Liz Cheney: Like Father, Like Daughter

Ann Coulter, Family, Homosexuality, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Republicans

Liz Cheney is a snake like her father, Dick, whom Fox News continues to dust off periodically and present as a voice of wisdom. Even though she hangs out with her gay sister and sister’s partner and expresses support for the couple in private, the opportunistic Liz—who is running for office—disses her sister’s life in public:

It’s a good thing Mary Cheney can’t vote in Wyoming.

After an appearance on Fox News Sunday in which Wyoming Senate candidate Liz Cheney said she and her married gay sister “just disagree” on the subject of marriage equality, Mary Cheney posted a sharp rebuke to her Facebook page. “Liz – this isn’t just an issue on which we disagree, you’re just wrong – and on the wrong side of history,” she wrote.

Mary Cheney’s wife, Heather Poe, also took to Facebook to sound off. “Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 – she didn’t hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us. To have her say she doesn’t support our right to marry is offensive to say the least.”

Their comments came after Liz Cheney, who is struggling in the polls against Rebublican [sic] incumbent Senator Mike Enzi, tried to explain to host Chris Wallace that her support of a State Department policy that grants benefits to same sex couples is not inconsistent with her broader opposition to allowing those couples to get married.

Ann Coulter had some fighting words for Liz (in defending the indefensible: the GOP):

“The problem is we have hucksters, shysters, people ripping off the Republican Party for their own self-aggrandizement, for their own egos, to make money,” Coulter said on Fox News’s “Hannity.”

“I would put Todd Akin, Newt Gingrich, Liz Cheney, Mark Sanford all in the same boat, and the consultants who persuaded Linda McMahon and John Raese to run,” she added.

Republicans just can’t stop mentioning issues that win them no support from most Americans. Most people think that a person’s sexual life is his or her business. What’s wrong with saying, “I have very many positions on policy, gay marriage is not one of them.” It’s hardly a make-or-break matter. Or simply echo this paleolibertarianism position:

In furtherance of liberty, Uncle Sam’s purview must be curtailed, not expanded. On this score, let our gay friends and family members lead the way. Let them solemnize their commitment in contract and through church, synagogue and mosque (that will be the day!). Once interesting and iconoclastic, gays have become colossal bores who crave nothing more than the state’s seal of approval. Go back to the days of the Stonewall Riots, when the police’s violations of privacy and private property were the object of gay anger and activism.

*Image credit

 

Fix News Falters, But Flatters

Conservatism, Ethics, Etiquette, Ilana Mercer, Media

When “‘Obama, Love Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry’” was first published and circulated, Megyn Kelly led her show with the exact reference and column title, even cuing the music from “Love Story.” Did she or her producer have the decency to credit the column? You know the answer to that.

Our editor sent me this comment: “yep, par for the course—still kinda cool though.” He’s right.

Indeed, as documented in “Glenn Beck Awakens To The Color Of Hate Crime (But Fails To Credit Those Who Went Before),” this is not a first for big, conservative media—generally challenged in the originality department. Passing off the often-idiosyncratic ideas or references of others as their own is “par for the course” in these circles.

Personally, I experienced Sean Hannity as a cordial gentleman—disarmingly charming—who was generous on air in his praise for my work and controversial position. (Perhaps the only position I’ve taken that I’ve come to deeply regret, even though it is probably philosophically correct.)

Debbie Schlussel, however, has had a different experience, detailed in “Why is Sean Hannity Deliberately Ripping Me Off?”.

Subsidies for People Who Once Paid Their Way

Government, Healthcare, The State

Once they are shoved into Obama-care “exchanges”—and they will be—the policy holders expunged from the individual health-care market will often qualify for taxpayer subsidies.

The New Republic prefers “federal subsidies” to “taxpayer subsidies.”

Semantics can help conceal who will help fund insurance for individuals who had it, paid for it in full, and were happy with both policy and price.

Meanwhile, the brainiac who brought us all this, and who was incapable of foreseeing the consequences of the law, is “brainstorming with insurers.”

The Politico title doesn’t jibe with the substance of the article, in which the president is back to preaching the benefits of Obamacare.

The latest, via McClatchy:

On Thursday, Obama announced that he’d allow – but not require – insurance companies to extend existing policies for a year as long as they notified customers that their benefits might be diminished with their current plans and that alternative policies might be available to them.

Insurance companies already have devised plans for next year, received the necessary approval from states and begun to sell policies. They aren’t required to continue to offer their existing policies and state insurance commissioners aren’t required to approve those 2013 plans.

“Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers,” Karen Ignagni, the president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents the industry.

Washington state’s insurance commissioner, Mike Kreidler, announced Thursday he won’t allow insurers to extend their policies, saying Washington’s state-based exchange was “up and running and successfully enrolling thousands of consumers.”

UPDATE III: ‘The World’s Smartest Birds, Set Free’ (And Made Happy)

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Ethics, Law, Lebanon

Just this once, a good-news story “in the fight against wildlife trafficking”: “The World’s Smartest Birds, Set Free,” by Charles Bergman, writing at Slate.com.

Libertarians know too well that legislation tends to have unintended consequences. For example, a prohibition on trade and trafficking in these sentient creatures has meant that their main predator—man—has proceeded to decimate the bird population’s habitat. For when the birds can’t be harvested, the supporting ecosystem loses its commercial value too. It’s an unending, heartbreaking quagmire.

Or, do we accept that some values are uniquely Western—like the worldview that wild life has its own intrinsic value independent of man? And if so, what is to be done about the kind of cruelty we in the West cannot abide? Clearly education is invaluable. Can demand be reduced through education? Markets for these magnificent, social creatures are, after all, fueled by demand.

This is a start:

… African Grey parrots are among the most heavily traded of all animals. Their popularity is fueled by recent research on their astonishing intelligence. In some ways, their cognitive abilities rival those of a 3-year-old child. Alex, the “genius” African Grey parrot studied by Irene Pepperberg, had a vocabulary of more than 100 words and a sassy tongue—a smart Alex.

They may be the smartest birds in the world.

According to Rowan Martin, the energetic ornithologist who managed our release of the parrots, about 2 million African Grey parrots have been captured from the wild for the global pet trade since 1975.

This figure is staggering. Most of the parrots were captured as part of a thriving legal trade in wild-caught parrots. It seems counterintuitive …

MORE.

UPDATE I (11/15): FACEBOOK THREAD:

“This is the paradox of parrots. We love them for being like us, for talking like us, and for bonding with us. But then we find ourselves unprepared for the challenges they present in our busy lives.” Another important, poignant piece by Dr. Charles Bergmen: “No-Fly Zone: Denied Their Natural Habits, Millions of Pet Parrots Lead Bleak, Lonely Lives.”

UPDATE II: As to John Paterson’s assertion that, “If you’re going to own a bird, you should always own two”:

Not so. Mark Anderson’s reply is the correct one. Anderson writes: “I love birds. It’s not necessary to own two as long as you give your bird attention. In fact, birds tend to be one person kind of spirits. My bird didn’t like to see anybody but me.”

Indeed. I work from home and can give my parrot what he needs. Provided you make the effort, parrots can fall deeply in love with their companion human, so much so as to regard him or her as a mate for life. This is how intense they are. So long as he is hugged, kissed, praised (OW actually displays his wing feathers each time I call him a “beautiful poi.” He can tell from the tone of my voice that I am admiring him), and respected. They must be let loose to fly in the house (the home must be safe), and they must seldom be caged. Like a 2-year-old child, OW is only sent to his room (caged) at bedtime, when his parronts go out, when he needs some quite, alone time. Thus, he puts himself to bed and goes in-and-out of his house at will, b/c it is no longer a prison cell. His cage is simply real estate he owns. One of many. The sacrifices are enormous. And we were unable to keep our other parrot, given the confines of our home and the stressors of work. That sadness over relinquishing a parrot never leaves me (ditto my husband).

UPDATE III (11/17): My husband corrected me, as to the above. Yes, to raise a parrot in an ideal way takes sacrifice. Not everyone can do it. Therefore, it is wrong to set unrealistic benchmarks. It takes a few years to bond with and gain the complete trust of these brilliant little individuals. While you are doing so, you will need probably to keep the parrot’s wing feathers clipped. If you work long hours, your bird will be caged, but make sure that you bring him into the family fold when you get home and let him loose then to bond and receive love from his flock. He may want one-on-one, as our parrot does with my husband when he gets home. That he must have. So, adopt discarded parrots, and work to bond with them, only through kindness and rewards. Never punish a parrot. They learn to hate. They will tolerate nothing but persuasion and calm, reasonable conduct. Walk away if parrot is being naughty. Once you bond with the animal, you can then cultivate flight. The other thing Sean mentioned is this: Provided you can cope, two parrots that like each other and can hang out is a good thing. If they don’t like each other—and in their affinities they are just like human beings—then more than one parrot will not enhance the two’s existence.