Why I’d like to find a liberal Instapundit

Instapundit links to Byron York at The Washington Examiner, who gave an overview of who is, and who isn’t, covering the Nasa’s Main Goal is to reach out the Muslims story. 

As I’ve noted before, I don’t trust any one news source for my news, and I try to hit a lot of sources.  But it’s not like I don’t have other responsibilities.   I can catch what Fox and CNN are saying while I’m doing other things around the house (MSNBC has flat out given up in these parts), and check their sites at work, and I love to hit Instapundit and Althouse on my down times, as well as a number of other news and blog sites periodically.  But I always worry that maybe I could be missing some liberal positive story that some bunch of liberal blogs I’ve never gotten to are pointing to as “ignored by Fox.”  Now, granted, I’ve never know that to happen (I’ve never really seen a story that I thought was important that Fox didn’t cover), but I meet a lot of ignorant, uninformed people who aren’t picking up stories like this one, and I don’t want to risk becoming anything like them.  But I can’t handle the big liberal blogs on a regular basis- too negative and nasty.  Give me someone more moderate, like Glen Reynolds, but with a liberal state of mind and huge aggregation, and I’d be really happy.

Advertisements

“What’s particularly disappointing is that the authors are clearly trying to understand people with a perspective different from theirs and are simply unable to pull it off. “

That’s Glen Reynolds (better known, of course, as the Instapundit), reviewing Naomi Cahn and June Carbone’s book Red Families v. Blue FamiliesThis seems right on point with my frustration with many liberals recently.  I often feel like I can’t tell if they are being willfully dense or are really living in such a closed world that they simply cannot understand anything else. 

Slate’s Political Gabfest podcast reviewed this book a few weeks ago, and their understanding of “red states” (aka The South) seemed to be based on nothing further than the movie Deliverance.  They literally had no concept and no idea what life in the south is like (it’s pretty close to life in the north, but with different accents and buildings are further apart); their descriptions involved rampant shotgun weddings and teen brides.  Not that those things don’t exist (well, I’m skeptical about the shotgun weddings), but they don’t exist any differently from the way they do in other states.  There are cultural differences, but they are no where near as simplistic and downright cartoonish as the Slate gabbers seemed to think they were.  The differences between individual families are far broader.  (I’ve lived in New Jersey, Georgia, and Tennessee.)
 
It’s not even that they are not trying to understand; it’s that they are and they simply don’t understand that life is not a stereotyped cartoon outside of the world that they know.  

See, why do people have to put these things into my head

I know that this will never happen, but now, I want it to.  A couple of Above the Law writers are advocating Clarence Thomas for president. 

The Republican Party is in disarray, with no clear message — as shown in last week’s primaries — and with no obvious candidate to challenge President Obama in 2012. Thomas could be the GOP’s new standard-bearer. He has enviable name recognition, both as a long-serving justice and as the author of the bestselling 2007 autobiography “My Grandfather’s Son.” And he has already survived the nasty political attacks that marked his 1991 confirmation hearings.

A Thomas candidacy would bring racial diversity and a moving personal story to the Republican ticket. Thomas was born into poverty in Pin Point, Ga. He didn’t have indoor plumbing until he moved to Savannah to live with his grandparents at age 7.

“[My grandfather] told us that if we learned how to work, we would be able to live as well as he and Aunt Tina did when we grew up,” Thomas wrote in his memoir. “. . . Our first task was to get a good education, so that we could hold down a ‘coat-and-tie-job,’ and he wouldn’t listen to any excuses for failure.” Through hard work and a dedication to education, including degrees from Holy Cross College and Yale Law School, Thomas became a distinguished lawyer and public servant.

Thomas is well suited for political office. On the nation’s highest court, he has had to reflect and rule on the country’s most divisive issues. He also has political experience predating the court. He worked as an assistant attorney general in Missouri and then for the Reagan administration in the Department of Education and as head of the EEOC.

I’d be terrible if he risked it and lost (although, as Glenn Reynolds points out– who says he has to step down to run?)- we just couldn’t allow Obama to appoint his replacement.  And he would lose- as I’ve said before, as a minority who isn’t liberal, he represents something that the liberals know they must destroy.   But, oh! the justices that a president Thomas would appoint. 

Ilya Somin doesn’t think it’s a good idea for mostly the same reasons I don’t. (No real discussion of how he would actually be as president, though).

“Am I crazy, or is an overweight man with a thick New Jersey accent the most effective communicator of commonsense conservative principles in America today?”

I’m not the only one digging Chris Christie.

<object width=”640″ height=”385″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Evtt-R7Rmdw&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Evtt-R7Rmdw&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” allowScriptAccess=”always” width=”640″ height=”385″></embed></object>

The quote above comes from an email to Instapundit here, who points out that the audience is hanging on to his every word.

