Today's examples are from George Will and Cal Thomas. Mr. Will's premise is that "California is 'on the verge' of becoming something without an American precedent — 'a failed state.'" (perhaps it could be argued that several failed states occurred in the middle of the nineteenth century, but I digress). Mr. Will then settles in to gnaw that old conservative bone; taxes are causing the smart people with all the money to flee.
"It took years for liberalism's redistributive itch to create an income tax so steeply progressive that it prompts the flight from the state of wealth-creators: Since 1990, it's estimated that 3.4 million more Americans moved from California to one of the other 49 states than moved to California from another state."
This number looks impressive, if read quickly it implies that California is losing more population than any other state with the phrase "49 states". Of course all that's really stated is that 3.4 million more people left California than moved there. It's certainly possible that other lower taxed states lost an even larger percentage of their population to other states. Mr. Will conveniently fails to provide any comparisons.
"California, which between 1990 and 2007 lost 26 percent of its factory jobs and 35 percent of its high-tech manufacturing jobs, ranks behind only New York, another of liberalism's laboratories, in the number of outward-bound moving vans."
No doubt the people that lost jobs in factories and manufacturing were important to California's economy but normally Mr. Will doesn't classify those jobs as "wealth-creators". That designation is usually reserved for the barons of Silicon Valley. I note here that the City of San Jose's population rose by 14.4% between 1990 and 2000 and has continued to grow since then. The metropolitan area grew about 12%.
To summarize: 3.4 million people left California, 26% of factory jobs and 35% of high-tech manufacturing jobs in the state were eliminated. Conclusion, high taxes are to blame. This editorial is so full of rhetorical weaknesses that a high school forensics team would be embarrassed. To whit, if you don't have facts make comparisons with different units: a count of people leaving versus percentages of jobs lost. Also fail to define your terms: what is considered a "high-tech" manufacturing job? Finally ignore any other reasons for people moving (older population retiring?) or jobs being lost (lower wages of overseas workers in manufacturing jobs?).
Whether or not California will become a failed state isn't really addressed. Such a scenario probably has more to do with the state's political insanity known as "propositions" which allow voting minorities to grant themselves any ideological boon they can dream up (from restricting property tax increases to mandating eduction spending). Today George Will isn't in need of a fact checker so much as a logic checker.
Cal Thomas defends Brit Hume and takes offense at being part of the religious majority. In his premise Mr. Thomas is either ignorant of Christianity or dissembling.
"In a day when some extremists employ violence to advance their religion, it is curious that many would save their criticism for a truly peace-bringing message such as the one broadcast by Brit Hume."
Jesus may have redeemed the human race, but he acknowledged that his message was not peaceful. In Matthew 10:34 he said, "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword". While it is very unlikely Jesus was encouraging his followers to take up arms he certainly acknowledged that his message would cause strife. In another aside I note that Mr. Thomas's implied separation of Christianity from other religions by its alleged peacefulness fails; the history of Christianity (and also the present day), is also full of extremists advancing it through violent means.
While I doubt that Brit Hume needs Mr. Thomas's defense, his public preaching to Tiger Woods is startling as Mr. Hume seems to have no qualifications for such counseling, his noted accomplishments to date are a history book, memoir, reading from a teleprompter, and a willingness to express his opinions.
Here Mr. Thomas briefly diverts confusingly into a rant about those who take Jesus's name in vain and how that would never be tolerated if using the name of Mohamed.
Finally Mr. Thomas arrives at the reason Brit Hume's comments have caused consternation for some commentators.
"Christians like Hume are not trying to impose anything on anyone. They know the difference Jesus has made in their lives and want to share His message in the hope that other lives will be similarly transformed.
When he was president, Jimmy Carter shared his faith with South Korean President Park Chung Hee as the two rode in a limousine on the way to the airport."
What Cal Thomas fails to understand is that sharing your personal faith in private (as President Carter did) where the recipient may respond with some freedom, is different from calling out someone in public during a personal crisis and imposing on them to respond. If Mr. Hume was a close friend of Tiger Woods and he chose to share his beliefs in private it would be hard to object, to offer unsought advice as a publicity stunt is just rude.
