requires a fundamental rethinking of how we approach space exploration. A good start would be to rely less on government bureaucracies and more on private endeavors, which can be promoted through tax breaks and prize offerings. But so long as bureaucrats are encouraged to feed on the public trough, we shouldn’t be surprised when they pig out.
Sincerely,
Brian Garst
Leave a comment
Print This Post
Dr. Susan Rice is now said to be the leading contender for Ambassador to the U.N. in the Obama administration. The pick would be telling in terms of the foreign policy Obama plans to pursue, and how it doesn’t square with his campaign rhetoric. In 2006 Rice argued for military action, unilateral if necessary, in Darfur:
History demonstrates that there is one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force. After Sept. 11, 2001, when President Bush issued a warning to states that harbor terrorists, Sudan — recalling the 1998 U.S. airstrike on Khartoum — suddenly began cooperating on counterterrorism. It’s time to get tough with Sudan again.
After swift diplomatic consultations, the United States should press for a U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states, collectively or individually. International military pressure would continue until Sudan relented.
The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan’s oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy — by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.
If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it. Impossible? No, the United States acted without U.N. blessing in 1999 in Kosovo to confront a lesser humanitarian crisis (perhaps 10,000 killed) and a more formidable adversary. Under NATO auspices, it bombed Serbian targets until Slobodan Milosevic acquiesced. Not a single American died in combat. Many nations protested that the United States violated international law, but the United Nations subsequently deployed a mission to administer Kosovo and effectively blessed NATO military action retroactively.
Many on the left may be surprised at these positions. Likely, they took Democratic leaders at their word when they explained their reasons for attacking Bush on Iraq. Those of us more familiar with political history – such as Clinton’s unilateral sidestepping of the U.N. in Kosovo – and the intellectual currents driving policy debates, saw it for what it was: an argument of convenience.
Left-wing interventionists are actually more common than right-wing ones. Before the neoconservatives had won the day in establishing Republican policy, there was Secretary Madeliene Albright, who asked Colin Powell, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” The ironic difference between the left and right interventionists is this: on the left they only want to use force when U.S. interests are non-existent. Boondoggle that Iraq was in many ways, at least there was a debatable, though certainly plausible, claim of serving U.S. national interests in deposing Saddam. One can’t even make a pretense of serving U.S. interests in Darfur.
When the French foreign minister said, “We cannot accept either a politically unipolar world, nor a culturally uniform world, nor the unilateralism of a single hyper-power,” he wasn’t talking about Bush. The statement was made in 2000 and referred to the administration of Bill Clinton. With Clintonites now littered throughout Obama’s emerging administration, yet another reversal looks to be in order, this time on the usefulness of unilateralism and interventionism.
Leave a comment Print This Post
The Washington Post thinks it’s a good idea:
Amid the blizzard of résumés blanketing Washington as the Obama era dawns, there is a superbly qualified candidate for full employment whose name has been overlooked. We refer, of course, to William Jefferson Clinton, America’s 42nd chief executive and commander in chief. Yet now, by a wonderful combination of circumstances, comes an opportunity to harness his unquestioned political talents to benefit his country, the Democratic Party, New York state and his spouse. If, as is expected, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes secretary of state, New York Gov. David Paterson could send her husband to the U.S. Senate.
Doing so would spare the governor the agonizing dilemma of choosing from the 20 or so Democrats already named as contenders for the junior senator’s seat. Those mentioned include six sitting members of the House of Representatives (three of each sex), Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Caroline Kennedy and her cousin Robert Kennedy Jr., Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown (an African American), and Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión Jr. (who is Hispanic). In this no-win competition, Paterson has to balance claims of gender, race, ethnicity and geography. He could wind up gaining one grateful ally while alienating not only all the losers but also millions of members of the disparate constituencies that each represents.
Hear that? It’s the world’s smallest violin playing for Gov. Paterson. As I frequently say of the Democratic party, when you live by identity politics, you die by it.
