ItsComeDown2This

Misogynists of the Left Unite

2012-03-05T12:43:00.001-07:00

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh. But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

Jonah Goldberg compares the comparison to Joe the Plumber as well. "The Democrats were unrestrained in their efforts to ridicule the man." He continued:

When average citizens are thrust into the political debate, they are heroes -- if they confirm prevailing liberal arguments. When they run against the grain of the preferred narrative, they are ground down, caricatured and treated to corrosive media skepticism.

Only the left is unaware of the lack of self-awareness on the left.

Linzen on AGW

2012-03-04T06:40:00.001-07:00

The Telegraph reports on Linzen's presentation to the House of Commons.

One of the zingers by Linzen:

Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.

Who's extreme?

2012-01-23T13:20:00.000-07:00

Jonah Goldberg poses a great question: Why not Santorum?

The right is often rebuked for being a party of uncompromising ideological zealots. Terms like extreme right and right-wing Christian are effortlessly used by many. And yet, the Democratic Party elected a man who is arguably one of the most leftist presidents in history who vowed to transform America. Maybe, as suggested by Goldberg's question, right-wing extremists are fairly moderate.

Is there such a thing as the extreme left? Left-wing secularists? Can anyone be too far left?

God and Science, Faith and Reason

2012-01-22T12:12:00.002-07:00

Prager conducted an interview with Eric Weiner (author of Man Seeks God: My Flirtations with the Divine) based on Weiner's article in the NYT. Listen to it at: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bx5BfG19Ggh3NmNiODI5OWItNGYxMS00MzhkLThiNGQtZTkzYzM2ZGEyNmY3

Weiner presents lucid, intelligent, well thought-out critiques on God and atheism. But I was reminded of a quote by Paul Johnson while reading his article and listening to the interview:

The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.

It strikes me as a bit unaware of the larger world to assume that because some organized versions of a religion present an unyielding absolute version of God that all of the disciples are equally as puritan. Just as many atheists may wonder if something other than physics and evolution are behind the world that we see, most who believe in God are, as he stated, "a combination of conflicting, competing emotions and thoughts." Even Mother Theresa had doubts about her motives, behaviors and faith. It is inconceivable that most of those attending religious services cartoonishly march in lock-step with every edict or precept.

Since our past informs our current opinions, it appears that Weiner has seen a particularly stern strain of religion. Although Weiner has encountered many adherents that are apparently awful advertisements for a loving, caring God, I wonder how much of Weiner's antipathy for religion is a function of his dislike of standards. Many religions are necessarily collections of standards that are enforced by a judging God.

Judgment in and of itself is not a bad thing. Anybody who believes that maintaining laws and law enforcement concedes as much. And some sects are more focused on a system of standards and judgment by a God that is interested in such things. Maybe Weiner has only been proselytized by the fire and brimstone crowd. But let's not therefore do away with proselytizing. As Penn Jillette has noted,

I am a huge fan of proselytizing. I am a huge fan of speaking your mind. The only way we can share the universe...is by talking very strongly about what we believe.

In spite of Weiner's experience that suggests a God that is "constantly judging and smiting, and so are his followers," what would he prefer? (Apparently he hasn't spent time with people who appreciate such things as Jesus Laughing.) That they remain quiet on the issue? That they keep it personal and solitary? If they really believe that there is a God that has standards and that not following those standards will result in bad outcomes in the afterlife, is it not the height of love, compassion and caring to at least inform those with whom they have contact?

Again, it seems somewhat myopic for Weiner to act as though the world has only now begun to wrestle with issues of doubt. Certainly he may be wondering how he fits into the larger picture, but the vast majority of those who call themselves believers question their beliefs, faith, commitment and understanding of their chosen sect or denomination. In this he is not alone.

This is true for professing atheists as well. Just as with politics, the vast majority occupy the mushy middle. Acolytes tend to become the leaders precisely because they are passionate about the purity of the institution (e.g., ministers, scientists, politicians...)¹. The rest of us muddle around on the continuum that defines the distance between the absolutism of True Believers and Angry Atheists, to use Weiner's terms. Just as there are few hair-shirted religious fanatics, there are very few actual atheists.

Weiner concludes that "I think you can be a man of reason and you can be a man of faith." I wonder if Weiner's inability to consider this previously is a function of the insularity of the American university ghetto. To note that "Its good to know that I am not the only one out there who sort of falls into this category without a name, where you consider yourself rational and reasonable but you also believe intuitively that there is more to the world than meets the eye," suggests that heretofore he has not encountered such people. However, my experience is that most "believers" fall squarely in this category. His comment probably says more about his journey than it does about the existence of rational, reasonable believers.

Getting beyond Weiner's apparent 'glib assumption' that this is a somehow a new phenomenon, it is refreshing to hear an intelligent defense of 'seeking' by a self-identified secular intellectual. He notes that the current ethos in "secular, east coast, elite liberal American tribe" is to think that it is not cool to believe in God and that the religious are narrow-minded and not as bright as the secularist.²

Weiner questions the smugness of secularism by noting that "saying now that we have science there is no need for religion, is like saying that now that we have the microwave oven we have no need for Shakespeare." This gets to the notion that many secularists are quite dogmatic and see the two concepts, science and religion, as mutually exclusive. Again, to follow Johnson's admonition, history does not bear this out. Many religious thinkers, from Newton to Einstein to Copernicus, did not share the idea that science and religion are not compatible. And it is equally as unlikely that the current perceived exclusivity is anything other than the current generation's awareness of the issues. When viewed in light of history, the science-in-place-of-religion non-sequitur has been around as long as science and religion. It is a fairly arrogant idea to think that it is only now, in this generation, that we are smart enough to contemplate the coexistence of science and religion.

Weiner went on to note that "reason makes a wonderful servant, but a poor master." He concedes that science has little to say about how to live our lives in morally significant ways. "Science doesn't help us live our life. It doesn't help us get through a nasty divorce. It doesn't help us get through an illness." Ultimately, as Prager noted, "It doesn't help us know right from wrong." "Science doesn't say 'Do not murder.' Science says survival of the fittest." Hitler may have been the ultimate example of what science may have to say about treatment of others. So one might easily conclude that science is necessary, but not sufficient.

---
¹ This is not intended to suggest that all of those who move toward leadership of the identified groups are unyielding zealots. Again, as with the rank and file of religions or politics, the vast majority enter those pursuits for other reasons.

² It is always easier to dismiss the worth, humanity or intellect of the opposition. It allows the accuser to dismissively look down his nose and not deal with the arguments. One does not argue with the morally or intellectually inferior. And neither side has a monopoly on this behavior. The religious and the secular left are just as likely to dismiss others out of hand.

Nobody good on the right

2012-01-21T00:33:00.001-07:00

Nancy Pelosi had this to say about Republicans:

This is a Congress that has done such a disservice to our country,” Pelosi said. “Bless their hearts. They do what they believe, these Republicans. They do what they believe. And they do not believe in a government that has any role in clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public health, public education, Medicare, Medicaid.

She can't just disagree with conservatives. They have to be bad people. The theme is well established. Kind of like when Howard Dean said:

Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.

Racist Right

2012-01-21T00:06:00.000-07:00

You are a racist if you use a moderator's first name.

You are a racist when you say that people should work a job rather than take food stamps.

You are a racist if you talk about food stamps and welfare.

You are a racist if you are against the President's policies.
You are a racist if you support a black man for president.

And if you talk about problems that afflict certain communities, you're a racist.
And if you don't talk about problems that afflict certain communities, you're a racist.
And if you use racist language, you're a racist.
And if you don't use racist language, you're using code and are a racist.
And if you don't hear the code, you are a racist.
And if you deny you are a racist, it is proof positive that you are a racist.

Is there such a thing as a racist liberal or leftist? One wonders.

Racial Reactionaries

2012-01-18T08:06:00.000-07:00

Victor Davis Hanson addresses the race card, race baiting tactics of President Obama and others in the Democratic Party.

President Obama and his supporters insist that they deemphasize matters of race, but their record in just the last four years reveals a veritable obsession with it...

It will be an ugly campaign. But saying that is probably racist.

Non Apology Apology

2012-01-07T21:30:00.001-07:00

The firestorm that followed Eugene Robinson's comment about how weird the Santorum's grief for their baby culminated with Joe Scarborough confronting him on the issue.

What is remarkable about this exchange is how concisely Robinson demonstrated a couple leftwing tactics: the non-apology apology and the 'some people' ruse.

Let's review the happenings. When initially asked "Do you think you may have gone overboard a little bit in your criticisms of Santorum?", Robinson was shaking his head no. His body language seemed to indicate that he did not think that he went overboard. Then the first words out of his mouth were, "What I actually said was I thought some people would think that was weird."

There it is. The ubiquitous 'some people' canard. This allows Robinson to play Pontius Pilate where any questioning of Santorum is concerned. This device allows him to distance himself from the comment while simultaneously inserting it into the conversation. We are to believe that he does not believe such inflammatory rhetoric, but that some may. Just as Pontius believes he is relieved of the responsibility of his action, so to Robinson can wash his hands of the responsibility for the comment.

He then goes on to explain "that obviously was not the right way to say what I was trying to express. And I certainly didn't mean to offend anybody, especially Mr. Santorum," followed by a labored, strained explanation reiterating that "some people, I think, are going to be, if not surprised by, at least want to more about" Santorum's faith.

No apology here. He only says that he did not articulate his thoughts well and then restated his original thought without using the word weird with a statement that he didn't mean to offend anybody separating the two.

If Robinson didn't think that his comments would offend, then he either A) really believes that it is 'some people' and not he who thinks Santorum's actions were weird, or B) he doesn't think calling somebody who is mourning the death of their newborn infant a weirdo is offensive. If B, he is a vulgarian. If A, he really doesn't think he has anything to apologize for since he is not the one who believes the things he reported. He is no more responsible for others thinking Santorum is a weirdo than he is for reporting that 'some people' might think that Hitler did a good thing when gassing the Jews.

But I suspect he thinks Santorum is a weirdo.

Leftwing Love

2012-01-07T08:32:00.000-07:00

Mark Steyn deals with the mean-spirited comments of Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson. They felt it necessary to kick at Rick Santorum for mourning the loss of their still-born child in order to gain some political ground.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

One could weep at the inhumane viciousness. And this from those who fancy themselves to be kinder, wiser and more compassionate. As Steyn notes:

In 1996, the Santorums were told during the pregnancy that their baby had a fatal birth defect and would not survive more than a few hours outside the womb. So Gabriel was born, his parents bundled him, and held him, and baptized him. And two hours later he died. They decided to take his body back to the home he would never know. Weirdly enough, this crazy weird behavior is in line with the advice of the American Pregnancy Association, which says that “it is important for your family members to spend time with the baby” and “help them come to terms with their loss.”

And as Peter Wehner of Commentary stated:

The second point is the casual cruelty of Robinson and those like him. Robinson seems completely comfortable lampooning a man and his wife who had experienced the worst possible nightmare for parents: the death of their child. It is one thing to say you would act differently if you were in the situation faced by Rick and Karen Santorum; it’s quite another to deride them as “crazy” and “very weird,” which is what commentators on the left are increasingly doing, and with particular delight and glee.

These comments by Colmes and Robinson were cruel, vicious and so profoundly mean spirited that it is almost unfathomable. But such are the times we live in.

Biofuel Bust

2012-01-05T21:25:00.000-07:00

Ethanol is not working out so well. This WSJ piece concludes:

Congress subsidized a product that didn't exist, mandated its purchase though it still didn't exist, is punishing oil companies for not buying the product that doesn't exist, and is now doubling down on the subsidies in the hope that someday it might exist. We'd call this the march of folly, but that's unfair to fools.

And cronyism is alive and well as the Navy buys $16/gal fuels that normally sell for less than $4/gal to enrich Big Cellulose as highlighted in this article. But we should all feel good that "the Great Green Fleet Carrier Strike Force" will be protecting us.

Iowa Nice. And smart. Condescending. Smug. Intolerant. Well, you get the idea.

2012-01-04T08:45:00.000-07:00

Scott Seipker has posted a video entitled Iowa Nice.

Along with sharing some nice Iowa accomplishments, he concludes a few things about the viewer that aren't so nice. He is clearly not addressing like-minded Democrats because after an introductory f**k you, he lets us know that Iowa isn’t a bunch of “kneejerk Republican reactionaries” because “Iowa went Democratic the last five of six presidential elections.” So knowing that his intended audience is the misinformed Neanderthal who votes Republican, what are his impressions of his audience and Iowa Republicans? Well he gives a few clues in his video:

Kneejerk reactionaries
Hillbillies
They look like they like to eat.
After asking “How tough is your job?” he quips that “You look like you could use a break.” So they are maybe fatigued by their un-tough jobs.

Scott has a lot of contempt for Republicans. He’s not alone. Democrats often paint Republicans as buffoonish, unenlightened, non-intellectual, knuckle-dragging dullards. Why is this so? If you don’t share their views you live in darkness. You are a benighted ignoramus. You are stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical. And not just naively so. This all comes about because of horrible motives.

It is understandable then that the Democrat may think that the legitimate institution of intellectual debate could be sullied by allowing discussions with ugly, hate filled imbeciles. Why would an intellectual have a legitimate conversation with a reprobate? Why cast pearls before the swine? Just dismiss them and move on. And if along the way you can heap on humiliation, so much the better.

Democrats know they are finer, better, smarter, more compassionate, more civil, more decent humans than Conservatives. That is some self-esteem. Or maybe arrogance. Or maybe low self-esteem since they demean, condescend, belittle and humiliate instead of just disagree. Instead of disagreement about issues, mean-spirited smugness is brought to bear. Why? Why isn’t compassion and a soft heart used to try and lift up the lost soul? Why is ridicule the way to enlightenment? If a child does not understand the lofty prose of the learned scholar, will demeaning and humiliation lead to enlightenment? Is the condescension ennobling? Does it elevate rather than debase?

Or maybe those they disagree with have thought about the issues. And maybe they aren’t kneejerk reactionary hillbillies that look like they have slack-jawed jobs and like to eat. Maybe they are decent people who share many of the same motives but simply have some differing opinions. Maybe Scott has nothing but ridicule to enter the arena of ideas with.

Bush Tax Cuts

2011-12-23T22:10:00.001-07:00

The current tax rates are what they are. Why is changing the current rates referred to as removing the Bush tax cuts rather than calling them the Obama tax rate increases?

Climategate 2.0

2011-12-03T08:23:00.001-07:00

James Taylor looks at the some of the shenanigans in the AGW story.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

So the science is not exactly settled. But it is settling.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

Not sure why the NYT and others aren't crowd sourcing this to get to the bottom of the settling science.

Unemployment Woes

2011-12-02T02:04:00.001-07:00

I am not sure that a GOP campaign ad writer could have come up with a better way to communicate the left's idea of Keynesian intervention in the economy. The Onion may have been able to come close.But U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis did it better than any of them could have.

Failing to extend the length of time that unemployment workers are eligible to receive federal unemployment payments “will mean an increase in the unemployment rate.”

Before you do damage to your scalp trying to figure out if this makes sense, rest assured it is true. Just as no longer borrowing or printing money to pay people's grocery bill increases hunger, and no longer borrowing or printing money to pay people's car loans increases immobility, and no longer borrowing or printing money to pay people's house loans increases homelessness.

A finer example of a tautology you will not find.

The argument rests on unilateral demand side thinking. If the demand is not maintained by giving people money that is either borrowed or printed, the businesses who sell goods and services will go out of business. If this works so well, why not just print money and send a pallet to each and every person in the US? Wouldn't this sort of stimulus expand the economy and create tremendous demand?

Ugh. Yes, an increase in borrowing can be a stimulus to demand. But at what cost? Is there a limit to how much borrowing can occur before the debt is overwhelming? Is this wise

Down With Capitalism

2011-12-01T09:40:00.001-07:00

Chris Carrado has a great article that examines some of the motivations behind the Occupy Wall Street movement: the left hates inequity in results more than it loves liberty, they hate profit more than they love freedom in markets.

