One of the reasons I write “Fort Buckley” is to “spread the wealth” of the good writing I see on the conservative blogosphere. To be sure, some (many?) TC.com readers don’t see the same “wealth” that I do, or even any value at all. Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

One of the wisest voices I’ve encountered in conservative media is that of Victor David Hanson. A classicist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Hanson writes for National Review and is a regular guest on The Hugh Hewitt Show, heard locally on KVOI.

On Thursday Hanson penned this gem on the downsides of President Obama’s decision to reject current plans for the Keystone pipeline.

a) Jobs in tough times? Anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 high-paying jobs were lost. These were shovel-ready and private-sector, and they would have led to the real creation of wealth — the antithesis of Solyndra. How strange — we pay tens of millions of dollars for a few hundred subsidized, money-losing jobs, while passing over thousands of money-making ones.

b) National security? While we ratchet up the pressure on Iran, as gas prices climb, and as our subsidized wind/solar alternatives fizzle, we hope that, in extremis, the Saudis can reroute their exports through the Red Sea. How strange — we cancel our own pipeline while expecting others will never do the same.

c) Environment? If the Keystone project raises environmental issues, then every other comparable one would too. It is not as if the route bisects Yosemite on its way to Big Sur. How strange — we assume that the Saudis or the Turks can build pipelines across their own lands without environmental problems, but that we, the apparently less technologically advanced, cannot. We hear that oil is “fungible”; if so, each barrel that we pass on, someone else less green won’t.

d) Financial solvency? We are now almost $16 trillion in debt, and we import over $500 billion in fossil fuels per year. The more energy we produce, or the more cheaply we can import it, or the more our export dollars stay in North America, where they can be easily rerouted into the U.S. economy, the less we, the near-insolvent, must borrow. How strange — we keep passing on projects that would increase gas and oil production and availability and earn us money, but not on wind and solar counterparts that produce little energy and lots of debt.

e) Symbolism? President Obama and his supporters recently have talked of “big” ideas and projects, as if our generation fears to gamble on a Hoover Dam or man-to-the-moon project. Yet the president passed on the one chance that he’s had in his presidency to match reality with his empty rhetoric. How strange — our elites expect unstable regimes overseas to provide us with oil (Air Force One and Warren Buffett’s jet are not powered by solar panels), and to risk their own environments to do so, and for others to lend us the money to pay for our imported oil, and for the world to insulate itself from the blackmail of oil-exporting monstrosities like Iran, but we ourselves will do little of what we advocate or expect for others.

Eventually, I think the pipeline will be built. The American market for Canadian oil is large, enduring and right next door. Moreover, China’s economy is showing signs of weakness. And, in all fairness, I think the White House and State Department have determined that the Canadians will wait, stewing with resentment, until the U.S. is ready to deal with them. (Or, until the Luddites in the U.S. environmental lobby can be placated or marginalized, whichever comes first).

(Of course, the Canadians may not be willing to wait. Recently, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper reportedly said that some Americans “would like to see Canada be one giant national park for the northern half of North America”. A wounded national pride, coupled with the lure of Chinese money now, might make the Canadians think twice about actually obeying the American environmental movement’s command to sit and stay.)

Nevertheless, when the Washington Post, whose desire to see the president win in 2008 was so blatant, is now moved to write an editorial titled “Obama’s Keystone pipeline rejection is hard to accept,” it’s hard not to notice.

UPDATED at 7:00 AM to (a) include Prime Minister Harper’s quote and (b) add some more thoughts to the paragraph immediately following Professor Hanson’s blockquote.

During the remembrances of last weekend, I heard expressions of regret at how little civility has improved since last January. For example, Tucson Weekly editor Jimmy Boegle wrote, in his paper’s issue that commemorated the anniversary, that “all those calls for civility seem to have fallen on deaf ears.””

If you wanted to see some of that ongoing incivility, all you had to do was turn the page of the Weekly, to Tom Danehy’s column.

“Come on, fake-ass conservatives. It kinda sucks when you can’t get even your own dogma right.” In the same article, he referred to Bush’s (as in George W., presumably) “cronies.”

I’ll readily admit—it’s no surprise to see Danehy express, um, displeasure with Republicans and conservatives. (“Two Thousand Eleven wasn’t a great year [mostly because of Republicans].” ; “the hell-spawn at Fox.”)

But, aren’t we ALL supposed to be setting a better example with our tone nowadays?

Here’s a link to a column Danehy wrote right after the shooting. (I.e., a time when we’d all been asked to think twice about the words we used and the tone of our discourse). In it, Danehy writes about “the rancid tenor of what passes for political discourse these days.”

He then calls Sarah Palin a “loon,” who “tries to pass herself off as this Frontier Babe of Substance.” He also refers to Republican House members as “clods.”