But back to Clinton. While it’s not unheard of for a former President to return to Congress, the idea should not be encouraged in his case. Hasn’t his egomania held America hostage for long enough? Do we really need to indulge in another chapter of Bill Clinton’s quest for self-destruction?
Leave a comment Print This Post
The drones don’t know it yet, but they’re going to miss this man when he’s gone.
Leave a comment Print This Post
You gotta be kidding me…no never mind, the nation really is becoming this absurd.
If for some reason you want to, and I can’t think of a good one, you can find the stupid game here.
I played it so you wouldn’t have to. The goombas have been replaced with pigs. The coins with American flag pins. Get it? Maybe it was the slippery ice, or maybe it was an involuntary subconscious reaction on my part, but my Obama kept hurling himself into bottomless pits. Eventually I estimated the amount of time someone must have put into this thing and gave up out of overwhelming sorrow for the sad lives of Obama supporters.
Other popular Super NES titles they plan to remake in honor of our benevolent ruler include:
Sim Utopia; Rampage: Constitutional Edition; Iran Contra; and Wheel of Misfortune. Coming soon!
Leave a comment Print This Post
While John McCain and Barack Obama disagreed on taxes, health care and foreign policy, there is at least one issue on which they found common ground during the recent presidential campaign: the polarization of Washington and the nation. Both candidates made it one of their central themes. McCain observed that he’s “never seen Washington as polarized as it is today,” while Obama thought that President Bush “polarized us when he should have pulled us together.” McCain promised, while accepting his party’s nomination, to end the “constant partisan rancor” of Washington, while Obama made sure to clarify that he wasn’t blaming voters by noting that “the country is not as polarized as our politics would suggest.” Rather, we are to conclude, it is cynical politicians who exploit wedge issues to win elections, and launch personal attacks against their opponents, that are to blame. To hear each candidate tell it, all we need is the right leader with a conciliatory tone to unite America and end polarization. History shows this to be a fantasy.
The conventional wisdom is that politicians create polarization by being excessively negative in their campaigning. Every four years we are told that the current election is the most negative in history. Commentators bemoan the debasement of the political process, while reporters highlight voters turned off by the negative tone. Rarely are these assertions placed into historical context. The problem with the conventional wisdom is that our politics are no more contentious today than in the past.
The birth of the attack campaign can be traced back to 1800 and the contest between President John Adams and then Vice-President Thomas Jefferson. Despite the personal friendship of the candidates, the campaign was brutal. Adams was accused of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Jefferson was “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”
This is not to say that Americans haven’t become more polarized, but we should separate the distinct issues of campaign negativity and polarization of voters. Political mudslinging is not new, but there has been an increase in the degree to which voters view others as not just political opponents, but as outright enemies. Negativity is a constant and thus incapable of explaining changes in polarization. To what, then, can we attribute increasing polarization?
While negative campaigning has not changed since 1800, the size and scope of government has. It doesn’t matter which measurement is used; they all tell the same story. Per capita expenditures – the amount of money spent by the government per citizen – exploded during the 20th century, growing in 2004 to 55 times that of 1910. Total government expenditures at all levels (federal, state and local) grew 417% in just the last half century. Economic growth cannot account for this increase, as it has been significantly outpaced by government spending. With the federal government falling all over itself to hand out shockingly large sums of money to banks, automakers and any other big business that asks nicely, or at all, this trend shows no signs of slowing.
Despite the modest downsizing after the end of the Cold War, by 2000 the federal government employed almost 3 million people, and government employment at the federal, state and local level now combine for 16% of the total national work force. There are ten additional cabinet positions compared to the beginning of the 20th century. So in addition to spending more, they are also doing more.
We have all these bureaucrats to manage the regulations covering every aspect of our lives. Government tells us what we can eat, where we can smoke, what medicines we can use and what insurance we can purchase. It even tells us who we can marry and where we must send our children to school, along with what they must be taught.