If a company earns millions in profit because it develops a revolutionary medical device that saves thousands of lives, has it not paid its fair share? If a company produces a chemical that kills 99.5% of bacteria in farms, has it paid its fair share? If Ford creates a car so safe that it prevents 80% of otherwise fatal auto accidents, has Ford not done enough? If a grocery chain brings us a bounty of diverse, healthy foods we can purchase without the cost and effort of growing them ourselves, do we think we're also entitled to the profits it brings that chain?

What Everybody Owns, Nobody Owns

2011-11-28T15:09:00.001-07:00

Collective ownership didn't work at Plymouth Rock. John Aman shares the collectivist failure that occurred under a charter which imposed a seven-year period of joint ownership on the original settlers at Plymouth Rock.

Governor Bradford wrote that common ownership "was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort."

After much debate, Governor Bradford

allowed each man to plant corn for his own particular [for his own household] and to trust themselves for that ... so every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number ... this was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the governor or any other could devise.

When the incentive for personal gain is removed by collectivist economies, stewardship of the property does not occur as readily when one directly benefits from his/her own labor. It flies in the face of human nature to believe that a person will work as hard for the benefit of a stranger as he will for himself or his family.

The Pilgrims were much more successful when the political economy aligned with human nature and acknowledged that incentives do matter.

Mike Rosen often uses an analogy to demonstrate the differences in stewardship between collective ownership and individual ownership. He notes that public restrooms are often dirty and have graffiti on the walls. But have you ever seen graffiti on the walls of a private home?

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators inadvertently confirmed this idea with their stewardship of the public spaces they occupied. The destruction and fouling of many of the occupied areas is positive proof that when everybody owns it, nobody owns it. They are able to just walk away from the problem rather than deal with it.

Capitalism recognizes this tendency of human nature.

Right Wing Hate

2011-11-27T09:52:00.001-07:00

Chris Matthews has figured out what animates the right. He's not pioneering any new ground however, since it is SOP for many on the left to demonize rather than be thoughtful about the many legitimate differences between the left and the right.

The utter confusion in the Republican presidential nominating process results from two discernible facts. One: they hate. That's the simplest explanation of the disastrous course of this selection process. They hate so much they are not in the mood to fall in love with a candidate or even fall in behind someone. Their brains racked as they are by hatred, they lack the like mode. They are in no mood looking around for a politician they like. The hating is so much more satisfying. Second factor: They aren't respecting experience. Each candidate has his or her time in the limelight yet out there in the audition stage, one after another, has showed they don't have the stuff.

Video at Real Clear Politics

This sums up how many on the left feel about thier ideological competition on the right. The right can't just have differing opinions. They can't just have a different view of how the world works. Nevermind the childishness of such analysis that pretends to not understand what a nominating process is all about. Is he suggesting that even before the primaries that only one favored candidate should remain? Normally Matthews' comments are mean and über-partisan. This is downright embarassing.

It is a characteristic of the left to not deal with substance or nuance and jump directly to dismissal via name calling. Matthews' screed is just that.

The right must be demonized and reduced to the following list of odious sub-humans:

stupid
ignorant
mean spirited
war-mongering
selfish
greedy
hateful
nativist
racist
sexist
homophobic
xenophobic
Islamophobic
bigoted
intolerant
fascist
misogynistic
hypocritical

Other references in this blog to the list here, and here.

And now, if Matthews has his way, we must add inexperience to the list. Did he have this same concern for lack of experience for the candidate that gave him a thrill up his leg?

GOP Naiveté

2011-11-26T17:26:00.001-07:00

During an interview with Dennis Prager on 23 Nov 2011, Sen. Jon Kyl – who was described in a Dana Milbank column as "cold and ruthless", "destructive", "walking napalm" and a tool of Grover Norquist – seemed naïve and unaware.

While discussing the committee, Kyl was asked if he thought the committee was doomed from the outset. He responded:

In retrospect it might have been. We didn't look at it that way in the beginning. But as I look back on it the two sides approached this with totally different goals in mind. We thought that this was the second half of the ballgame – you know, the debt ceiling extension of 2.4 trillion was predicated on saving that much money. And so, we passed the budget deal in August that saved just about a trillion, not quite. And then the other trillion and a half was supposed to come from the supercommittee, and we thought, on the mandatory side of the budget where 2/3 of the spending is – and that's the out of control spending, the unsustainable spending on Medicare, Medicaid, the food stamps, ag subsidies, all those so-called mandatory programs. So we thought this was an opportunity to get a handle on those. The Democrats approached it totally differently.
...
I thought we would succeed. I knew it would be very hard.

Our view of this was to try to reform the mandatory side of the budget and reduce the spending there. From the very beginning the Democrats had a different view. Their view was this is the place to raise a trillion – usually about 1.3 trillion, sometimes they said 1.2 trillion in new taxes. And so the two parties started from very different goals and I didn't realize that that's what they were going to try to do. And I don't know if they realized that we would try to push the mandatory spending reductions, but in any event, that gap made it very difficult. When the two sides don’t agree on the goal to begin with it's hard to reach consensus.

How is it that Kyl has a view of Democrats that only a person who has lived in a cave or is hopelessly naïve could have? As Ann Coulter recently reminded us in her column on how the GOP was hoodwinked during Reagan and Bush the elder, "As long as no one knows the history of these "deals," the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule."

It is clear what the Dems are up to. This is not to say that what the left is up to is evil. John Edwards was right when he said there are two Americas. The left and right have irreconcilable differences. It is not that they have similar goals but different ways to get there. They have different goals.

But how is it that a key member of the GOP is unable to see or understand the conflict of visions that is so vital to understanding the path forward for our country? How could he have missed over the last three years of the Obama presidency that the left are Keynesians through and through? Is this irrepressible optimism or naiveté on stilts?

Paul Krugman understands what is going on. In his 17 Nov 2011 article he stated:

Why was the supercommittee doomed to fail? Mainly because the gulf between our two major political parties is so wide. Republicans and Democrats don’t just have different priorities; they live in different intellectual and moral universes.
...
So the supercommittee brought together legislators who disagree completely both about how the world works and about the proper role of government. Why did anyone think this would work?
...
But don’t we eventually have to match spending and revenue? Yes, we do. But the decision about how to do that isn’t about accounting. It’s about fundamental values — and it’s a decision that should be made by voters, not by some committee that allegedly transcends the partisan divide.

About this Krugman is right. There is a battle between competing visions in America today. And Krugman is clear about his vision.

Raising taxes increases revenue, and cutting spending while the economy is still depressed reduces employment.
...
Slashing spending while the economy is depressed destroys jobs, and it’s probably even counterproductive in terms of deficit reduction, since it leads to lower revenue both now and in the future.

He is against spending reductions. Only Keynesian spending splurges will do. All Kyl had to do was open the New York Times to discover what the left is thinking and how they were going to behave in the supercommittee.

Furthermore, Krugman is able to recollect GOP welshing on deals:

For one thing, history tells us that the Republican Party would renege on its side of any deal as soon as it got the chance. Remember, the U.S. fiscal outlook was pretty good in 2000, but, as soon as Republicans gained control of the White House, they squandered the surplus on tax cuts and unfunded wars.

Apparently the GOP had made promises to not allow terrorist attacks and subsequent military endeavors in exchange for something unnamed. This bogus recollection, in contradistinction to the real Democratic promises to reduce spending that never materialized, is used by Krugman to warn against making any deals with Republicans. Who's the do nothing party now?

Republicans are often dismissed as RINOs or Democrat Light because of a softening of their views and actions once in office. Sen. Kyl seems to have conservative bona fides, so if he does not prevail against liberal ideas, it apparently is not because he is a RINO. But his comments to Prager reveal a soft Pollyanna underbelly and/or naiveté that is anything but cold and ruthless and may produce similar results as a RINO. If he is unaware of the positions, values and vision of his intellectual opponents, whether RINO or orthodox conservative, he will lose to their ideologically driven agenda.

Affirmative Action Obama

2011-11-23T13:55:00.001-07:00

In this article by Matt Patterson, he looks at President Obama's unimpressive resume. Patterson quotes Norman Podhoretz:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Patterson then notes, "Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:"

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Manufacturing

2011-11-11T08:01:00.001-07:00

There is a lot of concern about sending jobs overseas. And not keeping manufacturing jobs here at home.

Why is oil production not considered manufacturing that could keep jobs here in the US? Canada seems to keep a lot of people empoloyed manufacturing petroleum products. Couldn't we bring those jobs home?

Notable Quotable

2011-11-10T11:50:00.001-07:00

The left lives like the Tea Party people, but they preach like the Occupy Wall Street people.
~Dennis Prager

Cain, Infidelity and the Right

2011-11-08T06:59:00.000-07:00

It has been pretty difficult to get the slumbering media masses to do in-depth reporting on sexual indiscretions of Democrats such as President Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Barney Frank, Alcee Hastings, John Edwards and others. Digging up licentiousness on liberals can be tough. A guy pretty much has to sext nude photos of himself before the media will take notice. But even then it takes a bit of coaxing.

And maybe the women who target Democrats are gold diggers and don't deserve to have their stories heard. Maybe this is what you get when you "drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park." (Why the leaders of the party of compassion and nuance are dragging hundred-dollar bills through trailer parks is another question for another day.)

Although, when you have allegations against a Republican, you need to run with the story - no matter how vague it is. Even if you don't feel you are on firm ground. As James Taranto noted:

Anonymous sources told Politico that unnamed women alleged that Cain said unspecified things and made unspecified gestures to them sometime before the turn of the century. The only available fact is that the complaints led to a legal settlement, which included a confidentiality agreement, so its details are unknown.

Of course the media is biased. Only unquestioning zealots and manipulators feign shock at the idea. But, the media would not make a big deal out of these allegations if there wasn't an audience. And the audience they are playing to is the religious right.

When those on the right ask questions like "If a man cannot keep his marital vow, then how can we be sure he'll keep his oath of office?", the left leaning media knows it has lethiferous gold in a story like Cain's.

The question posed above presumes that infidelity is indicative of governing. It is a silly notion, but many on the right believe that dalliance is the litmus test that precludes any good or decent governing. The trouble is, reality just doesn't comport with this test.

It would be hard to argue that all the good that was done by Martin Luther King, Jr. should be dismissed because he had extramarital affairs. To dismiss all of his goodness because he was - shock of all shocks - human, is stupid. As noted at thegrio:

A great man is not defined by his weaknesses, but by his strengths. Regardless of what Dr. King may have done during the course of his marriage, those actions are almost completely disconnected from the manner through which he inspired billions with his courage and led people of color to the life we share today. It is our fault, not his, that Dr. King has been placed on a pedestal so high that we've forgotten that he was human.

(Of course, this is a generalized statement and there are "weaknesses" that are so significant as to overwhelm any "strengths" a person may have. A man who kidnaps, rapes and kills a 9 year-old girl and buries neighbors alive can spend as much time as he wishes at the soup kitchen. His actions are so reprehensible that they cannot be undone by random acts of kindness. These are all matters of degree. A serial philanderer is quite different than a person who is flirtatious or who had a one night stand.)

Clearly, philandering did not affect MLK's moral compass on matters of racism. Can we be happy that in spite of his own humanity he lifted the rest of mankind on his shoulders and carried them to a better place?

Similarly, did Rudy Giuliani handle the tragedy of 9/11 expertly in spite of his wolfishness? Should Jews have refused Oskar Schindler's help because he moonlighted?

The idea is preposterous and those on the right do a disservice by using this as a litmus test. All adultery tells us is that these men were sinners and far from perfect. However, they did some pretty good things in spite of their fallen nature. Even God allowed King David to continue after his Bathsheba episode where he even went so far as to send her husband off to war to be killed.

It fails in the other direction as well. By all accounts, President Carter was a sterling husband. However, his leadership and policy decisions were about as far removed from the religious right's values as one can imagine. And his post-Presidential behavior has been boorish at best and borders on racist.

And where does this stop? Should a candidate be eliminated because he didn't honor the Sabbath or his mother and father? How about coveting the neighbor's house? If a Jew should eat bacon, does that render him an economic imbecile and therefore unfit to be President? Clearly smoking marijuana no longer precludes presidential aspirations. (Again, a matter of degree. A nightly doobie roast is rightly judged differently than a college foray. And whether marijuana is a gateway drug or not, it is not heroine or meth. Nobody worries whether their airline pilot smoked pot in college. Irresponsible behavior in the past does not necessarily prevent critical thinking, decision making or responsible behavior when one is older.)

The religious right needs to realize that they are not voting for pastor, rabbi, monk, priest or pope. They should be voting for a man or woman to govern the nation in accordance with its Constitution, certain values and with a particular economic vision.

Of course we all expect decent and honorable behavior and nobody is asking to throw out all expectations. But there is no reason to demand that a presidential candidate be as pure as the wind driven snow. Many good and decent people have stumbled or engaged in youthful or imprudent pursuits. And this moral myopia will only prevent many good people from seeking the nation's highest office and will result in a far worse nation for all.

FOIA Feint

2011-11-02T12:54:00.000-06:00

One of the most disappointing attributes of the Obama administration has been its proclivity for secrecy.

This was how the LA Times described the Obama administration. They continued:

The president who committed himself to "an unprecedented level of openness in government" has followed the example of his predecessor by invoking the "state secrets" privilege to derail litigation about government misdeeds in the war on terror. He has refused to release the administration's secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, which two senators have described as alarming. He has blocked the dissemination of photographs documenting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. service members.

The double standard of the left should be clear to all. Where is WikiLeaks now? Where are the howls of outrage? The protests? The OWS crowd could move to 1600 Pensylvania Avenue. They could retain their acronym but they need a slight adjustment in the focus of their protest: Obama Withholds Secrets.

Given the collateral damage that has occurred with all of the drone strikes and the administration's desire to, as the LA Times put it, provide "a license for the government to lie to its own people," couldn't it truly be said if this rule is implemented that Obama lied, people died?

Obama should reread his pronouncements about transparent government.

He might be shocked by what he reads.

Right is evil

2011-11-01T06:15:00.000-06:00

It is not that the left has such great ideas. It is that the right is evil.

The left are nicer, kinder people than those on the right. Or so you would think if you listened to the likes of Karen Finney.

And I think they like him because they think he's a black man who knows his place. I know that's harsh but that's how it sure seems to me.

What exactly is that place? Conservatives want to put him in the White House. They are so racist they want to put a black man in charge of the country.

Where was all this absolution talk when the left was voting for Obama? It was out there but was dismissed as poppycock.

The left must maintain the myth of racism on the right. It is a despicable charge that should only be leveled seriously and carefully. And to throw it around loosely as a lazy argument against those you disagree with only cheapens the word. Just as redefining rape to sex a woman wishes she hadn't had cheapens the term rape, shouting racism when what one really means is "I disagree with your policy" cheapens the term and drains it of all meaning.

But grievance and victimization are necessary for the success of the left. Without it, there is little remaining to sell. On the day that blacks, women, minorities, union members, teachers and trial attorneys wake up and say "Gosh. America is a pretty decent place. Yes, there are some ugly people on both sides of the aisle, but by and large America is a place where you can get ahead and speak your mind and is filled with good people - no matter what their political persuasion.", these fear-mongering Democrats will no longer be elected to office.

It is not that there is a conspiracy or a list of talking points that those on the left follow, but the ideology demands that the right be demonized and be shown to be less than human. It is important to dismiss those on the right as stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical. There are probably a few more, but that's a good primer.

To be fair, there are those on the right who employ such tactics, although they seem to be more centered on religious violations, or "sinful" behavior. But how is the list above any different from a list of dismissives from the right? Isn't this a list of sins? Moral defects? Breaches of character? Isn't the left seeking to affix a scarlet letter to those on the right?

And another key distinction is that these dismissives are leveled by high-ranking leaders of the left and not just the rank and file. It is quite difficult to see this level of name-calling by Representatives, Senators, Presidents, heads of major political organizations and the like on the right. It is worth noting that opinion writers and commentators often use hyperbole for effect, but some of the stuff that comes out of the mouths of leftist humorists is awful. One struggles to find comedians on the right that are hoping for rape and hate f**king of those on the left.

