Back to Basics

I didn’t have a ton of time to write again tonight. I had actually decided that I was going to skip the night and try to get some other stuff I have been procrastinating on done. But then I stumbled across this article, another of the open letters Representative Alan Grayson seems so fond of writing over there at the Huffington Post (one of the few places that will give a voice to fruit cakes like Grayson). As you all know, I have no beef with HuffPo. They have some interesting articles and some good ideas that come from a very intelligent group of writers. Unfortunately, they also have become a place where hatemongers such as Bob Cesca and Fools such as Grayson are given a podium from which to spew their nonsense. What they will not do, however, is allow for any dissenting opinions to be offered to counter folks like Cesca and Grayson. And that is a shame, because the surest way to ensure that your writers won’t be taken seriously by anyone other than those who already agree with your ideas is to limit the ability to to offer rational responses.

I would offer a little advice to HuffPo: If you want people to take you seriously, as in see you as something other than a far left site that plays the partisan game, you need some dissenting opinions. You need some people who hold your far left writers feet to the fire when they offer ideas, statements, and stances that are simply not honest, not accurate, or not based in reality. If you want to take a cue from somewhere, you need go no further than SUFA, where dissenting opinions are treated with respect and debated honestly. To be honest, I hope to one day have a regular writer for this site that is on the other side of the political spectrum from me. I would love to have, say every Wednesday night, an article from the left, where the author will be available to debate the topic. I think it would make SUFA the best site ever. So long as the respect for others concept is kept, I think the conversations and discussions would be outstanding. Whether that will ever happen is up in the air. I know those on the left who frequent SUFA (who I greatly appreciate being here) don’t have the time to devote to a role such as that. Perhaps someday.

For now, I present you with Alan Grayson’s latest article. How he became a United States Congressman simply baffles me. Because most of what he says simply doesn’t play out in the world of reality. Since HuffPo won’t publish my article responding to him, I will do so myself. I will offer Grayson’s article, followed by my responding article.

Half a Century Under the Whip Alan Grayson, US Representative

Alan Grayson… The latest Congressman to earn his “Jackass” merit badge

I was two years old when President Eisenhower gave a stunningly precise prediction of our fate for the next 50 years.

The underlying narrative of just about every liberal attack on Israel has been this. Defending yourself only makes us hate you more. This cynical sleight of hand is of course an old trick used by bigots to inhibit their targets from daring to fight back. And liberals have made it their weapon of choice when going after Jews and Israel.

The tactic works by criminalizing any attempt at a defense by the target, and making the defense itself part of the indictment. The goal is to impose a Catch 22 framework on Jews with the only way out being to agree and participate in the indictment of Israel. The defense itself is then incorporated into the bigot’s narrative. A 100 years ago, Jews would be charged with being “Pushy” and any defense against pushiness would itself be construed as pushy. Thus attempting to defend yourself would itself be an indictment proving the case already made against you. Similarly Israel is charged with defending itself too strongly. Anytime Israel defends itself in any way, it is automatically then proven guilty of defending itself. Liberal bigotry against Israel is not simply a charge immune to any defense, it is a charge which incorporates any defense as proof of the truth of the original accusation. Self-defense itself becomes the crime.

Playing this game allows liberals to express antisemitic ideas and beliefs while blaming Israel and the Jews for making them feel that way. A liberal bigot will explain that he is a reasonable person, but that Israel and those Jews who defend it are causing him to hate them. Speaking the truth about the situation only inspires more vitriol, as the bigot warns his target that defending Israel is itself hateful, and will cause him to hate even more. The target is then left with the choice of joining with the “Good Jews” who agree with the bigot, or becoming one of the “Bad Jews” who believes that his people have rights. As one of the “Good Jews”, the target is then expected to join in the Jewbaiting. And as one of the “Bad Jews”, he or she is now expected to shoulder responsibility for the liberal’s bigotry. Catch 22. Either way the liberal bigot wins.

The use of such a tactic displays not only liberal hypocrisy on bigotry, but demonstrates their ability to exploit the social insecurities of a minority to prevent them from exercising their political and civil rights. No wonder then that so many liberal Jews who do support Israel’s right to exist are complaining that they are tried of being expected to constantly defend Israel. Because that is exactly what the left wants to accomplish.