“The Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, having, in their minds, wasted an entire week of voter-outrage-fueled momentum, are getting back to work this week. They will attempt to pass the Big Fat Lies About the Health Care Reform Law of 2010 Act. It’s even money that at least one clod will suggest that the outstanding care that Giffords received will somehow vanish into thin air if President Obama gets his way.”

I checked to see if the motto of the Weekly is “Civility For Thee—Not For Me.”

OK, what about David Fitzsimmons? The featured political cartoonist for the Arizona Daily Star. Fitz has quite a reputation for wielding a caustic pen. It’s no secret that conservatives and Republicans are favorite targets of his.

So, in these times of minding our tone, and weighing the impact of the thoughts we express—-has Fitz changed much? Let’s see what he wrote in December—the month before the one-year anniversary of the massacre.

- This cartoon shows Santa as an elephant (the GOP symbol) with gifts for the rich 1%. Santa’s hat is helpfully labeled “GOP,” presumably to make sure the reader gets the message. (Funny—if you look in the bag of goodies, I don’t see gifts labeled “Solyndra,” “LightSquared” or other firms that benefited from Democratic Party crony capitalism).
- In this cartoon, a slovenly-looking chap wearing a “Go GOP” hat sees a person wearing a sign saying “Tis Better To Give Than Receive.” “Socialist vermin,” the “GOP” fellow thinks.

Socialist vermin. Merry Christmas, indeed.

Do I think Danehy and Fitz should be pressured to tone down their rhetoric? Is that why I’m writing this?

No! To both questions.

First of all, politics is the contact sport of the mind. It always has been. Thick skins and a polished back (so things can roll off them easily) are highly recommended. Personally, I think Danehy’s a hoot.

More importantly, many of us have drastically different ideas about how our society, economy, government, etc… should change (or stay unchanged) and what our country’s goals should be. We’re facing many weighty decisions in the years ahead, about critical issues that affect everyone. Health care, the federal debt, Social Security…the list seems endless.

It’s natural that passions will be excited. And, passionate people act passionately. They always have.

No, I’m writing this because, time and time again this past week, I’ve heard talk radio listed as a reason for why civility hasn’t improved around here.

Well, guess what? I can think of another reason.

Radio talkers like Jon Justice are on the air for just a few hours a day. You can pick up the Weekly or Star 24 hours a day, at most any convenience store or (in the case of the Weekly) in front of most stores and restaurants.

Fitz is one of the Star’s most visible and touted figures. Go to the paper’s Opinion page and click on the “Opinion” tab. Only two things pop up—the Fitz Archive and the Fitz Store. As for the Weekly, Jim Boegle and Jim Nintzel both appear on local talk radio (John C. Scott, Bill Buckmaster) to comment on the news and current events. Nintzel hosts a Political Roundtable on KUAT, Tucson’s local PBS channel. In other words, these gentlemen aren’t lightweights in the Tucson media scene.

To be sure, Jim Boegle wrote, in his Editor’s Note of January 27th, that he hadn’t expected “some on the left to keep trying to link the political vitriol to the shooter’s actions, even though not a shred of publicly released evidence has shown a connection. (I’ve disagreed with Tom Danehy’s writings on the topic.)” I’ve also never personally heard Jim Nintzel blame talk radio for making Tucson less civil.

Having acknowledged that, the Arizona Daily Star and Tucson Weekly are the Old Pueblo’s most prominent print media. They’re also quite liberal, as talk radio is quite conservative.

So, if John Justice and Garrett Lewis need to tone it down, then Fitz and Danehy should tone it down too. It’s only fair…

…but, that sounds like a bad deal to me, all around. Let’s not go there.

Instead, let’s follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice: We should not be afraid “to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”

Let’s thicken our skins. Let the advocates speak (or write) their peace, air your counter-arguments in response, then let the people decide who is reasonable and who errs.

The alternative is to have someone else decide what’s acceptable and what isn’t. You REALLY don’t want to go there.

“An allegation unchallenged is an allegation believed.”

That piece of advice, from former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, is one of the reasons I started “Fort Buckley” in the first place.

I blog mostly during election seasons, and it’s election season. Hence, Fort Buckley runs up its flag again…to half-staff.

This weekend is a time for reflection, remembrance and grieving. So is Monday, our first day back to work after the anniversary of January 8th, 2010. (Then, on Tuesday, TUSD meets to discuss MAS. To paraphrase—okay, distort—-the Chinese saying, Tucson appears cursed to live through an interesting week.)

I’m following the news, local talk show and blogosphere reactions to this weekend’s anniversary. In particular, I’m noting those who’ve (a) called for civility or (b) called out certain groups/individuals who, in their opinion, have helped make Tucson “uncivil.”

Then, I’m looking to see how civil THEY have been in this past year—a year where we were ALL supposed to be more mindful of the tone of the times we live in and what we do (or don’t do) to shape that tone. I see quite a few double standards; we have plenty to talk about in the days and weeks ahead.

But not today. Or tomorrow.

For now, may God soothe the souls of those who grieve and bestow His blessings upon all of us.