Emma Watson is nobody’s idea of the reincarnation of Phyllis Schlafly. Yet she goes out of her way here to explain to the more radical among feminism’s adherents why there is nothing inherently wrong with the modern code of chivalry as practiced by a genuine gentleman.
There is a growing body of evidence pointing to a deep divide between the interests of conservatives (and, indeed, of America) on the one hand, and those of corporate America on the other. The campaign being waged by public utilities against rooftop solar is one. The buried lede:
“Conservatives support solar — they support it even more than progressives do,” said Bryan Miller, co-chairman of the Alliance for Solar Choice and a vice president of public policy for Sunrun, a California solar provider. “It’s about competition in its most basic form. The idea that you should be forced to buy power from a state-sponsored monopoly and not have an option is about the least conservative thing you can imagine.”
Excellent article, superb links.
As an aside, I am on the verge of giving up my resistance and subscribing to the WaPo. With The New York Times continuing Pinch Sulzberger’s long, ugly slide to the Left, and the Murdoch-controlled Wall Street Journal digging in deeper on the far right, it is nice to see Jeff Bezos allowing the Post to settle in somewhere closer to a balanced center.
Jennifer Rubin poses some questions that Hillary Clinton will face at some point between now and Election Day 2016. Some drip of grandstanding, but there are other, fair questions that any candidate, and particularly one associated with the current Administration’s foreign policy, should answer.
Should we lift restrictions on Iran after 10 years under a deal even if Iran is still supporting terrorism, vowing to destroy Israel and subverting neighbors?
How can the American people be sure you would not give special treatment or be biased in favor of countries that helped fund your foundation?
Will you return all foreign money?
Why are you still giving paid speeches?
Aren’t business interests such as Goldman Sachs trying to ingratiate themselves with you in the event you become president?
Feel free to kick in your own.
The Economist has an interesting take in its Schumpeter blog from not-too-long-ago about the appropriateness of managing government like managing a business. The British newsweekly has never hidden its political views, and nobody would accuse it of being anything to the left of a Tory-leaning Liberal-Democrat. One might expect it to take a bullish attitude toward making government more businesslike.
But after examining some ideas, the paper comes to an interesting conclusion: interesting idea, but don’t take it too far:
There is much to quarrel with in the growing movement to learn from the private sector. Businesspeople tend to forget that government always involves the clash of visions and interests. The government of people can never be reduced to the administration of things. Businesspeople also forget that they are an interest group like any other. But it is nevertheless right to involve as many different voices as possible in the discussion. Governments have no choice but to rethink their core operations in the light of tectonic technological changes and escalating social pressures. They need all the help they can get.
Which is the point. We shouldn’t shy away from good ideas that come from business just because they were birthed in the commercial realm, but we should not give them credence in the government context merely because they succeeded in business.
I have no problem with Ms. Boudin espousing her political views, no matter how misguided they may be. My issue is with placing a convicted murderer and terrorist in a classroom teaching our children. When we do that, we become no better than the extremists who teach in the Hamas terror camps.