This intrusion of government has sparked the “culture war.” It exists because government, by design, requires one-size-fits-all solutions on issues on which there is no one size that fits all. As an example, when parents cannot choose where to send their kids to school, they must fight within the political system to see that the schools teach what they want. Different parents have different ideas, often mutually exclusive, on what they want their children to learn. Because they must fight over control of the same system, some must inevitably lose.
When issues of importance to the people must be fought over, it’s understandable that the fighting can be intense. A lot is at stake in every election. Repeat this process again and again, on issue after issue, and it is little wonder why Americans are polarized today. Government has pit us against our fellow citizens in a battle for control of our own lives. It’s a battle we can only lose, and which the new administration’s big government programs can only make worse.
3 comments Print This Post
I recently sent the following letter to the New York Times:
To the Editor:
“A Resounding Vote for Open Space,” (editorial, Nov. 18) notes that voters in several states approved large spending proposals for preserving open land. The editorial wrongly concludes that Congress should follow suit and “grant permanent wilderness protection to two million acres of public land.”
The federal government already owns 650 million acres of land – nearly 30% of the total U.S. territory. It doesn’t need more. That voters chose to approve open land initiatives at the state level doesn’t amount to “an explicit rebuke to President Bush,” but instead shows the popularity of local control. Approving state money through referendums ensures that those who live near preservation lands – and thus receive most of the benefits – are the ones to bear the costs.
The government should do the opposite of what the editorial suggests: sell as much federal land as it can and help close the federal budget’s record shortfalls.
Sincerely,
Brian Garst
Leave a comment Print This Post
Even the observers and lawyers have been instructed by their respective campaigns to not talk to the media. But Minneapolis lawyer Bill Starr, who is volunteering for the Franken campaign, was willing to say a few words. He said he thinks Franken will prevail. His hunch is based on a theory he has.
“People who voted for Coleman are more likely to have taken the SAT in their lifetime,” he said. “They’ve filled in circles. Franken voters are probably not college-educated. They’re new voters and immigrants. They’ve been brought in by groups like ACORN, from the inner cities. They’re more likely to make mistakes. I’ve bounced this off of minority people, and they agree with me.”
“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, idiot voters like me.”
Hat-tip: Crush Liberalism
Leave a comment Print This Post
Socialist President of Venezuela, and Barack Obama backer, Hugo Chavez is teaming up with Iranian nutjob Ahmadinejad to start new socialist university.
Venezuela and Iran plan to start a new university program in the South American country with a focus on teaching socialist principles.
Venezuela’s government says it plans to establish the University of Civilizations under accords recently signed with Iran.
Deputy Minister for Academic Development Tibisay Hung says the program will begin in Caracas at the existing, tuition-free Bolivarian University.
Hung tells the state-run Bolivarian News Agency that the aim is to promote discussion of “21st century socialism.” Venezuela announced the program on Monday.
There will no doubt be a flood of American academics ready to teach there. Though one wonders why we need yet another educational institution hawking the miseries of socialism on the planet when we already have UCLA, UCSC and all the other bastions of radical leftism attracting socialists from all corners of the world to the U.S.
Leave a comment Print This Post
In response to her latest column, in which she seeks to cure the Republican party of its ills, I sent Kathleen Parker the following response:
Leave a commentMrs. Parker
Big government republicanism is what’s killing the party, and it comes from both sides of the religious line. The religious right and secularized republicans alike have contributed to the eroding of the core republican principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. Blaming the religious is a reflection of your obvious bigotry – evidenced by the numerous pejoratives in your piece – not the result of an honest evaluation of the facts.
While many of the religious right, such as Michael Gerson, have promoted and celebrated big government, the two groups are not equivalent. Drumming out religious conservatives will not only unnecessarily alienate many who believe in republican ideals for no reason, it will leave untouched many others who contributed to the republican collapse. It’s simply a wrong diagnosis. The GOP doesn’t need to give up on God, it needs to give up on big government.
- Brian Garst
Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