The left is heavily invested in the righty is a racist meme. The constant drumbeat is if the policy isn't endorsed by the Democratic Party, its racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. However, a compelling argument can be made that the left harbors ill-will for the groups they profess to support. For example, a man can be accused of sexual harassment and can suffer ramifications for telling an off color joke. Would it be appropriate for a man to pursue damages or punitive measures at work if a woman wore clothing that was distracting (in his estimation)? If you answer no, then you must answer why a woman can accuse a man of inappropriate behavior in the workplace if she is made uncomfortable, has her feelings hurt or is offended. If you believe it is appropriate for a woman and not for a man, all other things being equal, then you are sexist because you have lower standards for women than for men. You have higher expectations for men than women. How is it that the left is excused of these sorts of hidden racism?

The demonization platform is paired with hatred of the rich and government handouts. If the left treated the right as fellow sojourners who, while decent, hold different views, stopped the hate speech of class warfare and were not able to promise goodies to everybody who voted for them, what would be left in their platform? Egalitarianism?

The demonization of the right is prolific in the left's speech. Some examples include:

Andre Carson saying that fellow Congress members would like to see blacks hanging from trees.
Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, saying "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night."
Alan Grayson manipulating a video clip to make it appear that Republican Daniel Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands (even Mother Jones posted a list of "outrageous" comments from Grayson. He was a one-man smear campaign.)
the former NAACP chairman Julian Bond's comments about Attorney General John Ashcroft, saying "He knows something about the Taliban, coming from, as he does, from that wing of American politics." And while speaking at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina saying that "The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side."
Patty Murray (Sen, D, WA) said "He's (Osama bin Laden) been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and these people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that." (Really? We haven't done this? And why isn't this an indictment of the left? Dems have been running the major cities for the last 50 years. If this is true, shouldn't this failure fall squarely at the feet of Democrats?)
Krugman, Olbermann as well as others blaming the right for the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords
left leaning comedians (kudos to NOW for speaking out against it) and commentators suggesting that Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and other conservative women be hate f**ked;
Sandra Burnhard pining for a time when Sarah Palin is "gang-raped by my hip black brothers." (Secondarily, why isn't this racist? When Obama asks members of the CBC to remove their slippers to help out, his comments are - lazily and inappropriately - questioned as racist, but suggesting that blacks might be culturally or morally ready to perform such a despicable act of cruelty and horror isn't? Her expectations of the black man are so low as to think he might consider such an act? Does she think more highly of white men that she didn't suggest that they might want to partake?)
Jimmy Hoffa calling Tea Partiers "son of a bitches".
President Carter cites "racism inclination" as the reason for opposition to Obama. Couldn't just be that they have different visions of the role of government.
President Obama (and a large portion of the Democratic left) using the teabagger slur while describing Tea Partiers: "Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care?"
Jimmy Fallon band playing "Lyin' Ass Bitch" as the walkon song for Michelle Bachmann.
Chris Matthews commenting that Republicans are "consumed by hate".
CBS using a Bart Stupak phone message as an example of the threats against Democrats during the Tea Party protests of ObamaCare that said, "You and your family are scum....We think you're a devil....I hope you die." but not revealing the threatening phone message was left by liberals upset over the pro-life Democrat still being on the fence over the abortion language in ObamaCare.
Frank Rich comparing Tea Party protestations to Kristallnacht.

Occupy the mailbox

2011-10-30T11:10:00.003-06:00

Poet Artie Moffa has devised a way to shake his fist at the big banks. It is painful that this is thought to be "brilliant" (as one commenter opined).

There are many reasons why this is a silly notion. As many of these types of activities go, they are often an impassioned orgy of virulence, but little else. Such a tactic is likely to do nothing more than make those who do it feel clever and self-satisfied.

The current number of YouTube views for this video is 109,168. If everybody who watched the video actually sent in their envelope and it cost the big bank they are targeting $0.25 each, the total cost of postage to the bank would be $27,292. Not exactly a sum that will take down a corporation. And this assumes all 109,168 viewers will send in an envelope. To the same bank.

Although we all share the dislike of bulk mail items arriving in our mail box, and even though many of us have been tempted to mail the materials back to the sender in a moment of protest, the reality is that most people just aren't going to go through the bother of sending the stuff back.

Since everyone who watched will not likely send an envelope and since they are not likely targeting the same bank, the impact to any one organization will be even less. But if the tricky wood shim tactic is used, the price per parcel will rise and the pain to the bank will be greater. Even if it cost the bank a dollar per letter, the cost is not that great when spread across millions of customers. And that is exactly what would happen.

The bank isn't going to dock the pay of the CEO to cover the cost of this. It will pass the costs on to the consumer. Just as would be the case if this YouTuber ran a business and the local ne'er do wells filled his garbage dumpster with their garbage. He wouldn't just pay that amount out of his paycheck. He would add it to the price of his product as a cost of doing business. And that cost would not be significant enough to raise the price of his product so drastically that it would drive him out of business.

And if you think that since you are not a customer and therefore it won't affect you personally, what about all those who are? Isn't one of the points of OWS to speak up for those who are suffering because of the predatory practices of the large Wall Street banks? Isn't this just the sort of selfish, greedy, narcissistic behavior that the OWS crowd eschews? And besides, the merchant from whom you purchase your next car, house, gas, food, utility, clothing, medical care, TV, laptop, or iPhone may use this financial institution and you'll pay the fee as it is passed on to the consumer.

Moffa asks us to "Think of the scene in a mail room at a big bank." Well, it is likely that this type of mail is not handled in the mail room at 111 Wall Street. In fact, this probably takes place in some drearily familiar industrial park mail facility that employs people much like Artie, his mom or dad or other working stiffs who are not part of the 1%. They would like nothing more than to be able to do their jobs without the harassment of wood shims and notes from wise-acres who want them to join a union. They may already be a union member, which only makes the "really heavy, dense and crumbly" interruptions in their work day all the more tedious. Why not add baby powder to the mix? That would really show those greedy bankers. Do you suppose Moffa is appreciative of hecklers when he is on stage doing his job? One wonders whether Moffa would recommend spitting on the server at the local buffet if we disagree with the corporate business practices.

If we use Moffa's estimate of "a few roofing shingles, a few hundred wood shims and a few thousand empty envelopes," we might be verging on a couple thousand bucks of financial punishment to an institution while causing untold headaches for the rank and file who will have to deal with the real world implications of his proposed stunt.

And then Moffa gets to what he thinks is the point of such a protest. He admits that sending shingles to bankers "isn't really about running up the postage bill at the big banks, although that's a nice side effect." It is about creating meetings. Meetings to discuss the hundreds and thousands of weird credit card applications received by their fulfillment agent. He doesn't reason that these meetings will probably be held at the time clock in a noisy mail sorting facility and not range much beyond the topic of how to properly dispose of the debris sent in by disgruntled housewives, elderly retirees, and now, OWS protesters, and the fear induced in these times by opening envelopes containing foreign substances.

Moffa has much higher visions of grandeur.

Every hour the banks spend reacting to us is an hour they won't spend lobbying Congress on how to screw us.

Really? The banks will call the lobbyists back from DC to help sort mail? Does the SEIU stop lobbying just because a letter-writing campaign is waged against them?

Its an hour banks don't spend foreclosing on our houses.

Really? The bank will be so jolted that they will forget that Joe Blow hasn't made a payment in six months?

In large part, this is a masturbatory exercise. Maybe banking practices do need a thoroughgoing examination. Maybe government shouldn't have pressured banks to do Congress's social engineering so that we didn't find ourselves in this current situation. But this tactic gets us no closer to these ends.

What at first glance seems like a nifty idea, upon reflection devolves into an emotional fit. And the smugness dripping from such statements as "being immoral doesn't mean you're infertile," speaks only to fellow devotees who probably also had a Hans Landa "Ooooh, that's a bingo" response to shoving construction debris into an envelope.

Moffa would do well to understand that one's ideological opponents do not have to be evil or immoral simply because they have different thoughts and ideas. But this concept has yet to be learned by some of good will and is of little interest to those who would rather attack and destroy the messenger than engage in thoughtful conversation about competing ideas. This sort of dismissive rich/poor, black/white, young/old, red/blue, on/off mentality lacks nuance and is only helpful to those who are not confident in their own ideas. It is much easier to dismiss your opponents as evil, immoral, stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical than to converse about the intricacies of different ideas.

And what about the environmental waste caused by such a protest? All the added driving and decreased fuel economy because of hauling roofing materials around. And does it create or save jobs for postal handlers? Well, yes. In the same way that splitting supertankers over coral reefs create jobs for the cleanup industry.

So as is often the case, protestations such as these may make the protester feel good, but won't do much beyond that. But who doesn't want a little self-induced pleasure? And Moffa seems to feel good about his self-stimulatory feel good exercise. So thanks to him for turning the camera on while preening in his digital masterbatorium.

ADDENDA:

From a poster at reddit:

The communications part is pointless; fill the envelope and send it back, but don't waste your time with the communications bit: the only people who will ever see it are minimum-wage (or near-minimum-wage) mail handlers who simply discard this sort of response.

I have (unfortunately) worked for institutions like this in the actual mail room, and this sort of thing is pretty standard (where I worked, we received 15000-20000 pieces of mail a day, and we had 6 people sorting all of it; each of us got several dozen of these trash-filled envelopes daily). We had boxes specifically for these sorts of envelopes, and the only thing we had to do was add a single comment to the person's file (if we could determine who it was from). That comment? ERE, which stands for Envelope Returned Empty.

Most of the time, we didn't even bother adding the comment (which is actually a good thing for the intended recipient, as it kept the address in an unknown state of use; sending the mail back like this shows it is a legit address; additional contact, including phone contact, was often then tried with these accounts). The envelope and its trash contents would simply be tossed in that bin, and we'd move along to the next piece of mail.

So don't bother wasting time (or money) creating fliers or inviting communication: the people who see it will toss it in the trash and, truth be told, are probably already on our side (but unable to do anything from their "expendable" position). Just send back the envelope with its original contents and move on.

Edit :: For what it's worth, this is also the reason why sending threats, powders or other sort of "illusion to cause harm" items is not only pointless, but is counter-productive: most company mail rooms are isolated to reduce the damage caused by an actual attack, and the only people who are going to be affected by it are the ones who the company considers to be some of the most expendable people in the company (where I worked, only the [Mexican-born] janitorial staff were considered more expendable).

Comment by davidwbrown66:

No!!! DO NOT PUT THE SHIMS IN THERE!!! I fix the fucking machines those envelopes go through and you fuck up all the machines if you stick shims in there. Those kinds of letters get sent through machines that require the letters to be slightly flexible as they get carried by belts around bullwheels.

Just stuff them with the paper like he originally said.

Don't fuck up the machines, that just messes with a postal machine operator and, worse, some poor technician.

Comment by b0blee:

If you make the envelope rigid with wood, it's a hazard to the postal machinery. It won't go through as Business Reply Mail (because it obviously isn't), and all you've done is annoy some poor postal workers.

Comment by moclips1:

your ideas have been tried before, and they don't work. mass mailings from big companies are cheap to produce, cost only a few cents to mail per piece, and make money even if a lot of blank envelopes are returned. . those return envelopes are bar-coded, and any mailing that is too heavy gets thrown out, which costs the USPS money and not the company, good ideals, though. my sources: USPS employees, who hate mass mailings, and my 20+ years in marketing at a big heartless corporation.

Comment by Kelliwilliams2:

I can try to answer this helpfully. I used to work at a bank in my youth. Any rigid object that breaks machinery used for sorting material ill result in people staying late and sorting it by hand. Any mysterious object like rubble or dirt or an angry letter in mail will be considered a possible terrorist threat and result in a trip to loss prevention and the employee being questioned about their involvement and knowledge.

If you feel like doing this use clean paper not the stuff he suggests at the end or the crazy stuff people are suggesting like dog poop and cat litter. Any inconvenience experienced by the person opening these letters will not matter at all to anyone higher up and neither will any messages. Anything you put in these envelopes is going to end up on the hands,clothes and unfinished work of the employee. You break their machines? They work wo them.

What shall we protest?

2011-10-29T10:02:00.000-06:00

They're protesting the fact that they've never been hungry; never been cold; never been without TV, air conditioning and a car. They've always had a video game console and a laptop and a smart phone. And they never, ever had to do any long, hard, real work for any of it.

There are groups of people who are willing to pump and purify your water. Provide endless and affordable electrical power so that you can be 72° all the time. That there are people who will kill, clean, cook, package and deliver foods so that you don't have to see the blood or the dirt." "And that these groups of people who provide these things are called corporations... who do these ugly, difficult and unpleasant things for you.

You should be grateful. You should thank them.

Against equality and change. And fear of what the government is constantly putting on us. And staying focused.

Against the Jews.

The Jews commit more white collar crime than any other ethnic group on the earth, and they go unprosecuted because they can buy their way out of it.

Whenever there's a billion dollar fraud, there's a Jew involved.

For taking down the system. Abolishing debt and the banking system. The capitalist monster. Capitalism. Profit.

For socialism and the fair wages in North Korea.

Michael Moore is a 99%'er

2011-10-27T22:32:00.001-06:00

Michael Moore denied that he is in the 1%. His proof? Because he says he's not. Amazing.

Apparently he can say anything and not be held to account. Does he really think that just doing a Jedi hand wave will convince the nation that he makes less than $344k/yr? (2009 AGI) Or because he doesn't think of himself in that way, he isn't? His thoughts notwithstanding, I think the IRS considers him to be a one percenter.

Will Moore extend the same wealth exemption to conservatives?

And Russel Simmons isn't in the 1% either. He's in the 100%.

UPDATE: Look for Moore to become more shrill. After making a statement as foolish as this, he will now go all in for socialism.

Civility on the Left

2011-10-27T20:14:00.000-06:00

Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone article is an example of the unbiased, level-headed, policy centric analysis of intelligent people who disagree. Or not.

The Houston Chronicle teases out the name-calling and invective.

Rick Perry: The Best Little Whore In Texas

If you’re still not sure, get a gander at the subhead:

The Texas governor has one driving passion: selling off government to the highest bidder

In the loooooooooooooooong article in the magazine’s November 10th issue, veteran political writer Matt Taibbi compares the Republican presidential candidate to an undertaker, a prostitute, a male underwear model, a serial killer AND Adolf Hitler. Bet you’ve never seen all those things in one article before.

In case you don’t have time to read the entire piece, we have some highlights for you.

On Perry’s personal characteristics:

“Exceedingly well-groomed, but also ashen and exhausted, like a funeral director with a hangover.”
“Tall, perma-tanned, Bible-clutching Southerner with front-runner hair and the build of a retired underwear model.”
“On the human level he is a nonpersonality, an almost perfect cipher – a man whose only discernible passion is his extreme willingness to be whatever someone will pay him to be, or vote for him to be.”
“Rick Perry brings shallow to a new level. He is very gifted in that regard. He could be the Adolf Hitler of shallow.”

On Perry’s ethics:

“The candidate who is exponentially more willing than we’ve ever seen before to whore himself out for that money.”
“A human price tag.”
“Rick Perry has managed to set a scary new low in the annals of opportunism, turning Texas into a swamp of political incest and backroom dealing on a scale not often seen this side of the Congo or Sierra Leone.”

On Perry’s ups and downs in the presidential campaign:

“The governor went from presumptive front-runner to stammering talk-show punch line seemingly in the speed of a single tweet.”
“Perry has mainly distinguished himself with a kind of bipolar wildness in the debates: sullen and reserved one moment, strident and inarticulate the next. He sweats profusely. He can’t stand still. When he does manage to get off a zinger, he cracks a smug grin, looking like he’s just sewn up the blue ribbon in a frat-house dong-measuring contest.”
“One of the all-time great marketing scams, a breathtaking high-wire act by a man who if nothing else certainly has the gigantic balls required for the most powerful job in the world.”

