Scott Bradford: Off on a Tangent

How to Quantify My Politics

Posted

I’ve been giving some thought lately to how I can quantify and/or explain my political views in a short, pithy, simple way. I keep coming up short. What’s most annoying is that I’ve been trying to do this with only limited success since I first started paying real attention to politics, some time around 1997 or 1998. Originally I called myself a ‘moderate Republican.’ This gave way to something like ‘libertarian Republican’ [note the small-L].

In 2000, I first began to really identify myself as an independent since I found that I was in disagreement with a lot of ‘Republican’ policy stances and calling myself a Republican wasn’t really accurate. I didn’t really have any good qualifiers so I just said I was independent. When prodded, I would give an explanation like, “I disagree with Democrats 80 percent of the time and Republicans 60 percent of the time, so I generally vote Republican.” This was both an oversimplification and an exaggeration, but it got the point across. It’s still somewhat accurate.

At some point, in desperation for a 1- or 2-word statement on my politics, I began calling myself a ‘conservative independent’ and this stuck. This is what showed on the ‘about’ page of this web site for many, many years . . . but it never felt totally right. It wasn’t that it was wrong, it just seemed like it lacked clarity. It says I’m somewhere center-right, which is true, but doesn’t really explain what I’m center on, what I’m right on, or, for that matter, what I might be left on! At some point ‘conservative independent’ gave way to the equally obtuse ‘independent conservative,’ reflecting a slightly more pronounced rightward slant (though certainly no sea-change).

Read more . . .

House Passes ‘DISCLOSE’ Act

Posted

The United States House of Representatives narrowly passed the controversial ‘DISCLOSE’ Act last night. The Act would impose a number of new, unconstitutional requirements on organizations that engage in First Amendment protected political speech. More on the Act here.

If you value your civil liberties and your own free speech, free assembly, and privacy rights, you might want to contact your Senators and demand that they vote against this bill when it comes to their chamber.

If your Congressman voted for this (and the many other unconstitutional bills they’ve been passing over the last several years), you might want to contact them too and let your opinions be known. Of course, the best way is to vote with your . . . votes ;-).

Don’t forget, all of our elected officials swear to protect and defend the Constitution; this usually precludes trampling it. It might be worth letting your representatives know that you expect them to do what they swore to do.

Gen. McChrystal Had to Go

Posted

General Stanley McChrystal, the Commander of Afghanistan Forces, was subject of an in-depth article in Rolling Stone magazine in which he and his staff members shared their low opinions of President Barack Obama (D) and other high-ranking civilian government officials. After the article went public, McChrystal promptly met with Obama and tendered his resignation earlier today. He will be replaced by General David Petraeus.

McChrystal—and his staff members—are all entitled to their opinions. Heck, their opinions might even be right! Even so, McChrystal should be smart enough (and experienced enough) to understand the chain of command. You make your opinions known to your superiors privately, and then accept their judgment and follow their orders. You don’t insult them, especially not in a public forum, and you always treat them with honor and respect.

Our military forces answer to the civilian government and, whatever McChrystal might personally think of that government, its officials outrank him. Elected and appointed civilian leaders are entitled to appropriate respect and deference from our military officials, whatever they might think of their policies and personalities. I cannot understand why an experienced, professional military leader like McChrystal would allow himself to land in this position but, at least, he handled it honorably after the fact by apologizing for his poor judgment and resigning.

Insubordination is not accepted in the ranks of our armed forces; had McChrystal insulted his military superiors in this way he quite possibly would have faced court-martial for it. If McChrystal had not resigned, then Obama would have had to fire him. He had to go.

Website 21.2 In Development

Posted

I’ve started some preliminary work on a minor update to the site which, when done, will bring the version to 21.2. Believe it or not, it’s been six months since the last minor update and over a year since the last top-to-bottom redesign. I’m still pretty happy with it, but—as happens every-so-often with me—I’m starting to feel like I ought to update it just for the sake of updating it. I also want to try out some cool new jQuery and WordPress tricks I’ve been learning.

So far, my experimental development version has . . . nothing all that great, at least from the reader’s perspective. I’ve added support for the new menu system in WordPress 3.0, which will make it easier for me to make changes to the menus when I need to (and make sure the Site Map and menu are always in sync). I’ve also hacked around on WP-Super-Cache so I can enable WordPress caching on my theme without screwing up the desktop vs. mobile versions, which will speed things up a bit for everybody when it goes live.

Other than that, I don’t really have much planned yet . . . so if you have any requests, now is the time. What do you love about the site? What do you hate about it? Let me know.

The DISCLOSE Act

Posted

Back in January, to everybody’s surprise, the United States Supreme Court ruled that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” means that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” I never saw that coming; the Court actually read the Constitution and made a ruling based on what it actually says.

Regardless, our current Congress and president didn’t like this ruling since the laws it overturned were laws that benefited their special interest groups at the expense of groups that supported their political opposition. As such, our government has been working on crafting new laws to “abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press” until the Supreme Court can overturn them too, or until we amend the Constitution to actually allow these things.

Up for debate very soon will be the DISCLOSE Act, which is intended to re-muzzle those ‘peaceable assemblies’ (hm, also mentioned in the First Amendment) that were recently un-muzzled by the Court. This act, if passed, will have a dangerous chilling effect on speech by political groups, left and right. This act doesn’t protect our political liberty, it destroys it (again).

Interest groups, of course, are made up of people who willingly support those groups with their time and money. They aren’t some diabolical, nebulous enemy of our democracy; they are democracy. We have a right to support political interest groups and those groups, representing their members and supporters, have a right to engage in pretty-much unrestricted political speech.

Those of us who still want and enjoy our political liberties must oppose this bill. We also must oppose the back-room deals being made between Congress and certain large groups, like the National Rifle Association (NRA), to exempt them from the law in order to buy their silence. This is the same-old ‘politics as usual’ that President Barack Obama (D) campaigned against and, most perplexing, it benefits the large lobbying groups the president decries at the expense of the small, grass-roots organizations across the political spectrum that are the lifeblood of our republic.

Editorial Note: I am a member and regular supporter of the National Rifle Association (NRA). The views expressed in this piece are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the NRA.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.