‘Tolerance’ on display

By Jennifer J. Foster

We hear a lot these days about the need for tolerance. We live in a diverse country, so it’s inevitable that the free-speech rights of some will sometimes clash with those of others. The key to living successfully in such a community of freedom, then, is respect—if not of the belief held by one’s political opponent, then at least of the right of that opponent to his belief. This is the principle underlying the “marketplace of ideas:“ There is no need to tamp down political dissent, because in a well-educated and engaged society, the best ideas will always float to the top.

Hence, tolerance—getting along with others and respecting their rights to their beliefs, even if we disagree—even if we vehemently disagree—with those beliefs.

Name-calling is generally considered intolerant behavior. It’s discriminatory, and it’s harassment.

As the first openly gay lawmaker in the United States Congress, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has been on the forefront of the fight for tolerance for the gay community.

But it seems he could use a bit of a lesson in tolerance himself.

From FoxNews.com:

Masscahusetts Rep. Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a “homophobe” in an interview released Monday on a gay online news site, and said he hoped a challenge to a federal law widely disliked in the gay community will not be heard before the high court until new justices are seated on the bench.

Frank, who is gay, made the remark in responding to a question about legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. The 1996 law says the federal government and states have no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages even if other states allow them.

“At some point, [the Defense of Marriage Act] is going to have to go to the United States Supreme Court,“ the congressman, a Democrat, said. “I wouldn’t want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has got too many votes on this current court.“

“That homophobe Antonin Scalia.“

First-grade name-calling, Washington-style.

Scalia is a conservative justice who, according to the story, earned his “reputation” “because of his dissent in a 2003 case that overturned the nation’s consensual sodomy laws.“

Frank sounds less than tolerant of Scalia’s views.

Actually, Frank sounds like ... a bigot.

Bang for your buck

By Jennifer J. Foster

A story in today’s Kansas City Star   tells us that the U.S. Agency for International Development has distributed an estimated 10 billion U.S.-made AIDS-preventing condoms in poor countries around the world.

And now they have a “condom conundrum.“

In a move expected to cost 300 American jobs, the government is switching to cheaper off-shore condoms, including some made in China.

The switch comes despite implied assurances over the years that the agency would continue to buy American whenever possible.

“Of course, we considered how many U.S. jobs would be affected by this move,” said a USAID official who spoke on the condition that he would not be named. But he said the reasons for the change included lower prices (2 cents versus more than 5 cents for U.S.-made condoms) and the fact that Congress dropped “buy American language” in a recent appropriations bill.

OK. So, money from the stimulus bill was supposed to stimulate the American economy. But under this plan, not only is it not going to be used to stimulate the American economy; it’s going to be used to stimulate the Chinese economy—and increase our trade deficit with that country.

???????

As my friend Brian LeCompte points out on Flashpoint, it’s bad policy to fund condom procurement and distribution through the stimulus bill. But if the provision was creating or protecting American jobs, then at least a decent argument could be made for it as part of the stimulus.

But it helps a Chinese company—at the expense of an American one.

So, what’s more important? Getting the most “bang for your buck,“ so to speak, or protecting American jobs?

Schocking video

By Jennifer J. Foster

One of the stories making the rounds in the blogosphere involves the sudden interest celebrity gossip site TMZ.com has taken in U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.).

My first reaction when reading the headline was, all right! Maybe now we’ll get those celebrity-philes interested in politics!

Alas ... TMZ was just probing Schock’s “hotness” and whether his abs are better than President Obama’s.

Listening to this interview with CNN’s Howard Kurtz (whose request to see Schock’s abs, by the way, seemed more creepy than funny), you can tell that Schock is smarter than your average congres—er, bear. Check out how he notes the importance of alternative media in reaching out to non-traditional voters, noting Obama’s success in harnessing such forums to reach voters—

SIDEBAR: “Non-traditional voters” are people who could vote but just don’t. So it’s a euphemism for “lazy people.“ END SIDEBAR

—but stops short of giving TMZ any credibility as a political power, saying he didn’t agree to the interview.

In all, Schock (who is only 27 years old, by the way) was a good sport. Think about how strange it would be—even for a U.S. congressman—to have some stranger in street clothes just show up and start following you around with a videocamera.

See also:

Republican stalked by gossip site like he’s a Hollywood starlet