On Perry’s rise to power:

“The descriptions of Perry’s early political career all sound like the early chapters of true-crime books about serial killers, where nobody notices anything special about the protagonist until the bodies start piling up along the local riverbank.”
“Favors are the one consistent thread running through Perry’s political career. Throughout his time as governor, whenever his ideology or his religion comes into conflict with the need to give a handout to a major campaign donor, ideology and religion lose every single time.”

It seems safe to assume Rick Perry won’t be getting the Rolling Stone vote.

Nuance on the Left

2011-10-25T16:27:00.000-06:00

This presidential election has not lacked for clowns, and in a circus Barack Obama fits right in. But as the Black clown, Obama’s foot-in-mouth moments mostly involve insulting the Black community. This could be to establish his independence from the community in order to earn his bona fides with the moderate electorate or a way of appeasing the white liberals he’s courting. Or it could be that his foot and his mouth are magnetized. Whatever the reason, as a Black person, the Obamanator experience has been as distasteful as rancid, spoiled, stinky, curdled milk.

This was written, not about Barack Obama, but about Herman Cain. Touré at Time Magazine let loose with this torrent of sophomoric angst in his October 21st article. His screed is just one more example of a group that isn't interested in civility, but rather tearing down their opponent at all costs. And they usually do it by attacking the person, not policy.

The left is particularly adept at lacking self-awareness. Their ability to self-reflect is almost non-existent. In the third paragraph of his Cain chew-out - after having called Cain a Black clown, the Herminator, Cain't and the Black Sarah Palin - Mr. Touré asks, "Now we’re doing teenage-level disses?" [Long Jon Stewart-esque pause for effect.]

Maybe Mr. Touré doesn't read his own work. The evidence may be that he squeezed in some more teenage name calling before he reached the end of the article. Hermy, Big Daddy Cain, Cain is a clown, buffoon and another Hermanator round out his 690 words of "serious intellect, realistic solutions and admirable character," three charicteristics Mr. Touré said that Herman Cain did not posses.

As if the name calling wasn't enough to convince the reader of Mr. Touré's superior intellectual argument, he marginalizes and dismisses everything that he disagrees with. It is not that Cain has different ideas about the economy, it is that he is courting and appeasing the white conservatives. It is not that Cain has a different opinion than Mr. Touré, it is that his foot and his mouth are magnetized. It is not that Mr. Touré and Cain don't see eye to eye, it is that Cain is as distasteful as rancid, spoiled, stinky, curdled milk.

So when you get past all the name calling and invective, what is left? Essentially Mr. Touré makes three points. 1) He doesn't think blacks have been brainwashed. 2) Obama has been a part of the black experience. 3) Racism is alive and well.

Mr. Touré doesn't like that Cain said that some blacks were brainwashed. He noted that:

Brainwashing is a highly offensive charge that suggests the Black mind is defective or has gone to sleep. In a world where Black intelligence is constantly maligned and denigrated and underestimated, this cuts deeper than the quick. Alleging that we’re not intelligent enough to make rational political decisions would hurt if it weren’t so comical coming from his mouth.

Does Mr. Touré also feel the pain in his quick for poor white people who are often maligned as hillbillies, white trash and rednecks? Let's change the focus of his comments from blacks to the NASCAR crowd and see how it sounds:

Brainwashing is a highly offensive charge that suggests the white mind is defective or has gone to sleep. In a world where southern white intelligence is constantly maligned and denigrated and underestimated, this cuts deeper than the quick. Alleging that NASCAR lovers are not intelligent enough to make rational political decisions would hurt if it weren’t so comical coming from his mouth.

Brainwashing does not suggest that the mind is defective. Everyone is susceptible to a brainwash. I suspect that if a certain cultural or religious group of whites voted in lock step at rates at or above 90 percent for Republicans, Mr. Touré might not bristle so vociferously at the notion of a brainwash.

Mr. Touré then asks, "... has the GOP offered a reasonable alternative?" to the brainwash. Um, yes. The subject of your article Mr. Touré. And the other 6 or 7 people showing up to the Republican debates. The whole point of Cain making the brainwash reference was to jar the black community into considering ideas from him or anyone else from the Republican side of the aisle.

Moving on to Mr. Touré's second objection, he feels that Obama certainly was and is partaking of the "black experience" in America. Well, not exactly. He notes that you can't define black experience too narrowly. And that even if "Obama has lived a life that’s different than most Black people’s", Obama is black. So therefore what he experiences is the black experience. And anyway, Obama is redefining the experience. Where he is, the experience is. "The mountain came to Muhammad." Of course, no mention that Herman Cain's experiences are the black experience or that they may be redefining the black experience in any way.

Number three. With this objection Mr. Touré drifts perilously close to a Jesse Jackson sing-a-long. In citing his own book, Mr. Touré notes that even his extensive research that consisted of asking "about 100 people" to identify the "the most racist thing that’s ever happened to you," he discovered that more than one third couldn't identify such an act. So rather than conclude, as Herman Cain has, that things are improving in America, Mr. Touré provides the answers for this mysterious racism lacuna: these people just weren't aware of the hidden, subtle, unknowable racism that is modern racism. Maybe they were brainwashed. And no level of success within the black community - not his, not Obama's, not Herman Cain's - is going to refute that racism is everywhere.

Oh, and Touré doesn't like Cain's sense of humor. But Cain's a clown. An unfunny clown. So there.

Tea Party Racists

2011-10-24T13:01:00.000-06:00

It is so sad to see the lack of reason and thinking on the left. Morgan Freeman provides just one of a thousand examples.

One wonders whether in every other election where Republicans opposed the Democratic candidate (and I think that is most of them) it was a racist decision. Ostensibly, the vote against the Democrat in those elections was a racist's vote against policies rather than the actual candidate? However, since the Republican's track record is pretty good on issues of race - and arguably better than the Democrats vis-à-vis abolition, ERA, minorities elected and appointed, etc. - this is a hard argument to make.

Also, to believe that those who would vote for a Republican are somehow now racists since they want to make sure that Obama is unseated, one must believe that if Joe Biden were the president, Republicans would not feel similarly. That is, Republicans would not have a publicly stated policy to do whatever it takes to see to it that Biden only serves one term. One is then left to ask, how would the policies pursued by the Obama administration magically become palatable to Republicans if Joe Biden were pursuing them rather than Obama? I suspect this sort of thought exercise is blithely dismissed just as Mr. Freeman dismissed the conservative desire to unseat President Clinton might indicate that it is policy rather than racism driving the Republican vote.

This is shameful. And a mendacious calumny.

An "amen" from Sean Penn:

Samuel L. Jackson agrees that "It’s not politics. It is not economics. It all boils down to pretty much to race."

At a gathering of the CBC, some thought the Tea Party should "Go to hell." and that they are racist. Black Tea Partiers are said to have an identity crisis and are "Oreos" - black on the outside and white on the inside. And one attendee repeatedly called Tea Partiers "tea-baggers".

Apparently the left can't just disagree. Questioning the character of those you disagree with is easier.

Don't Like It? Don't Do It.

2011-10-22T06:25:00.000-06:00

Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one.
Don't like abortion? Don't get one.
Don't like drugs? Don't do them.
Don't like sex? Don't have it.
Don't like your rights taken away? Don't let them take away from anyone else.

These statements dismiss very difficult issues with very simple expressions. Those who would like to curtail some of these issues typically find them sociologically problematic or immoral. It is oversimplification to simply ask that those that disagree merely opt out. Opting out is not the only method a society can, or should, use to limit behaviors. If this were the case, there would be little need for laws.

Although it may feel morally advantageous to dismiss the complicated issues with admonitions to opt out, are those who recommend opting out as the sole means of relief prepared to accept this advice for their societal concerns? Would they also agree that opting out is appropriate for the following items?

Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke them.
Don't like incandescent light bulbs? Don't use them.
Don't like corporations? Stop buying their products.
Don't like guns? Don't buy one.
Don't like plastic grocery bags? Don't use them.
Don't like fossil fuels? Don't use them.
Don't like drunk driving? Don't drink and drive.
Don't like profit? Don't pursue it.
Don't like high tax rates? Don't pay them.
Don't like pictures of Muhammad? Don't look at them.
Don't like melamine in your food? Don't eat it.
Don't like slavery? Don't own slaves.
Don't like rape? Don't do it.

It may not be sufficient or appropriate to merely opt out of some or all of these issues. There may be a societal need to restrict or prevent many of the listed behaviors. It hasn't always been apparent to societies that slavery shouldn't merely be an opt out issue. When the liberties of another person are curtailed, as is the case with slavery, there are moral and ethical reasons to not invoke the opt out argument and to have laws that restrict that behavior.

But infringement of individual liberty is not the only area where the opt out argument is unpersuasive. Laws also establish the ideals for a society. Some argue that there is a societal harm if drugs are legalized because it sanctions an objectionable behavior. Feminists make a similar argument for how society is harmed by sexism:

If the vast majority of portrayals of women in the media are of skinny, white, vapid, boy-crazy sex objects with fake breasts, this contributes to a social environment in which women’s worth is determined by their attractiveness to men. It influences young girls looking for role models, it affects how older women feel about themselves, and it justifies pretty rancid behavior towards real, non-fictional women. I am totally into empowerment and whatnot, but it’s hard to buck a trend that’s pervasive, constant, and rewarded. Because I think these portrayals are socially damaging, I think it is my responsibility to call out sexist images when I see them, and ask for them to be changed, whether or not I am consuming the media in which they appear.

Obviously that feminist does not think it is sufficient to merely opt out. She is hoping to influence, guide and affect societal norms. And to the degree she can control the behavior of others, she will. Many university campuses impose speech codes to combat issues such as these. It is not far fetched to imagine the codification of such controls in law.

Society is continually asking "What is it that constitutes the moral?" Immoral behaviors and actions and their social implications concern many people. Certainly the previously quoted feminist is concerned with sexist imagery and its social implications. Many who oppose abortion, same sex marriage and drug legalization are also concerned about the social implications of these activities. Likewise, those who combat the unauthorized copying and distribution of music are concerned about the implications of an entire generation who does not regard this activity as illegal. The industry is fighting a perception as much as a legal battle. But, should music industry lawyers be told "If you don't like peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted material, don't use peer-to-peer sites."?

Many issues cannot be reduced to the libertarian impulse of "I won't interfere with your life; please don't interfere with mine." It may be justified to restrict behaviors when those behaviors are thought to damage societal fabric or infringe the rights of others. One must ask whether a particular behavior should be sanctioned by government and the society. Nobody is forced to use drugs if they are legalized, but societal ideals are established by such laws.

It should be clear that there are activities that people of all political stripes would like to see curtailed or eliminated. It is pure mythology to believe that only one side is interested in imposing their morality on a society. All participants in politics want to impose on others as much of their morality as possible. To the degree they have their way in America, it will be through democratic processes. And one or the other's morality will prevail and be imposed.

Classless

2011-10-18T21:10:00.000-06:00

Politico wonders about the President's campaign tactics:

Allegations that Republicans want sick people to die and hate homosexuals are caricatures you might expect of an extreme House member or a raving partisan running for local office. That a president would say — or even believe — such things is deeply disturbing.

But in these same remarks, Obama also subtly suggested something far worse — that his opponents are racially biased.

Democracy presupposes that both sides accept that the other speaks with goodness from the heart — if sometimes in error.

But if the other side is not just wrong but ill-intentioned, the rationale for sharing power evaporates.

Class warfare is a dangerous game, unjustly turning a small segment of society into villains. But cultural warfare is poisonous, threatening to sicken and cripple the entire society.

Not only that, but GOP'ers want "dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance."

My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classroom, construction workers back to work rebuilding America, rebuilding our schools, tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your worker a raise,” said Obama. “That’s my plan. Then you’ve got their plan, which is, let’s have dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance. So far at least, I feel better about my plan.

Krauthammer also notes Obama's campaign rhetoric:

It’s crude. It’s Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it’s ridiculous. Obama’s most coveted tax hike — an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making more than $200,000) — would have reduced last year’s deficit (at the very most) from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error. The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a day’s federal spending. You could collect Obama’s favorite tax loophole — depreciation for corporate jets — for 100 years and it wouldn’t cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system.

Occupy Wall Street Cleanliness

2011-10-16T21:03:00.000-06:00

The Daily Show examines how the protesters are treating the local businesses.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Wall Street Occupied

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

The New York Times discusses this too.

Zuccotti Park is privately owned but open to the public. Melissa Coley, a spokeswoman for Brookfield Office Properties, which owns the park, said in a statement that sanitation conditions had reached “unacceptable levels.”

In a widely distributed pamphlet, “Welcome to Liberty Plaza: Home of Occupy Wall Street,” participants were instructed where to find relief. “After you’ve dined,” it reads, “feel free to refresh yourself in the restrooms of neighboring businesses like Burger King and McDonald’s without feeling obligated to buy anything.”

Headline Bias?

2011-10-12T07:40:00.000-06:00

Isn't it odd that the NYTimes would focus on the religious divide rather than the shared values of Evangelicals and Romney in this article?

Somewhere deep in the penetralia of the NYTimes, somebody decided - whether consciously or not - to give this bit of news a unfavorable twist. A more convivial headline editor may have suggested "Evangelical supports Romney" to better reflect the overall message of the story.

Here is an metaphor for the intrinsic bias that may be at work. Think of the story as a top. The top can either be spun clockwise or counterclockwise to initiate its pirouette. The top is the same collection of molecules that predictably spins about the center pivot whether spun one way or the other - that is, the facts of the story are the same no matter which way it is spun. But the top's path and disposition is affected by its direction of rotation.

The decision about which way to twist the spintop may not be a function of some directional intent. It may just be the result of whether one is left-handed or right-handed. Although not necessarily a conscious decision to impart a particular spin direction, this physical bias certainly imposes a spin direction whether intended or not.

If you read to the end of the article, you discover that in spite of his theological disagreements, the Pastor said “I’m going to instruct, I’m going to advise people that it is much better to vote for a non-Christian who embraces biblical values than to vote for a professing Christian like Barack Obama who embraces un-biblical values.” A 'right-handed' editor might have headlined the article "Republican Big Tent Has Room For All Faiths."

But the NYTimes editor chose to highlight the theological quarrels that an Evangelical Pastor has with a Mormon candidate. The editor might just as well have reminded us that Rabbis do not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah and that Protestants think the Pope is a heretic. Not exactly press-stopping scoops.

But if "Imam Calls Obama's Pastor An Infidel" headlined an article that ultimately acknowledged that the Imam encouraged Muslims to vote for Obama based on shared values in spite of their theological differences, one would rightly wonder why such a divisive headline was necessary. Similarly, the selection of "Prominent Pastor Calls Romney’s Church a Cult" as the headline for this article is unnecessarily provocative.

In these times when many lament the "narrow visions" and "deep political divides," and some pine for the days when "we can all just get along," one might imagine the Times would be interested in giving the reader a literary warm hug by highlighting the 'let's-get-along' attitude demonstrated by this preacher who was willing to set aside some major doctrinal differences.

However, maybe this headline was not intended to mislead the casual reader by suggesting that Romney has been excommunicated from the Evangelical ballot. Maybe that is too negative a read of what was intended. The writer may have been providing context so that the reader could fully appreciate the magnitude of compromise that the Pastor was willing to make.

Or maybe the devil made him do it.

Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-07T08:05:00.002-06:00

Finally the lid has blown off the pressure cooker. The left has needed a protest cause du jour for some time now.

The left just can't find it within themselves to protest the continuation of the (so called) incompetent Bush/Darth Vader Cheney policies under Obama. Their tongues have been tied over Guantanamo, rendition, drone attacks, collateral damage, increased troops, blood for oil, colonialism, imperialism, globalization, no-bid contracts, habeas corpus, civilian court/tribunals and the Patriot Act. There are no movies, personal interest stories or news stories on the horrors of war, families left behind, increased alcoholism and homicide rates, post-traumatic stress disorder or casket cavalcades.

