PC NFL

Your editorial "Limbaugh: Socialism on the 50 yard line" (10/16/09) scrupulously avoids any mention of the facts of the story: a blogger inventing racist quotes and placing them on Rush's Wikipedia page. Dozens of public figures, including--naturally--Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, repeating these slanderous lies. The mainstream media then playing along without bothering to undertake the most basic Journalism 101 fact-checking of sources, showing itself to be a willing accomplice to slanderers and race hustlers. Mainstream journalism had little defense against charges of liberal bias, but rather than attempting to salvage your credibility by standing up for professional ethics, you amuse your readers with a too cute by half comparison of the NFL to socialism and by ridiculing Rush as a conspiracy nut ("to Rush Limbaugh, everything looks like a vast left-wing conspiracy.") No wonder Rush said, "our country has lost a great deal.’’

Flip-flopping

Marilyn Mason accuses the “right wing” of “flip-flopping” in the reactions to the Olympics and the Nobel Peace Prize stories (Letter, 10/10/09). It is however entirely consistent if you are negative on Obama to take a negative view of his success with the Nobel and a positive view of his failure with the Olympic bid; a positive times a negative and a negative times a positive both equal a negative. Apparently they don't teach logic at the Indoctrination U.

City Council Ponders Resolution to Close Pandora’s Box

Following the recent “longwinded” City Council debate on abolishing nuclear weapons (“Nuke talk sparks heated Cambridge council debate,” Chronicle 9/23/09), the Chronicle posted an online poll, asking, “Would you support a ballot question calling for the end of nuclear weapons?”

At the time of writing, the landslide poll winner, with 62% of the vote, is the obvious (and irritated) question, “Why is the City Council talking about this again?” Apparently Cantabrigians have sufficient common sense to realize that nuclear proliferation is not an appropriate topic for a City Council, which just might want to focus on the challenges facing our fair City. The last time I checked, President Obama, and Senators Kerry and Kirk were still in office and fully authorized to deal with national issues.

Councilor Marjorie Decker’s counter-argument is that “municipalities around the country and around the world … have been able to hold the international community to a higher standard.” I have great respect for grassroots citizens’ groups who participate in national politics. The tea party protesters, for instance.

But wait a minute—the City of Cambridge is not a grassroots group. What exactly is Councilor Decker talking about? Despite her delusions of grandeur, she is still only a City Councilor (and perhaps not for much longer). The Constitution clearly delegates national defense to the federal government. City government has a charter from the state, permitting it to collect taxes for municipal needs, not to advise the President on foreign policy. A President who, by the way, as the Chronicle points out, “has already publicly stated his goal to negotiate a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons.” I somehow doubt that he breathes a sigh of relief each time he receives a missive from the City Councilors: “Ah, yes, Cambridge has spoken. I can finally act!”
In addition to being a pointless, feel-good gesture, the ballot question would cost Cambridge taxpayers around $35,000. This is really a subsidy to Massachusetts Peace Action, the Cambridge-based chapter of Peace Action that requested the ballot question. If they want to send a message to the President, why don’t they collect signatures and pay for their own survey? Councilor Decker refers to Peace Action as “citizens”—constituents who deserve representation. No, they are a non-profit advocacy group engaged in lobbying for legislative change. What about all the other essential causes that Cambridge residents might feel passionately about? Global warming? World hunger? $35,000 is a significant contribution to a small non-profit. Why should the City Councilors choose Peace Action above any other advocacy group? Why should the City Council choose any non-profit over adequately funding its pension and health-care obligations? Massachusetts Peace Action should address its advocacy to the federal government and leave our City Council to deal with the business at hand. Perhaps a “longwinded” discussion of our completely unfunded $602 million liability for Other Post Employment Benefits? If our City Council has nothing better to do with its time, are we allowed to ask why we budget $1.46 million for their salaries and expenses?

And just think of all the other things we could do with $35,000, such as hiring a tutor to work in one of Cambridge’s under-performing schools. Then again, priority would likely be given to funding one third of a new position of Administrative Assistant for Administration. Not counting retirement and health care benefits through 2069. Perhaps it would be worth $35,000 to see how many Cambridge residents believe in the tooth fairy.

This brings us to a second question, which seems to have not been raised in this debate: is it a good idea to abolish nuclear weapons?

Perhaps the most frightening line of the Chronicle article is Councilor David Maher’s statement that the ballot to abolish nuclear weapons “is going to pass in the city by a huge percentage.” Are the intelligent people of Cambridge really that naive?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has serious flaws, but its three pillars—non-proliferation, good-faith arms reduction talks and peaceful use of nuclear power—are worthwhile goals. President Obama and Massachusetts Peace Action however are advocating the far more dangerous and utopian goal of outright abolition of nuclear arms. I rather doubt the world will be a safer place if rogue nations have nuclear arms and we do not.

Nuclear arms technology has escaped Pandora’s box. No City Council resolution can get it back in.