If you like your healthcare, you can(‘t) keep it, part II

Well, I’m sure most people will be able to keep their healthcare, right?  I mean, what’s a million or so people on those lower premium limited benefit plans?  After all, most people get their health insurance through their workplace, right?  Yeah, I’ll just keep doing that. 

Or will you?  (via Instapundit)

Under interim regulations, current employer-based coverage would not be grandfathered and hence subject to the health care laws’ consumer provisions if:

* The plan eliminates benefits related to diagnosis or treatment of a particular condition.

* The plan increases the percentage of a cost-sharing requirement (such as co-insurance) above the level at which it was on March 23, 2010.

* The plan increases the fixed amount of cost sharing such as deductibles or out-of-pocket limits by a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points.

* The plan increases co-payments as a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points or medical inflation plus $5.

* The employer’s share of the premium decreases more than 5 percentage points below what the share was on March 23, 2010.

According to the report, by 2013 51% of all employers — 66% of small employers (3-99 employees) and 45% of large employers — would have to relinquish current coverage. In a worst-case scenario, 69% of firms would lose their grandfathered status.

So, if you like your health insurance, and you are part of a lucky minority, you can keep it.  Well, that’s basically what Obama said.

In what kind of world is this an excuse?

Hot Air (via Instapundit), in discussing Attorney General Eric Holder’s admission that he has not read the Arizona law that he is claiming may warrant a constitutional challenge, asks the following:

 Here’s the money question, prompted not just by Holder’s ignorance but the fact that Hillary criticized the statute without having read it either: Are they deliberately not reading it so that they have an excuse to walk back their criticisms later if this gets too hot politically?

So, I ask in response: The bill is 18 pages long.  This man is the attorney general of the United States; he is our highest ranked legal authority.  Hillary Clinton, while not serving in a law based position, is also a trained attorney.  Will the public really accept “I didn’t read the bill before I criticized it” as any sort of excuse whatsoever?  Really? 

My town has been in the mist of a very controversial criminal trial which included frequent complaints that the defendant was getting a raw deal.  One of my friends, who is not an attorney, asked me what my thoughts were on it.  I answered her, but made sure to state very clearly that I was only basing my opinion on what had been offered in some of the main media outlets, and that I had not examined the evidence or studied the proceedings unfiltered.  I specifically said that my answer was only applicable if the coverage I was reading was accurate and complete. 

Now, I don’t get paid to answer legal questions to facebook friends, and she was in no way relying on my answer other than to satisfy her own curiosity, so I can do that without all of the facts.  But, even so, I am an attorney, and she asked me because of my experience; I felt that I owed it to her to answer with the caveats or to give a completely informed answer.  Attorney General Holder owes us a lot more, and he is not following through.

Related: NRO is also outraged, calling this “the most transparently irresponsible administration in history.”

Happy 50th, Pill

Neo-Neocon has a thought provoking post on the anniversary of the Pill.  (via Instapundit)

 By the time I was growing up the Pill was already a fact of life, albeit a new one. I certainly used it, and I believe that on the whole I, personally, benefited greatly from it. But that doesn’t mean it was an unmitigated plus in all respects…

he Pill plus Roe v. Wade changed all that. One would think that with the former there would hardly be any need for the latter. But if one thought that, one would be wrong. The advent of easy and extremely effective contraception has brought with it a cavalier attitude towards it. This is partly because abortion is also seen as so relatively easy, safe, and available; partly because unwed motherhood has turned into something so acceptable and is even romanticized as desirable; and partly because sex is now ubiquitous even for the very young and very irresponsible.These things are not coincidental to the Pill—they are at least in part a direct result of what Sanger envisioned, the freeing of women to enjoy sex without its previous built-in consequences. But, as with so many things, consequences follow us around nevertheless; they are just different consequences….

There were terrible costs to the bad old pre-Pill days. But there are huge problems today as well, and they are not limited to teens—women who delayed pregnancy for so long that they find their biological clocks have run down, for example, or those who have a long series of meaningless relationships in a chase after that elusive and perfect (and non-existent) sexual partner who will fulfill their every desire. When we have more choices, we must bear the consequences of the decisions we do make.

I’m younger than Neo, and the pill was as much of a fact of life as penicillin by the time I came of age.  Like Neo, I’m sure that it has been, and continues to be, positive for my life. (Without it, it would certainly have been more difficult to earn a J.D. during my marriage!)  But I agree that we make a mistake when we consider it an unmitigated good thing.  We should not ignore the consequences and social changes that the pill has at least partially brought.  That doesn’t mean that it is a negative thing or that it should not be used, it just means that we should pay attention to the unintended consequences.