Protesting is hobby for many on the left. And having their guy in office greatly curtails the amount of hobby horse riding they can engage in; they have to ride less, with less whooping and hollering and they can't kick up as much dust.

Since the left places the majority of the blame for the ills of the world on external circumstances, they are predisposed to marches and fist-shaking at those forces that muck up the world. Grievance politics is a natural outcome of this vision. Capitalism, greed, racism, sexism and any number of other external evils are the boot on the neck of the proletariat and if not for that impediment, the land of milk and honey would spring forth.

Those on the right more readily look inward which in part explains why they don't need to march nearly so much as those on the left. And personal responsibility marches against oneself lack the telegenic appeal of "taking the bridge", likely explaining why even if these personal accountability marches are occurring, we don't see much of them on the nightly news.

But "Wall Street" is an evergreen villain that they can circle the wagons around and around which they can kick up as much dust as they like. Since President Obama has gerrymandered the issue by championing nonsense like the Buffet brocard and increased tax rates for $200,000 millionaires, this is safe territory for dust raising and other "highest form of patriotism" activities. (I am sure Jefferson – or whoever actually said that since he didn't – would be proud. Unless, of course, Tea Partiers are kicking up a little dust, then it is unpatriotic rabble-rousing.)

It is surprising that it took so long for the left to find something to shout about. Apparently WTO hasn't been to town recently. But clearly, with their man at the tiller, they had to be careful to make sure that what they grouse about did not bring harm to their man or cause.

Enter the practiced complainant Barack Obama. He crafted a complaint against the wealthy Wall Street elites (from whom he derives a lot of financial support) while avoiding the disdain of those he attacked. It is as though he accused his spouse of infidelity, proposed to imprison her for the offense, and did it with such conviction and enough magician's patter that the spouse took up his cause and marched on behalf of her own incarceration. Skillful indeed.

But this slight of hand created the opening the protesters needed. It was now safe to rally against jack-bootery while wearing jack-boots. Even Michael Moore was probably tiring of the blame Bush mantra and was anxious for a more current event to wag his finger - and tongue - at, especially given the strange documentary topic drought that has devastated his industry as of late.

But finally, the gnawing angst that the left should be marching against the continuation of Bush-era policies overseas has been blown away by the patchouli scented breeze of protest and bridge taking. A villain has been found. Fingers can be pointed. Blame can be assigned. Everything is comfortable once again.

And they lived happily ever after.

Papal Infallibility

2011-10-06T11:13:00.000-06:00

When a person says that the science has been settled, why isn't this considered to be as silly as Papal infallibility?

Notable Quotable

2011-10-05T07:10:00.001-06:00

I would prefer to live in communities where there are people who believe there is a God and are trying to live up to a standard that is higher than a legal standard.
~ Lee Habeeb

Notable Quotable

2011-09-27T20:33:00.002-06:00

In response to the San Francisco nude in:

Most things that people do that are stupid and destructive and disgusting, I have some impulse to do those things. But taking off my clothes in public; this is nothing I've ever wanted to do.
~ Michael Medved

Notable Quotable

2011-09-21T21:02:00.004-06:00

Lord, Make me chaste, but not yet.
St. Augustine

Sounds like those who are against reducing spending and marching further down the road of Keynesian indebtedness.

Notable Quotable

2011-09-19T22:22:00.001-06:00

Accomplishment breeds its own momentum, gives off a virtuous glow...
James Lileks

The Left No Longer Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

2011-09-16T11:27:00.000-06:00

Where are Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Al Sharpton, Martin Sheen, Code Pink, Whoopi Goldberg, the novels about assassinating the president , the movies about the assassinating the president and MoveOn.org? (more)

We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. We had another war in Libya. Renditions, preventive detention and tribunals still continue. Guantanamo is still open. Predator assassinations are quintupled over what the evil George W. Bush and Darth Vader Cheney had done. Troops have increased in Afghanastan. Foreign policy is very similar as when Bush was in office. And none of this was undone, overturned or rejected – as was advocated during the election – when the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House from 2009-11.

And yet, no protests. No name calling. No hand wringing about the moral condition of our leaders.

Where are the howls of protest against an indecent and immoral war that is trading blood for oil?

Where are the anti-war protest marches in Hollywood, San Francisco and other less ideologically myopic and insular cloisters?

Where are the accusations of foreign adventurism, racism, imperialism, colonialism, corporatism and globalization?

Where are the movies depicting our soldiers and intelligence officers as rapists, murderers and torturers? (You can be sure there will be a patriotic, glowing, military love-fest of a flicker show depicting the bin Laden assassination released, oh, somewhere around October of 2012. Curious timing, that.)

Where are the accusations of crony politics and paybacks for no-bid contracts to continue this bully war?

Where are the fist-pumping, rule-of-law types demanding constitutional and moral justification for circumventing habeas corpus, civilian court trials, tribunals, appeals, or any other protection that might be offered to an enemy combatant? Where is the outrage for just brazenly acting as judge, jury and executioner by killing suspects with Predator drones? Or for being judge, jury and executioner for bin Laden when so much to-do was made over giving KSM a civilian trial?

Where is the outrage about the collateral damage that results from a 'more rubble, less trouble' brand of warfare that indiscriminately launches hellfire missiles into a compound to execute suspected terrorists, incinerating innumerable innocents in the process? Where is the criticism for this blood-lust?

Where is the ruckus from the civil liberties crowd in opposition to the Patriot Act?

Where are the daily body counts and stirring videos of the caskets coming home?

Where are the moving personal interest stories about the wives left behind and the heightened alcoholism, suicides and murders committed by returning soldiers resulting from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder?

Why are these things now considered excessively divisive? Were these concerns ever sincerely held? Is the opposition dropped because it does not suit the protesters politically? Were these sycophants merely creating a partisan atmosphere of "Bush lied, people died" for the purpose of getting their guy elected? Why aren't those on the political right using these items as targets of opportunity, criticizing the policies and demonizing members of the administration beyond caricature (think Cheney)?

Can this be chalked up to cynicism? Hypocrisy?

Are we to believe that just repackaging the Bush policies as "overseas contingency operations" and "man-caused disasters" and banning the use of the words jihadist, terrorist and Islamacist somehow transforms the policies? Are those protesters on the left so easily tricked that they don't recognize the renamed policies? Is their ability to tease out nuance completely disarmed by the hope and change mantra?

Is this a case of "behind every apparent double standard is an unconfessed single standard"? That is, if somebody is in office and is a conservative or Republican, then assume that the motive are all evil, nefarious and inhumane and attack every action, but when the officeholder is a liberal or Democrat then pas d'ennemis à gauche.

Has it all been a political ruse similar to previous political posturing on a different issue that has been acknowledged by President Obama and Harry Reid?

Victor Davis Hanson's observation seems to suggest that maybe all of the pre-election hoopla was just that:

In his first year in the White House, Barack Obama, a war critic and foe of the Bush-Cheney protocols, embraced or expanded almost all of the measures that he and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party had long derided—apparently because what had seemed superfluous to a candidate proved essential to a president with responsibility for the safety of 300 million people.

This analysis is strikingly similar to Obama's own admission about how he handled the debt crisis prior to the 2008 election:

I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a Senator versus the vantage point of a...President.

As President, you start realizing, "You know what? We-- we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith in credit of the United States." And so that was just a example of a new Senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country.

Either the Republican allegations about Sen. Obama's lack of experience were right, Sen. Obama was woefully ignorant or Sen. Obama demagogued the issue for political gain. No matter what the reason, he now admits that his actions were dangerous and irresponsible. How is it that the "Presi-dunce" George W. Bush was able to see and understand what the 'articulate , bright, clean, nice-looking' Obama was unable to see? And is that same slandering-the-policy-before-adopting-the-policy dynamic used by Sen. Obama with regard to raising the debt limit at play with the wars and foreign policy? Is Pres. Obama willing to admit that this demagogic election cycle deny-it-before-you-buy-it tactic just as dangerous and irresponsible in the case of war and foreign policy? Has this voting for something before voting against methodology ever been used before?

Pres. Obama seems to be quite comfortable with perpetuating policies that he previously identified as absurd. Let's call it ex codice absurdum. Laws emitting from absurdity is not new and is not the exclusive province of one party or the other. Normally the practitioner believes the absurdity for which the law is crafted - at least making the policy well intended (SF Happy Meal Ban, SF circumcision ban). Or a new law might be the reaction to some other half-baked absurdity (SF nudity problem). But usually one does not so brazenly rail against a policy in advance of supporting said policy. At least not without an open apology or an admission of a change of heart. This sort of two-faced approach to policy is demagoguery, chutzpah and subterfuge on stilts. A kind of adultery done on a national scale where the populice is cheated on by law makers. Hypocricy with the addition of intent to deceive.

Ex codice absurdum, where law makers no longer merely rely on absurdity to guide policy, but where they embrace what they previously identify as absurd, immoral or evil policy.

Where is the gatekeeper to call out this level of hypocrisy?

Maybe all this civility toward the sitting president has come about because of a change of heart on the part of the media. Or maybe because Oprah called for more civility to be shown to President Obama when she said "Even if you're not in support of his policies, there needs to be a certain level of respect." Who can know?

But one wonders if we will drive deep into the character assassination swamp of yesteryear if a Republican is back in the White House.

---
John Stossel, FBN

Notable Quotable

2011-09-13T15:46:00.003-06:00

The right thinks evil is real. The left thinks evil Israel.

Notable Quotable

2011-09-13T10:21:00.000-06:00

The question, "What did Ameriaca do to deserve 9/11?" was a big question on the left. "What did we do to make people hate us so much?" There is no difference between that question and "What did the Jews do to make Germans hate them?" or "What did blacks do to make those that lynched them hate them?" Maybe a better question is to ask what did the culture that raised the 19 hijackers do to create such monsters.
~Dennis Prager

Heated Rhetoric

2011-09-08T09:39:00.000-06:00

After the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in January, President Obama encouraged everyone to be nice.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

This came on the heels of many lectures about the consequences of actions such as the use of crosshairs to identify districts targeted by the Tea Party for the elections. This use of crosshairs and statements made by the Palin campaign - as well as the general tone and rhetoric of the Tea party - were, if not directly, implied as the motivating cause of the violence against Ms. Giffords.

A lot of hand wringing occurred because of the potential for violence that might take place as a result of the rhetoric on the right. We were told that it was time to finally engage in a long overdue conversation about the violent rhetoric and imagery polluting national political discourse. Even Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik weighed in with some heated rhetoric about the heated rhetoric. There was a lot of rhetoric back then.

I'd just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they are - how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths, about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.

Time asked, "Is Violent Rhetoric Behind the Attack on Giffords?"

The Salt Lake Tribune condemned "violent rhetoric that crosses all lines of decency and adds nothing to political debates," and that "The words and deeds of Sarah Palin... are examples of this trend."

Joe Scarborough commented that

Just because the dots between violent rhetoric and violent actions don't connect in this case doesn't mean you can afford to ignore the possibility -- or, as many fear, the inevitability -- that someone else will soon draw the line between them." "Despite what we eventually learned about the shooter in Tucson, should the right have really been so shocked that many feared a political connection between the heated rhetoric of 2010 and the shooting of Giffords?

Rachael Maddow took Scarborough's query to the next level with her twist on the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" line of reasoning:

As several commenters have noted, there's no indication that the alleged shooter was politically motivated. Even if the perpetrator turns out to have been seriously involved in political causes, which again there's no evidence of, his actions will likely remain senseless. What we can say is that today's shooting, whatever its motivation, comes after an election season that was marked by the language of violence...

One expects Maddow to ask her readers to "disregard the statement" after ringing the bell with the statement above. But statements such as this were commonplace across the media landscape at the time.

Only a small child would equate crosshairs on a district map signifying political battlegrounds as a mandate to commit violence against the current office holder. Apparently metaphors are beyond the pale if they include any references to battles, fighting or contentiousness and politics should never escalate further than a pillow fight.

Well, maybe not so fast with that pillow talk. Jimmy Hoffa fomented the "army" of "working people" who "like a good fight" who are "ready to march" because they "got a war" with the Tea Party and that there will "only be one winner" because "we're gonna win that war." And to the cheering approval of the crowd, with his fist raised, he said "And, let's take these son of a bitches out..."

SIDEBAR: Why are union members the only people deserving of the moniker "working people"? Do non-union people work? Is everybody else lazily sitting at home on their hands?

Hoffa made these introductory remarks prior to President Obama's Labor Day address. And the response?

Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz couldn't find it in herself to condemn the toxic language.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said "Can we move on?"

CNN's John King couldn't seem to squeeze a question about the heated rhetoric into his six minute interview with Hoffa.

Apparently Rep. Andre Carson and Hoffa are of like mind on matters of civility. And is this the civility we are to embrace?

Or is it as Krauthammer said, "Civil discourse is a one-way street if you’re a Democrat."

Jay Carney also noted:

I understand that there is a ritual in Washington that, you know, somebody says something, and you link the associations, and then everybody who has an association with him or her has to avow or disavow. The President wasn’t there, he wasn’t on the stage, he didn’t speak for another twenty minutes, he didn’t hear it. I really don’t have any comment beyond that.

There is a striking similarity here to the William Ayers distance policy. One of the responses given to distance candidate Obama from his recent associations with Ayers was:

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.

It may be true that Senator Obama condemns violence and the acts of Bill Ayers. But why argue that because something occurred 40 years ago that it is irrelevant or that therefore no connection is possible? The Holocaust happened some 50+ years ago, but there are still those - even some who may have only been eight years old at the time - who feel it was appropriate to gas Jews. Distance isn't the issue. Condemnation and separation from those who performed and condone the acts is.

In Obama's defense, one cannot be held accountable for the actions of every acquaintance one has. And an idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. So to make Obama responsible for the foibles of every fellow sojourner on the left is a bit silly. But terrorism and Hoffa's behavior at a presidential speaking engagement - although widely separated by degree - rise above a mere foible.

But it is the time element used to dismiss any association that is disturbing. And the recent kerfuffle over Hoffa's statements re-exposed this oddity. Carney offered the argument that the President wasn't there and that Hoffa's comments occurred twenty minutes prior to his arrival as though it somehow relieves the President of his moral obligation to chastise Hoffa for the offensive comments.

The comments occurred. The President spoke from the stage where the comments were made. However tenuous, that puts him at the scene of the crime. Whether they occurred twenty minutes - or forty years - prior, once he is aware that they were made, should he not forcefully condemn them? Why not simply state

Although I am a supporter of unions, Mr. Hoffa's comments were vulgar and inappropriate. I hope that he will temper his remarks in the future and use language that elevates, rather than debases, even when he has strong disagreements with those on the other side of the aisle. His language, in that setting, not only denigrates those he disagrees with, it sullies and disgraces the gathering, the participants, his office, his movement and the office of the Presidency. We should seek to elevate the participants and the discourse in political debate. Attacking the dignity of those we disagree with is not up to the standard of character that we should all strive for. We should do better than personal attacks. Mr. Hoffa should have done better. And I am confident that in the future he will.

Something similar could have been said regarding the boorish behavior of many during the Wisconsin budget battle. (Examples here, here, and here.)

Or is this a case of pas d'ennemis à gauche?

Infant Mortality

2011-09-06T07:48:00.000-06:00

One would think that with all the tools at their disposal, the media types could so some of the complicated analysis to understand the numbers.

On the August 31 NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams introduced a story along with his guest Dr. Nancy Snyderman about the dismal state of affairs with regard to infant mortality in the United States. Dr. Snyderman said that "the numbers are not very pretty." That "Cuba, Malaysia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland, they are ahead of the United States, which now ranks 41st in infant mortality." And that "no matter how you massage those numbers, we were ranked 29th five years ago." She summed it up by saying "this is dismal and, frankly, appalling."

In spite of Dr. Snyderman's implication that any other conclusion would come as the result of "massaging", one wishes that some massaging, or at least light touching, of the numbers would have occurred to find out what is really behind them.