The same tactic has been quite effectively used against Israel. Each time Israel defends itself against Islamic terrorists, it is warned that defending itself will only inspire more hatred. And so it scales down its self-defense. It abandons defensible borders. It gives over land to terrorists. It reduces itself to naval patrol and a defensive wall.

Two teams face off on both sides of the field. The signal is given. The ball is in play. But in this game what’s the ball? The ball is your freedom. It’s your freedom that’s in play here.

This same game is played in various forms throughout the world. It isn’t limited to a stadium or a particular season. The game is about power. Different factions contend for it. Eventually one faction gets it and then the game is over for a while, until there’s a revolution or a coup. The difference in our version of the game is that none of the teams is actually supposed to win the game. That’s why we have the rules that we do.

The game of power has been played throughout history. Kings and Prime Ministers. Queens and Viziers. It’s an old timeless game that goes back into the darkest past. But our version of the game is different for two reasons. First the spectators get to help decide who plays and who wins. And Second, we make sure the game is replayed over and over again, so no team ever wins in a final way. Our system of representative government, the Bill of Rights and checks and balances, are not there to help the players for power, but to handicap them. Where many systems of government and their games of power were built on faith in governments– ours was built on a great deal of suspicion about government power.

And the ball tossed between the teams. That’s our freedom. Our freedom exists only so long as the ball is in play. When the ball stops being contested, then our freedom is in danger. Because a victory by one side means that power is being concentrated. And when power is concentrated, freedom is diminished.

But our unique game depends on one fundamental thing. It depends on both sides agreeing that playing the game by the rules is more important than the outcome. It requires that players on both sides believe that losing by the rules, is better than winning against the rules. And the moment one side stops believing that, the nature of the game changes fundamentally. Because a game is defined by its rules. The games we play are based on the rules that we make for them. If one team in a game no longer abides by those rules, then it’s no longer a game. It’s a war.

The rules of a game define civilization. By playing civilized games, we agree that following the rules is more important than getting our way. That is what separates us from societies where a resort to violence is a solution to not getting your way. In politics, the rules of the game require that everyone believe that they matter more than winning. And the underlying moral logic for a politician to believe that is fallibility. A politician must believe that he is capable of being wrong, and his opponent right, in order for following the rules to be more moral, than winning by any means necessary.

Did the Senate forget they are supposed to be representing the American people and are not on the TV game show “Let’s Make a Deal”?  The health care bill has serious, life-threatening consequences and they are putting their votes up for auction – going to the highest bidder.  Are the rest of the Senators wishing they held out for what was behind door number 3?

It is one thing to hold out to negotiate for a change or addition to a bill that will equally impact all people.  It is quite another to hold out and gain an advantage for only your state.  This bill is loaded with special considerations for a number of states and people.  Nebraska and Louisiana received special funding for their votes.  The tax on Cadillac insurance policies no longer applies equally to all policies; if you are in a certain field of business you will be exempt.  These are only a few.  I’m just not quite understanding the new bill writing system of applying only parts of the bill to some states or some people, while others are exempt, and yet others get special advantages.  Special interests are blaring obvious in this bill.

This got me to thinking of days long ago around this time of year when salesmen used to give gifts to the businessmen who had supported their companies.  Simple gifts, such as fruit baskets, a bottle of alcohol, or tickets to a sporting event.  These were all considered thank you gifts.  But alas, the days quickly ended when these “gifts” became a controversial issue and were then viewed as bribes or kickbacks.  Could one be sure the contract given to company A wasn’t because they gave a fruit basket to some manager who could influence that decision?  The gift giving and acceptance quickly ended with reputable companies for fear of being fired or having criminal charges brought upon them for participating in bribes and kickbacks.  Many scandals resulted from these gift exchanges.

So what makes the deals currently being made in the Senate any less criminal?  Didn’t Senator Ben Nelson actually take a bribe or kickback in exchange for his vote?  He negotiated and accepted a deal that gave a monetary advantage to his state, at the expense of the American taxpayer.  Should we not start holding these people accountable and charging them with the criminal activity they are so blatantly participating in?  The persons offering the bribe/kickback, as well as the person accepting the bribe/kickback, should both be criminally charged for their actions.

If I stood outside a polling place and offered to pay for people to vote a certain way, I am sure I would be quickly stopped, arrested and charged with a crime.  Are the Senators not doing the same thing?  Like I said before, it is one thing to negotiate a provision that will equally affect all.  It is quite another to sell your vote.  It’s time to hold them personally responsible.