Palin 1, Globe 0

Apparently your editorial board couldn't find anything in Sarah Palin's Hong Kong speech to criticize, but you felt obliged to uphold your editorial mission of disparaging her at every opportunity. The best you could come up with was a feeble insinuation that there was something unethical about the fact that...she got paid to give her speech? Don't people speaking to 1,100 bankers usually get paid?

You further mention twice this tricky "operator" "took home a bundle" from a "Communist" country, as if no one in Communist countries earns money. I wonder who's driving all those Mercedes and BMWs in China?

You also find fault with Palin because, unlike our craven Secretary of State, she criticized Beijing for its military buildup. If President Obama did so, you would praise him for speaking truth to power. Instead you hint that there's something unseemly about criticizing the government of the country where a private organization is paying you a speaking fee.

To top it off, you admit that you don't even know how much she was paid, so your entire argument based on speculation.

Palin 1, Globe 0.

Extreme Republicans

I agree with Neal Gabler ("The Extreme Republican Party, 9/12/09) that our political system benefits from having two parties with opposing ideological foundations. Mr Gabler, however, like too many of his fellow Democrats, approaches debate on current issues with an unfortunate extremism of his own. Rather than discuss global warming or the appropriate role of the federal government in end of life care, he labels any dissenters to the party line as deranged and beyond the pale. The President's health care address to Congress evidenced a similar self-righteous inflexibility toward dialogue: I'm right, you're wrong, so don't do a lot of talking and get out of the way of progress. And Mr. Gabler accuses Republicans of knowing only "how to polarize"?

Bickering

The Globe headline this morning reports that according to President Obama, "The Time for Bickering is Over." Bickering is what we used to call the legislative process, back when we had leaders who believed in democracy.

What’s the Rush?

Things are built in China at an incredible pace. Need a new airport expressway for the Olympics? Done. Decide to create a new economic zone in Shanghai across the river with skyscrapers that rival Manhattan? Done. Projects the size of the Big Dig are no big deal.

On the other hand, consider the Walden Street Bridge in Cambridge. In the 1990s, engineers noticed that the 86-foot long two-lane bridge needed repair. A public meeting was held in April 2000, construction began six years later in October 2006, and the bridge reopened last December after over two years of construction.

This lethargic pace was disruptive for the neighborhood and commuters who use Walden Street, and it’s frustrating for the rest of us. Can’t we get things done in Cambridge efficiently, like they do in China?

This problem of bureaucratic stagnation is an argument used by both the left and right to advocate for pushing control in different directions.

Advocates for small government argue for greater local control, as Mark Steyn does in his wonderful anecdote about two bridges in his New Hampshire town. On the first, the town waited six years for State funds to cover 80% of the cost and saw their 20% share increase to more than the original 100% estimate. When another bridge needed repair, the town hired a local contractor and paid for the entire project. It was completed in two months and cost 1/14th of the State estimate.

Advocates for greater federal control—in particular, our new President--attempt to focus the frustration with government sluggishness to generate excitement about “getting things done.” The metaphor of bridge repairs is wrongly applied to all manner of legislative fixes—it’s broken, the solution is obvious, let’s just get it done! After all, a country that put a man on the moon can fix our broken health care system.

“Legislative logjams” however are not the same as bridge repairs. The solution to complex problems is rarely so obvious that no discussion is required.

Tom Friedman refers to this as the “China for a day” solution. Wouldn’t it be nice, he muses, to have an authoritarian government for a day that could simply pass, for example, global warming legislation by fiat. To his credit, Friedman replies that no, it would not be a good idea.

It pains me to defend red tape, but there are legitimate reasons why it takes longer to get things done here than in China.
No doubt we could curtail the six-year public comment period on an 86-foot bridge. Perhaps a fact-finding trip to Minneapolis is in order, where, as others have pointed out, the I-35 Mississippi River Bridge was entirely rebuilt in 13 months. But unlike authoritarian states, a democratic state requires a period where citizens can voice concerns before their money is spent. Walden Street abutters had a say in detour routes and work hours. Facing further delay, the neighborhood agreed to expand construction hours.

Anguishing as it is at times, this process is an integral part of the representative government that the Founders envisioned—a system where checks and balances slow down rash decisions. The U.S. Senate is known as the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. To deliberate: “engage in long and careful consideration.” Legislating was intended to be cumbersome. Once a law, a new agency, or a new tax is created, it’s not easy to get rid of it.

Our President however is a man in a rush. First, the Stimulus and its clones. Then Cap and Trade. Finally, Obamacare, a thousand pages of legislation that the President wanted passed in three weeks.

When it looked like the health care timetable was in trouble, the President issued this chilling statement: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.”

If this sounds like a quote that MoveOn.Org might have invented to paint President Bush as a tyrant, go watch Obama on YouTube. The mess? Get out of the way? No talking allowed? These are the words of a man who has little faith in democracy.
I can imagine how the Obama Bridge and Tunnel Authority might have handled the Walden Street Bridge: “You folks in your SUVs messed things up and we’ve got to clean up after you so we’re building a billion dollar tunnel from Raymond Park to Mass Ave. Now get out of the way and don’t do a lot of talking.”