As pointed out here , much of this dismal and appalling ranking is due to comparing apples and oranges. Since the US apparantly the only country that counts infant mortality with rigor, of course other countries can and do rank higher.

Many countries try to exclude certain categories from their statistics. For example, Switzerland doesn't include babies shorter than 30cm.

And how can the US favorably compare to countries where "babies who are born at less than 28 weeks, weighing less than 1,000 grams or measuring less than 35 centimeters are not counted as live births if they die within seven days?"

In fact, America's low ranking may really be a function of the superior care offered.

American advances in medical treatment now make it possible to save babies who would surely have died only a few decades ago. Until recently, very-low-birth-weight babies, those weighing less than 3 pounds, almost always died. Now some of these babies survive with the help of breathing assistance and other recent inventions.

While such vulnerable babies may live with advanced medical assistance and technology, low-birth-weight babies (weighing less than 5.5 pounds) recently had an infant mortality rate 20 times higher than heavier babies, according to the WHO. And these deaths count as infant deaths even though most would have been counted as stillbirths if they hadn't received the gift of life, however transitory.

Ironically, American doctors' ability to save babies' lives causes higher infant mortality numbers here than would be the case with less advanced medical treatment.

Good Morning America on ABC, the Today show on NBC, Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News and CNN may agree with the State of the World's Mothers report that states:

The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn [death rate] rate is higher than any of those countries.

But their agreement does not make the statement true. They should take a deeper look into the statistical causes for the disparities. But since they haven't, in the end, Dr. Snyderman may be right. This is dismal and, frankly, appalling.

Racism on the Left

2011-09-01T08:57:00.002-06:00

This is the effort that we are seeing of Jim Crow. Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me… hanging on a tree.

Politico article, ABC News article

Rep. Andre Carson is clearly a person that cannot simply disagree. Those he disagrees with have to have hidden agendas and must be degenerate, immoral, evil racists. Could it be that those he disagrees with simply have a different vision about the size and scope of government?

And this from a man who arguably belongs to one of the few overtly, objectively and definitionally racist organizations in America today, the Congressional Black Caucus. Why purely racist? Because membership is solely a function of skin color. Even though he was ideologically aligned with the CBC, Stephen Cohen was not allowed to join because he was not the correct race. One of the co-founders noted that "it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African-American.""

What does Mr. Carson make of blacks who show up at the Tea Party rallies? Have they missed the motivation of this secret society that Mr. Carson sees so clearly? Or are they too using the ruse of smaller government to cover their blood lust to hang blacks in the town square?

And how is it that Mr. Carson so clearly knows the motives of those in the Tea Party? Couldn't it just as easily be said that the members of the CBC wanted to participate in the black flash mobs in Wisconsin that targeted and assaulted white people? Or that owing to disagreements on foreign policy, there are some in Congress, right now with this CBC movement, who would love to gas Jews? Why couldn't somebody on the right just as easily divine the motives of the CBC as Mr. Carson has done? But only a child, or a manipulative demagogue, could turn disagreement into the most ugly and odious action of lynching. Is it really possible that Mr. Carson thinks that some of his fellow elected compatriots want to see blacks lynched based solely on the flimsy evidence that they - gasp - disagree with him on certain policy issues?

Why are blacks in general and Mr. Carson in particular excused from the normal moral rules of society? Had a white person - even a white liberal - said that the Tea Party wants to see blacks hanging from trees, would the opprobrium of his peers be appropriate? And if you think the answer is yes, then you must ask why you would hold a black man to a lower standard. Contempt? Racism?

And then there's the contempt that Mr. Carson must have for his constituents. That he is willing to race-bait in order to secure support for his side is appalling. But then again, maybe the same quiet voices that informed former President Jimmy Carter's view that an "overwhelming proportion" of the vocal opposition to Obama stems from the "inherent feeling" that "an African-American should not be president," are are informing Mr. Carson. Neither of these men are burdened by providing proof. They merely assert and walk on. If anyone's motives are ripe for questioning, it would be these two men and others like them for presenting the "when did you stop beating your wife" argument.

We can test whether the motivations of those in the Tea Party are rooted in the swamp of racism. Who would be happier if blacks in America woke up tomorrow and said, "I am no longer angry at America. Thank God I live in a wonderful, free country where I can lift myself out of bad circumstances, overcome past injustices and where the vast majority of my fellow Americans of every race, creed and color wish me well."? Tea Partiers or the CBC? Without grievance, the CBC - and for that matter the Democratic Party - lose much of their reason to exist.

This was a reprehensible and stupid comment by Mr. Carson. He should resign for this obscenity. If sexting is sufficient cause to ask a member of Congress to resign - and it is - then this level of slander and hate speech should be cause for resignation as well.

Examples of race baiting from the left:
Maureen Dowd
Jimmy Carter
Ed Schultz
Chris Matthews
Tavis Smiley
Paul Krugman
Janeane Garofalo (Accusing a black Republican of black racism. WTF?)
Bob Schieffer

Possible actual racism on the left?
Joe Biden

Klavan: The Racism of the Left

Notable Quotable

2011-09-01T07:47:00.002-06:00

People will either feel accountable to an all powerful God who will judge them, or to a state that will arrest them.

Affirmative Action for the Ugly

2011-08-31T15:28:00.006-06:00

Once again, The Onion is eclipsed by the New York Times. Daniel S. Hamermesh questions whether certain EEO actions might be reasonable based on ugliness.

...why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.

For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population.

This is a powerful example of the conflict of visions that exists between conservatives and liberals. One side seeks to impose equivalence via government coercion and lawsuits and the other does not. One side says the government should be the arbiter of morality while the other does not. One thinks in terms of groups while the other does not.

An important issue was noted near the end of the article. Often, the left does not acknowledge that incentives matter. In the case of taxation, they often dismiss the chilling effect that higher tax rates can have on investment and economic growth. They often poo-poo the idea that the wealthy may decide to change their behaviors if tax rates are to high. But in his article about ugly people, Hamermesh notes that incentives certainly do matter:

There are other possible objections. “Ugliness” is not a personal trait that many people choose to embrace; those whom we classify as protected might not be willing to admit that they are ugly. But with the chance of obtaining extra pay and promotions amounting to $230,000 in lost lifetime earnings, there’s a large enough incentive to do so.

Hamermesh feels that the ugly among us will embrace their ugliness if lured out with the prospect of financial remuneration. If true, those on the left should certainly concede that confiscatory tax rates, 90 weeks of guaranteed income in form of unemployment insurance and paying no taxes at all (as about 50% of Americans do) may in some way affect the decisions that people make.

For those who still possess some modicum of shame, they would likely not be able to expose themselves to the crushing humiliation of asking for a handout because of their uncomeliness. Their self-esteem is likely fragile as it is and having to be judged by some pulchritude panel may be more than they can bear. But those without shame would be lining up with their hands fully extended to exploit this program of good intent. I suppose those with face tattoos, meth mouth and other self-imposed disfigurements could benefit from this as well.

But Hamermesh places a low percentage on who would be eligible - one or two percent. So the competition would be steep for those racing to the bottom of the beauty pool. And given the track record of other public programs, we can all sleep well knowing this number would likely not grow and costs would be contained. For those of you enamored with large government programs, that was a joke.

As many ideas and programs of this nature, it stages - whether intentionally or not - a race to the bottom. It does not elevate people. It creates a culture where we are told to gather based on our shared grievances.

Ignore the Right

2011-08-29T22:09:00.008-06:00

Al Gore has taken a page from John Kerry by recommending that we just ignore the dummies on the right.

But there is nothing new here. These are the folks who use dismissal as a form of argumentation. Dismissing the other's arguments as stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical is thought to be sophisticated. And sophisticates are not required to have meaningful and thought-provoking discussions with the preceding list of reprobates. One just dismisses them with a pejorative and moves on.

The knuckle draggers who have the temerity to question the enlightened are likened to holocaust deniers or racists and dismissed as ignorant fools. There is no need to discuss details with a lout. Those that disagree with the stated opinion are to be marginalized. Only the enlightened position should be pondered. There is no room or need for debate because the issue has been settled.

You win the conversation by disallowing a conversation in the first place.

The insidious part of this is the unspoken accusation that must be accepted in order to feel comfortable dismissing those you disagree with as holocaust deniers. The metaphor suggests that anthropogenic global warming skeptics have taken up a position that is so extreme and evil that it is comparable to taking up the case for Hitler's final solution. So just as one does not need to have a serious conversation with a Hitler sympathizer, so one should not even dignify the opinions of those who disagree with the popular ethos.

This subtle, yet effective, debating technique questions the motives of those on the other side, and then sets up a caricature, rather than the actual argument, to be attacked. Can anyone say straw man?

Another recent example of Al Gore's "I don't debate evil idiots" non-debating technique occurred when John Kerry admonished the press for even covering ideas he doesn't agree with. Apparently freedom of the press is not to be made available to those with opposing views. So now, not only should opposition ideas not be debated, they should not even be covered by the press lest these dark, frenetic, maniacal ideas be seen by the great unwashed and believed. (Pertinent comments begin at about 2:13)

And if that weren't enough, Paul Krugman informs that Republicans are anti-science and anti-knowledge. In his article he exposes Republicans who wonder if money might influence some scientists as "vile." I suppose Mr. Krugman would use this adjective for this observation:

To see what’s really going on, follow the money. Wall Street used to favor Democrats, perhaps because financiers tend to be liberal on social issues. But greed trumps gay rights, and financial industry contributions swung sharply toward the Republicans in the 2010 elections. Apparently Wall Street, unlike the voters, had no trouble divining the party’s real intentions.

Well, maybe not. These are his words from May 1, 2011. (link) Either he believes that it is okay for Democrats to question the effect that filthy lucre has on Republicans while labeling that questioning as "vile" when turned to Democrats, or he changed his mind during the four months that transpired between these articles. Or maybe he is a partisan "charlatan" or a "crank"?

But Krugman has provided a service. He has packed so many liberal talking points into one article that it saves the reader a lot of time. Instead of reading a tome of articles to discover how wonderful Democrats are and how mean and ugly Republicans are, the reader can just review the highlights in this one article:

Republicans can never have honorable motives while Democrats do.
Republicans are malevolent and manipulate to get their way while Democrats present truth.
Republicans are against facts, science and common sense while Democrats have all three.
Republicans often, if not always, are moved by greed and corruption while Democrats aren't.
When Republicans dare to wonder whether money may have motivated the manipulation of data in favor of global warming theories, it is vile. When Democrats opine about greed and avarice driving much of the decision-making of Republicans, it is revered.
When Republicans reference experts who question anthropogenic global warming, it is a crazy conspiracy theory. When Democrats find experts who agree with their position, it is merely consensus.
When Republicans judge their candidates based on their positions on specific issues it is willful ignorance becoming a litmus test for candidates. When Democrats do this it is intelligent vetting.
When Republican candidates have similar beliefs as their constituency it is the result of cynical power mongers pandering to the ignorant. When Democrat candidates share the beliefs of their constituency it is the beautiful symbiosis of intelligent voters and their caring public servants.
Republican economic ideas are the gut feelings of charlatans and cranks while Democrat economic ideas are the hard thinking about matters economic.

And this from those who are often self-congratulatory about their penchant for nuance.

Neuralgicism

2011-08-24T21:27:00.003-06:00

NPR's Robert Siegel asked this of former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond (link):

Some people read into the Tea Party's almost neuralgic reaction to government spending, a sense that white people figure black people benefit disproportionately from federal programs. Do you suspect a racial subtext to that whole argument?

Of course, Mr. Bond felt that there is a racial subtext as well as envy animating the Tea Party.

Is it possible that the Tea Party just has different ideas about deficit spending?

Could it be that the race of the recipients doesn't matter; the Tea Partiers just want smaller government and lower spending?

Is it possible that the Tea Party supporters don't see somebody else is getting a government benefit and therefore feel envious and want some too, but rather, don't want it for themselves and think the current levels of spending are fiscally irresponsible?

Is it possible that a black person could agree with the Tea Party and think some reductions in spending are in order?

Might it be that the desire for smaller and limited government is a thought unto itself and entirely unrelated to race?

Doesn't this argue that if there were no blacks in the United States that the Tea Party would feel it is OK to borrow and spend trillions? That it is only because of the racial subtext that Tea Partiers think excessive spending is wrong?

Bad Billionaire

2011-08-24T21:03:00.001-06:00

If a man has enough personal wealth that he is giving away $1.7 billion per year, why is he not considered a greedy corporate bastard? Why is he not greedy for profit at any cost, with no consideration for the consequences of his actions? Why has he not disowned his people and country in favor of globalization? Why is he not considered obscene and psychopathic? Why is his work not manipulation of markets? Why is he not thought to evade his tax responsibility while putting the burdens of his theft on humanity - especially since he repeatedly tells the world he does not pay enough in taxes?

These are all things said about other corporations and CEOs.

Wealth Decency

2011-08-21T21:33:00.002-06:00

If economics shape moral behavior and poverty causes crime, shouldn't wealth create ever increasing decent behavior? If so, why are the rich so hated?

How are decent people in the poorest corners of Ethiopia or India explained? Who runs the orphanages in these places?

Clearly values are more important than one's economic status.

Notable Quotable

2011-08-19T12:14:00.001-06:00

To the left: Religion called, citing prior art.

Notable Quotable

2011-08-19T07:11:00.000-06:00

Luck is the residue of design.
Branch Rickey

Soak the Rich

2011-08-18T22:17:00.007-06:00

The politics of envy clouds the judgment of the left. Because they are looking for a silver bullet to fix budgetary problems, they seek to push the debt problem onto the backs of the rich. As Bill Whittle demonstrates in his YouTube video, Eat The Rich, all of the earnings and wealth of the rich could be confiscated and it would not come close to solving the problem.

Much of the politics of envy is driven by a blind desire to take from those who have more and redistribute it to those who have less. As the maxim goes, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I suppose this could be chalked up to noble intent, but there are glaring examples where the left reveals that this might not be a deeply held belief. Because when their ideas are applied to them, they immediately rebel against it.

When is it applied to them? Healthcare.

There are many reasons that the cost of healthcare is high in America, and cost transfer is certainly a large contributor. The burden that caring for illegal aliens imposes on the system is just one example of this transfer and why costs and insurance premiums are higher than they should be.

Reimporting drugs is another slight of hand that the left likes to recommend when asked for cost cutting measures. This article by Mac Johnson sums up why it is a bad idea. But drug reimportation is a great example of where the left bristles against their own policy prescriptions.

When compared to the rest of the world, America is the rich. America subsidizes the cost of medicines for the rest of the world. This is a wonderful global expression of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The left should be championing the higher cost of prescription drugs as an example of good redistributive policy.

But when the shoe is on the other foot and those who champion eating the rich are what's for dinner, they cry and moan and seek any means possible to avoid being eaten. Apparently what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Yet another example of the left's lack of self-awareness.

Philly Phlash Mobs

2011-08-17T05:17:00.007-06:00

Article

One side is cheerleading for personal responsibility and values that transcend race.

Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives:

Mayor Nutter deserves credit for stepping up and being a leader. Nutter is doing what Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, President Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus have thus far failed to do by speaking out against the epidemic of violent 'flash mobs' and rampant, random crime and violence.

The other side blames it all on economics and says that "Nutter's strong language enables white society in America to downplay poverty as the root cause of the black community's problems."

Frederick Harris, Columbia University political scientist:

If this discourse was led by Ronald Reagan, for instance, people would call him on his racism, but now that you have a black face to these explanations it gives it legitimacy.

Apparently Mr. Harris believes it is racist to ask the poor to act decent. And prior to a "black face" espousing these ideas, they were illegitimate? There is no legitimacy to asking young men (no matter what their race) to act responsibly and not bring thuggery to the public square?

If Mayor Nutter's "language enables white society to downplay poverty," does that mean any other explanation is not legitimate? Is suggesting that values are more important with respect to behavior than what one earns on a paycheck crazy talk that can only attain fraudulent stature when enabled by a black man? Only poverty can explain criminal behavior?

Don't we have the same expectation of decency from all other poor groups no matter what the race? Don't we rightly expect poor Hispanics, Japanese, Ethiopians, Latvians, Australians and Jews to act with civility? Or should certain races be excused of their behavior? Is there something unique about the black person's genetics or psyche that prevents them from adopting respectful values? Is Mr. Harris suggesting that it is only poor blacks who cannot embrace personal responsibility and eschew violent behavior?

What does he mean when Former Mayor John Street says that Mayor Nutter is "not a black mayor ... just a mayor with dark skin." Is there a genetically programmed way for a black man to think? How does believing in personal accountability disqualify one from being a member of a race? Is there something about dark skin pigmentation that compels one to excuse criminal behavior or to adopt certain beliefs?

Isn't what Messrs. Harris and Street are saying racist?

Food Stamps are a Stimulus

2011-08-17T04:44:00.007-06:00

The Obama administration sees food stamps as an economy booster.

According to the demand side hypothesis, infusions of money from the tax coffers stimulates the economy by creating demand for goods and services where it did not previously exist. In fact, the effect of these infusions is said to create a multiplier effect – each dollar spent has better than a one dollar effect on the economy. ($1.84 according to Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.)

The argument for a demand side economy goes something like this:

Capitalism is driven by demand not by supply; supply just responds to demand. If that demand is not there, investors will be reluctant to fund a project, no matter how innovative it may be, choosing instead to put their money in investments that offer lower return but are safer and more secure. Supply side largesse for the rich might not go into capital formation, but might simply make the rich richer. While investment capital is extremely important in getting an innovative process started, it is consumer demand, not supply, that drives the process and keeps it going.

This Seattle Post Intelligencer article highlights a typical (in that they stimulate the supply side of anything 'green') infusion of money by demand siders.

The question that immediately comes to mind is, why are those that insist that government spending should enter the economy on the demand side (such as food stamps) spending $20 million (or any amount) on the supply side? Doesn't this violate the very nature of demand side philosophy?
If, as noted in the demand side description above, there is little or no demand (3 homes weatherized seems like low demand), won't the money just wind up in lower return, secure hideaways?
Why is this stimulus spending not simply making the rich richer in accordance with demand side philosophy?
From a Keynesian perspective, wouldn't this money have been better spent by giving out vouchers earmarked for weatherization upgrades to homeowners and let the supply side respond in accordance with the demand side philosophy?

Notable Quotable

2011-08-16T17:52:00.002-06:00

There are two kinds of people. Those willing to work and those willing to let them.

Getting Along

2011-08-14T21:25:00.006-06:00

This is, I think, a 50/50 country and we don't quite know which side is going to come out on the 51/49 side when we run the numbers. And what's problematic, I think, is that we are a house divided – to resurrect Lincoln – we are a house divided.

But we are divided about the nature of the state itself, which is the most fundamental division of all. Its not really like a division between rich and poor, or between black and white. Americans are divided on the kind of republic the United States should be. Whether it is still a republic of limited government and a self-reliant citizenry that is free to live lives to their fullest potential. Or whether it is just a kind of larger version of Sweden.

...But the problem is there's not a lot of compromise between those two visions.

...Those are two incompatible visions of America.

Mark Steyn on the Mike Rosen Show, 12 Aug 2011, H2, 5:56

Uh. May. Zing.

2011-08-09T06:38:00.003-06:00

Alan Greenspan had this to say on Meet the Press when asked "Are U.S. treasury bonds still safe to invest in?":

This is not an issue of credit rating, the United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So, there is zero probability of default.

Censorship

2011-08-07T03:08:00.007-06:00

John Kerry thinks that certain elected representatives should be censored. Is this the compromise that the President is talking about?

[2:13] And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?

Video Skip to 2:13 if you just want to see the quote above.

Destroy the Public Space

2011-08-07T02:55:00.008-06:00

Nancy Pelosi on what Republicans want:

This is about destoying. Isn't about reducing the deficit. It's about destroying the public space. It's about destroying public in... federal involvement in education. It’s about clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety. You name it, they’re there to diminish it. Destroy it.

The voting in the House of Representatives went as follows:

Voting yes were 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans.

Voting no were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans.

Why isn't Rep. Pelosi accusing the half of the House Democrats that voted against the bill with the same destructive outcomes? No matter what the motive of the Democrats who did not vote for it, the result would have been the same. So are the 95 Democrats that did not vote for the bill against clean water, food safety and public safety? Can they be said to have voted in favor of default?

Cheap Labor

2011-08-05T22:18:00.009-06:00

Is the myth of cheap labor just transferring the costs to the public at large? Is it a case of pay me now or pay me later? That is, if we paid more for the goods and services that are produced with "cheap labor" now, could we avoid much of the socialized spending later?

Dick Lamm has a good article on this here. He articulately and thoughtfully examines some of the cost multipliers of "cheap" illegal labor. Its an oldie but a goodie.

Defenders of illegal immigrants call any and all concern about this issue “racist,” and attempt to take the issue completely off the table.

To continue to tolerate this practice is not only a legal issue; it is morally unfair to those waiting to come legally.

But that is not to say it is “cheap labor”. It may be “cheap” to those who pay the wages, but for the rest of us it is clearly “subsidized” labor, as we taxpayers pick up the costs of education, health, and other municipal costs imposed by this workforce.

The very people that liberals profess to speak for and care about pay the price in lost and suppressed wages while employers get the benefits of reduced wages.

The health care cost of this illegal workforce is also significant and also subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

I have been fighting all my life for universal health care, but we can't have “the best health care system in the world” combined with Swiss cheese borders.

Ironically, the price of compassion is restriction.

By tolerating illegal immigration are we laying the foundations for a new Hispanic underclass?

You may have seen emails circulating around the internet that tick off the hidden costs to cheap labor. Some of the hidden costs to cheap labor include:

Earned Income Credit
Section 8 housing
Food Stamps
School breakfast and lunch
Bilingual education
Energy bill assistance
Emergency room healthcare
No car/life/homeowner's insurance
SSI
Medicare/Medicaid

Instead of paying for these items at the point of purchase in the form of higher prices for goods and services, these costs are paid through higher taxation. The costs will eventually be paid. But instead of paying them directly through the private transaction in a free market, they will be paid through a governmental income transfer.

If redistribution through taxation is the model one desires, then the status quo is an excellent way to achieve it.

Foreign Look at Debt Crisis

2011-08-05T21:38:00.003-06:00

Der Spiegel article on the debt crisis.

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

What is happening in Washington is nothing less than a culture war. On President Obama's side are supporters of a national concept, like one known in Europe, namely that the state should take care of a certain amount of social equalizing, and if necessary, intervene with regulations. For his opposition, even Obama's idea of expanding health insurance coverage equals the birth of communist totalitarianism.

Anyone who raises taxes or increases the debt ceiling, and therefore unleashes the Leviathan of 'big government,' is, according to their logic, threatening the highest ideal that the American revolutionaries fought for: freedom. Those who do it will be pursued by these self-named patriots with virtually pathological hatred, even when the infrastructure or social benefits would profit from their undertakings. Illogical? Patriotism is possibly the only thing that many uncertain American citizens have left. The crisis has not only cost them their jobs; it has also threatened their country's hegemony. And a solution for none of these problems seems apparent.

The business daily Handelsblatt writes:

Obama .... will have a much harder time than in prior elections because he'd convinced his supporters that he would end the divide in America. But he's failed to prove that he can really achieve that. 'No, he can't' should be the conclusion of disappointed voters.

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

The debt burden per person is, in the end, almost as high as in Greece.

Tea Party Terrorists

2011-08-05T20:33:00.002-06:00

In her column wherein she encouraged a presidential primary for the Democrats because she is unhappy with President Obama being too far right, Froma Harrop also said this about the Tea Party:

The tea party Republicans have engaged in economic terrorism against the United States -- threatening to blow up the economy if they don't get what they want. And like the al-Qaida bombers, what they want is delusional: the dream of restoring some fantasy caliphate in which no one pays taxes...

Americans are not supposed to negotiate with terrorists...

That the Republican leadership couldn't control a small group of ignoramuses in its ranks has brought disgrace on their party. But oddly, Obama's passivity made it hard for responsible Republicans to control their destructive children.

Forget that she doesn't sound like she is happy with compromise and would just prefer that Republicans shut up and do it her way. This barrage of name-calling came from the person who is the president of the National Conference of Editorial Writers which has as one of its missions the Civility Project, that endeavors to improve the quality of political discourse.

But since the Vice President is doing it too, she probably feels entitled.

Notable Quotable

2011-08-05T10:18:00.003-06:00

You don't write history to make people feel good about the group they are in. That's called lying.
Dennis Prager

Should it be more important to make people feel good about themselves than to tell the truth? What happened happened. History should tell the story of what actually happened. You can opine on it and deconstruct it later.

Satan Sandwich

2011-08-04T12:01:00.003-06:00

When Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said that proposed legislation is "antithetical to what the great religions of the world teach," why is this not legislating morality? If Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann or any other Republican said that the legislation should impose religious values on the American people, wouldn't that be attacked as inappropriate?

Debt Ceiling Vote

2011-08-04T10:28:00.010-06:00

Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) said this about the vote:

I was angry about this vote because of the process, the process of bringing our country right up to a default and scaring seniors and making our active military worry they may not get a paycheck. In terms of the ultimate agreement, it's a strong fiscal plan. It goes out 10 years and puts a real framework on managing our expenses. I would have liked revenue as part of the plan, but that wasn't meant to be.

So who exactly was he mad at?

Not raising the debt limit does not necessarily mean a default. President Obama's Treasury Secretary would have to make that happen. (Sen. Pat Toomey's article on this.)

It was the President who was the one who threatened those on Social Security with withholding their checks.

And as for it being a "real framework on managing our expenses," apparently not so much:

Washington Times

U.S. debt shot up $239 billion on Tuesday — the largest one-day bump in history — as the government flexed the new borrowing room it earned in this week’s debt-limit increase deal.

That increase puts the government already remarkably close to the new debt limit of $14.694, which means one day’s new borrowing ate up 60 percent of the $400 billion in space Congress granted the president this week.

Compromise

2011-08-03T08:41:00.002-06:00

There is a lot of discussion about how the Tea Party Republicans are intransigent and are unwilling to compromise during the debt ceiling debate. Nanci Pelosi said that Democrats "were forced into something in order to raise the debt ceiling." Apparently they were reluctant to compromise too.

Of course people want as little compromise as possible. They have ideals, beliefs values and visions that differ. And to the extent that they compromise their beliefs they are sacrificing their values. (This isn't to say we shouldn't compromise. Just that compromise comes at a price.)

This is true for Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want to give up as little ground as possible just as Republicans do. Democrats are as unwilling to negotiate away their beliefs as Republicans. Would Rep. Pelosi feel uncomfortable negotiating away key elements that she thought were vital and important? We know the answer because of her past record and acknowledging that there are "bitter pills" in the bill. But is she asking the other side to set aside their beliefs without putting up resistance?

Also, agreeing that it is a "Satan sandwich" indicates her lack of desire to vote for this bill and her desire to not have to compromise her beliefs.

It probably is, with some Satan fries on the side.

That's called compromise.

Notable Quotable

2011-08-03T07:47:00.003-06:00

If there were a contest for the most misleading words used in politics, "poverty" should be one of the leading contenders for that title.

If government programs were confined to people who were genuinely poor in some meaningful sense, that would shrink the welfare state to a fraction of its current size.

People who say they want a government program because "I don't want to be a burden to my children" apparently think it is all right to be a burden to other people's children.
Thomas Sowell, Misleading Words: Part II, 2 Aug 2011

Union Hysteria

2011-07-31T21:48:00.001-06:00

President Obama called the bill an “assault on unions.” Democratic state senator Lena Taylor compared Scott Walker to Hitler. But the results of the changes in Wisconsin were not nearly so terrible.

From the Weekly Standard:

On June 29 at 12:01 a.m., Koczela could finally breathe a sigh of relief. The budget repair bill—delayed for months by protests, runaway state senators, and a legal challenge that made its way to the state’s supreme court—was law. The 27 teachers on the chopping block were spared.

With “collective bargaining rights” limited to wages, Koczela was able to change the teachers’ benefits package to fill the budget gap. Requiring teachers to contribute 5.8 percent of their salary toward pensions saved $600,000. Changes to their health care plan—such as a $10 office visit co-pay (up from nothing)—saved $200,000. Upping the workload from five classes, a study hall, and two prep periods to six classes and two prep periods saved another $200,000. The budget was balanced.

In Brown Deer and school districts across the state, Walker’s budget repair bill, known as Act 10, is working just as he promised.

Were the unions and their supporters who stormed the capitol and those senators who left the state simply overwrought in their rhetoric, incapable of understanding the proposed fixes or stumping for their special interest? Will there be any apologies and realizations that the anger was all on one side on this issue?

From the Washington Examiner

But after the law went into effect, at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, school officials put in place new policies they estimate will turn that $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. And it's all because of the very provisions that union leaders predicted would be disastrous.

In the past, teachers and other staff at Kaukauna were required to pay 10 percent of the cost of their health insurance coverage and none of their pension costs. Now, they'll pay 12.6 percent of the cost of their coverage (still well below rates in much of the private sector) and also contribute 5.8 percent of salary to their pensions.

But when the Milwaukee teachers’ union president Bob Peterson was asked “You have a choice: layoffs or pension contributions. Do you see that choice? Why did you make a choice of layoffs?” when collective bargaining resulting in layoffs, the union president said, "I didn’t lay off anybody,”

Who was it in Wisconsin that kept teachers employed, pensions in place and the fiscal house in order? The union assaulting Hitlarian governor? Or the union?

Arctic Thawing

2011-07-28T15:22:00.002-06:00

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from those who sail the seas of the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.

…so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north ns 81 ° 29' in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.

He says that he first noted warmer conditions [four years ago], that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that today the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of [54 years ago] to [five years ago].

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

NOAA source document

Turns out this was in 1922.

Notable Quotable

2011-07-28T08:05:00.006-06:00

The most basic fact of life is that we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available.
Thomas Sowell, Ideals Versus Realities, 27 Jul 2011

Conversation With a Liberal

2011-07-27T21:16:00.012-06:00

My wife got a taste of this rhubarb on Facebook. She took umbrage with the mean-spirited comments that some of the FB'ers had posted. Her interaction with JG is particularly depressing. Even when confronted with his boorish behavior, JG did not feel the need to retract or apologize and he just kept on with his angry, mean, name-calling ways.

This was class warfare alright – between the classy and the classless.

The format places the initials of the poster first followed by their comment.

---
BJ
Don't like gay marriages? Don't get one.. Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke them.. Don't like abortions? Don't get one.. Don't like sex? Don't have it.. Don't like drugs? Don't do them.. Don't like porn? Don't watch it.. Don't like alcohol? Don't drink it.. Don't like guns? Don't buy one.. Don't like your rights taken away??? Don't take away someone else's! Pretty much sums it up.

LJ
So simple

JR
Don't like democrats but we got them hmmm

LPS
Don't like thinking... be a Republican -- or join the Tea Party.

JR
Don't like the constitution be a democrat if you like high taxes

AD
Don't like Republicans but we got them hmmm.

AD
Don't like the constitution or the country to be for everyone be a Tea Partier.

LPS
I just want the rich guys to pay their fair share and give up the breaks Bush gave them...Those of us in the lower brackets never get breaks.

JR
We will trickle down takes time

LPS
been waiting 30 years --since Reagan When does it start? I only have about 20 years left.

LJ
LPS you be so smart!!!!

CB
Don't like thinking..be a Republican? Really? Are Democrats so much smarter and enlightened? There are no intelligent Republicans? Right...Republicans can't have a differing opinion than a Democrat without being insulted. Is this 2nd grade? Wouldn't it be more constructive to deal with issues than character assassination?

BJ
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." ~Spock

SMJ
Case in point... When you over simplify the things that are important to people you marginalize them. When you marginalize them it is the fastest way to both alienate them and mobilize them against you. Try talking to people beyond your comfort zone and looking for common ground even when it is your hardest and most exhausting choice. Most importantly, strive to listen even more than you desire to be heard.

LPS
Now THAT's a smart response. Patience works for me.

JYR
Dont like the way things are going? Take the fucking discussion off facebook. Or any other platform. Have intelligent civil discourse face to face and thoughtfully consider each others opinion. This is the worst (and Im also guilty of this from time to time) place to try to 'convince' the other side of your opinion.

JYR
and take a civics lesson. read your non revisionist, non palin/bachmann/santorum history

LPS
Thank you.

MR
Politics... -steps outside-

JG
@ CB; no, there are no thinking GOPers left -- the Christian Right and the Tea Party has driven them to extinction. I'm not in the business (literally) of trying to convince Republicans that they are wrong or idiots just for giggles, but instead crushing them as a political party. The Fundies and lunatic Libertarians with their selfish and morally bankrupt Lord of the Flies philosophy has set this country down the path to ruin. It is not over simplification to say that the GOP is full of stupid, ignorant, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, war mongering, hypocrites.

CB
@JG; Wow. I'm a Christian. I'm on the right. I think there are many valuable ideas being moved forward by the Tea Party.

But I guess that makes me a stupid, ignorant, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, war mongering, hypocrite. This makes it easy for you. You don't have to engage any ideas. Just call a name, turn and walk away.

Is your behavior considered progressive and enlightened? Why is it considered progressive to dismiss via demonization rather than agree to disagree and try to understand what may have caused the conservative to conclude what he has concluded? Do you believe there are any good conservatives?

Liberals frequently extol themselves as intelligentsia that are capable of nuanced thought while noting that conservatives are simpletons who see everything as black and white. Your comments don't seem to support that story line. Not a lot of compassion, nuance or deep thought there.

If you resort to name calling or character assassination when your ideas are assailed, you confirm that you are not interested in sustaining a conversation, but rather demagoguery.

I think you are probably a good person who simply has different values than I have. You think I am some sort of barbaric, horrible person. If I am a mixture of the names you called me, then I truly would be horrible. And if you want to walk those comments back and say that is only the leadership, then you are only left with thinking I am profoundly stupid or deluded if I support conservative ideas. Either way, you have a very dim view of those on the other side of the aisle.

Is dismissing the decency of those you differ with intellectually engaging or is it an intellectual retreat? Is announcing that no discussion shall occur on a matter intellectually stimulating or is it demagogic? Is dismissing the character of those you disagree with as stupid, mean spirited, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist and hypocritical an attempt to avoid thoughtful interaction or contempt for their decency?

You don't need a great deal of thought to argue from a position of name calling. You just need to point out how bad those on the right are. After all, one doesn't need to engage in meaningful conversations with Ku Klux Klanners, neo-fascists or environmental despoilers. Are there any names that could be used for those on the left? Or does it just go without saying that all the evil and stupid is on the right?

It's easier to just dismiss all of those you disagree with as stupid. A Republican president doesn't have to be thoughtfully challenged. Just call him a monkey, a lackey, a cretinous penisless worm, a 9-11 conspirator, Presidunce, Duh President, Oaf of Office, Flubya, Dumbya and DUHbya. (All names used by the left.) And print bumper stickers that say Buck Fush.

A bigot is defined as a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. You might spend some time in introspection contemplating this word and its meaning.

MR
-pokes head in- ... hello BJ's friends.

JG
CB, the problem is that the GOP has allowed itself to be taken over the Fundie crowd that, contrary to the Constitution, seeks to to implement social policies that would deny fellow Americans fundamental rights. Republican economic policies (the L Curve and allowing "free-market capitalism" aka "fat cat capitalism" to run unfettered, aka "fat cat capitalism") have nearly destroyed the economy on the whole, and have savaged the middle class. Republican foreign policy has gotten us into two wars we cannot win. The libertarian God Squad nexus is the most dangerous political alignment in our nation's history, short of the assholes of the Confed States of America (who are the progenitors of the post-1972 Republican Party). Are there good conservatives? Sure, but their voices are drowned out in the current GOP. I stand by my comments that GOPers are selfish (the very nature of Libertarianism), nativist (look at the immigration issue), sexist (nothing like making fun of the FemmaNazis), homophobic (we must preserve the "sanctity of marriage" and discriminate against our fellow citizens), stupid (generally GOPers have lower levels of education than Dems, so stupid is probably wrong, but ignorant and intellectually lazy will work), Islamophobic (the Muslim Center blocks away from Ground Zero), and bigoted (I've heard Republicans in private within the last week use the words "nigger" and "faggot"). I started as a Republican way back in the day, and I have seen the moderate wing of the Republican Party destroyed. The GOP is on a path of self-destrcution, and because its leadership is all those things (selfish, etc), it's doomed.

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

2011-07-26T12:42:00.004-06:00

Because we all don't agree on the basics.

Rationing Healthcare and Physician Assisted Suicide

2011-07-25T09:37:00.020-06:00

Healthcare is rationed everywhere either by procedure/law or by exclusion. "Death panels" can take the form of a government committee or lack of access. Most people don't want to grapple with whether a people/nation can afford to give them or their family members unlimited care.

Nobody wants to deny their own mother every chemotherapy treatment known to medical science, but they don't want a group of bureaucrats doing it either. And when an insurance company is forced to make these hard decisions, many grumble about how selfish and mean the insurance company is.

In a world of limited resources rationing will occur. There just isn't enough wealth available to pay for it all. And if rationing is controlled by a NIMBY mentality where nobody is willing to settle for something less than unlimited care for themselves or loved ones, then healthcare will bankrupt the country – whether it is socialized or private.

Somewhere in all of this is a discussion about physician assisted suicide. On a continuum that ranges from unlimited care to maintain life, to palliative care, to withholding certain care or procedures, to physician assisted suicide, to euthanasia - is a public policy that is both moral and responsible. The only reason we can have such a discussion is because technology allows us to do many great things. However, this ability has the potential to bankrupt the economy if it is unconstrained. Modern medicine is able to prolong life well beyond the point of natural death. And societies must wrestle with whether dramatic life extending techniques should be used in every instance just because those techniques exist.

One side of the argument says that we are playing God if we pull the plug. But a lot of God-like behavior had to occur in order to make the plug possible and bring us to the point of considering whether we should unplug. And left to a more natural course devoid of the God-like intervention of medicine, death would have taken the decision from us. It is only because man has miraculously intervened that the God-like decision to withhold some measure of the life-giving force of medicine must be made.

The Damoclean decision about withholding care is the unavoidable consequence of the awesome ability to give care and give life. Only by forgoing the life giving power of modern medicine and relinquishing the God-like ability to give life can one avoid the difficult decisions associated with withholding care.

It may be morally satisfying to state absolutely that we must do everything we can to save a life. But this is a decidedly utopian position. And here on non-utopian Earth, trade-offs must be considered and difficult decisions must be made – especially when there are competing goods such as prolonging a life and economic viability. It is reasonable to argue about how much of one thing or the other should be traded in order to craft a policy, but it is foolish to ignore the costs associated with unlimited care.

It is not greedy, selfish and heartless to consider the financial impact of the pure and morally satisfying position. Just as one might argue that it is immoral to tax an economy so heavily that production slows to the point that there is nothing left for anyone including the poor (killing the goose that lays the golden egg), demanding unlimited medical treatment may be similarly myopically immoral. This permutation of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" could bankrupt an economy thereby reducing or jeopardizing care for all. It is exceedingly morally responsible to consider the ramifications and costs of any policy.

This isn't to say that the decision to move from the sustain-life-at-all-costs position is not difficult and morally vexing. Those that object with dignity, sanctity of life and slippery slope arguments are wise to do so. It is no insignificant matter to note that those who supported abortion with "safe, legal and rare" arguments did not anticipate (or were not honest about their intentions) that "rare" would come to mean that one third of all pregnancies would end with an abortion. Calling attention to this real-life example of a good intention gone bad is noble and comes from a place of heartfelt concern for the cultural and moral character of our society. It is not unreasonable to believe that some mission creep might occur with any end of life legislation and those who are raising these concerns are illuminating issues that must be considered.

When the issue of health care rationing includes end of life discussions it is important to not collapse the continuum of issues and inappropriately conflate issues – that is, physician assisted life denouement is not euthanasia. But a society must think long and hard about whether this is a slope they want to traverse. There may be good reasons that sanctity of life has been so tightly woven into our cultural fabric.
Dick Lamm has a nice piece in the Post on this issue.

Founding Fathers and Slavery

2011-07-25T07:50:00.003-06:00

Did the Founding Fathers work against slavery? Thomas Fleming has an answer.

Political Manuever

2011-07-24T09:12:00.007-06:00

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Sen. Obama, Congressional Record, S.2237-8, 3/16/06

Both President Obama and Harry Reid now state that their past positions on the debt ceiling were merely political stunts.

Senator Obama

Harry Reid

The President said:

I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a Senator versus the vantage point of a...President.

As President, you start realizing, "You know what? We-- we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith in credit of the United States." And so that was just a example of a new Senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country.

Was it OK to "play around" with the full faith in credit as a Senator? Does he now think an apology to the former President and the American people is in order?

Right Wing Myths

2011-07-22T18:55:00.017-06:00

The following article was forwarded by a friend. The article is reproduced in its entirety with my comments embedded.

Deconstructing Right-Wing Myths About Socialism, Capitalism, and Who The ‘Job Creators’ Are

Conservatives have taken to a new spin on truth, by refashioning definitions of words and terms in order to provoke new connotations. Socialism is now defined as a government take over, Capitalism is now defined as patriotic, and the wealthy are now defined as job creators. But simply redefining these words will not change their true meaning, it is only myth making.

If the author is suggesting that these ideas are new, he is right if by new he means since 1776 when Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations. Or the years preceeding this milestone, since surely the ideas were floating around prior to Smith writing them down. And the author's rebuttal of the ideas is not new since the most thorough and enduring critique of the results of capitalism was given by Karl Marx in the late 19th century.

Just because the author disagrees with some aspects of Capitalism does not render the ideas mythical. Just as there is value in some aspects of socialist commentary, so there is value in certain capitalistic aspects. Polarizing the issue will create more mythical dogma than an honest discussion of controlled vs. free economies.

Surely the author is aware that the US economy is a mixed economy. The markets are not "free" in the sense that they are unregulated. A quick examination of the Federal Register will disabuse the reader of any notions that the economy is not at least well regulated and possibly highly or over regulated.

Socialism does not mean the abolition of a free market society, nor does Socialism call for a government takeover of all industry; that is Communism.

It is refreshing to see a reasonable definition of Socialism presented. The classic dictionary definition does identify the "collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Those on the left in America tend to use this as evidence that the policies pursued by those on the left are therefore not Socialist. However, the term has somewhat evolved over time and the author makes an important distinction between Communism and Socialism. A better definition may substitute "the most important industries are owned or controlled by the whole community" for ownership of means of production. Certainly Europeans understand this concept since they have parties with the word Socialist in the title and yet they are not advocating the total takeover by government of the means of production. It is possible to regulate or administer industry to the point that Socialism is achieved without actual ownership by the government.

It is difficult to have meaningful conversations about anything if the definitions of terms cannot be agreed upon. To be sure, the right wants less government control moving toward the ideal of capitalism and freer markets while the left wants more government control moving toward the ideal of socialism and egalitarianism. As the author so adroitly points out later in the article (a point that I incessantly make with the hope of fostering meaningful interactions by de-fanging both sides of the issue), "Capitalism is neither right nor wrong, it is simply an economic term." Similarly, socialism is neither right nor wrong, it is simply an economic term. If economic concepts and models cannot be summarized into generalized terms, what hope is there of discussing anything? Growth in thought and understanding cannot be achieved if we must restate a thesis in its entirety and are not allowed to use terms that generally encapsulate an idea or body of ideas.

Therefore I applaud the author’s candor and willingness to view the terms as descriptors rather than pejoratives.

Socialists acknowledge the limitation of a free market and believes that some industries should not be run for profit. Police protection, fire protection, prisons, education, health care, parks, electricity, water supplies, waste and sewage removal, and roadways are just a few examples of industries which should not be run for profit. The reasoning behind this belief is when these industries are operating for profit, not only will prices rise, but corresponding services would then be reserved only for those who can afford them.

This assertion does not account for competition, price setting and other market forces. Certainly, if a producer of goods is solely motivated by profit and is a price setter, this could lead to ever escalating and out of control prices. However, these are two assumptions that are not borne out by experience.

An understanding of price setters and takers is necessary. A company that is able to dictate the price its customers pay for goods and services is a price setter or price maker. All other companies that are competing in a similar market where similar products are readily available elsewhere are price takers. For example, a company that is selling computers cannot set the price arbitrarily high if others are competing for a market share. If it does, it will not sell units because the consumer can go to the competitor and receive a similar product for less. Therefore, the first seller is forced to lower prices to a market clearing price. That is, a mutually agreeable price is reached between buyers and sellers. This price is determined by the cost of manufacture, the perceived value of the product, profit, etc.

Any company that is producing something will necessarily maximize profits for the shareholders. However, this is limited by how much a buyer is willing to pay. If a TV manufacturer decides to include a 100% profit in the price of its TV, the buyer may decide that the added value of having a TV in the home is not worth the price. This desire to price set is mitigated by the market when another company sells the product cheaper – maybe deciding to produce the product with less profit. The second company can undercut the competition and gain a larger portion of the market share. This will have the effect of driving down prices at the first company if they want to stay in business.

Price setting generally occurs with monopolies, companies that are producing something that is so unique that there is no competitor making a similar product, collusion, etc. For these reasons and others, governments are likely to be price setters. (e.g., government monopolies are often established by law for various reasons.) The only relief for the consumer is for him to not purchase the product or service. However, since governments tend to control necessity items and/or items that are mandated by law, the consumer is not as free to make value/price considerations.

The author’s assertion that operating for profit only results in higher prices disregards market forces and empirical evidence to the contrary. It could be just as easily asserted that the monopolistic, regulatory and price control characteristics of government lead to higher prices.

Or more succinctly, no one person should be able to profit over running services, in which everyone benefits from.

The assertion here focuses on "no one person." Corporations do employ CEOs and the like, but shareholders make up a much larger portion of those benefiting from the profits of an organization. The elderly woman who holds stock in her retirement account for a corporation is certainly hoping for profitability to sustain her retirement.

And where does this line of reasoning stop? How is “in which everyone benefits from” defined? What portion of society must benefit to qualify? Certainly the author would therefore condone the socializing of the production and distribution food, heating and air conditioning, automobile, energy (including oil, gas, coal), and many other goods and services. All one has to do to turn control over to government is make the case that “everyone” benefits.

One excellent example of Socialism in action is demonstrated in our banking industry. While most banks operate for the profits of their CEOs,

If the author believes that the sole reason to exist is to operate for the profit of the CEO, there is no refutation possible for this belief. Certainly some take advantage of systems and try to get as much money as possible from the system, this does not therefore justify the tarring of an entire industry. Just as some lawyers appear to be heartless, soulless people that would sue their own grandmothers, this does not therefore mean that all lawyers are evildoers. Most people try to maximize their take for their efforts. Labor unions do exactly this when they lobby to mandate certain rules in the workplace. This does not necessarily obviate their efforts or necessarily make them evildoers.

credit unions are owned and operated by the people. The profits which are not imparted upon CEOs are reflected back to the customer in higher interest rates for investments and lower interest rates for loans. It may be important to point out that credit unions did not run the same risks as banks when our financial bubble burst, and thus did not need to request nor receive any TARP bailout money. Nor have the credit unions contributed to the faulty foreclosures as our banks have.

The credibility of the author is at risk if he is making the case that profits were the primary reason for the "financial bubble." I am no fan of extremely high compensation for executives, especially if it comes by deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets so that senior management can maximize the bonuses and other executive compensation they receive, at the expense of shareholders. But this is exactly the source of the $90M received by Franklin Raines while he was in charge of Fannie Mae. And his support and implementation of policies to ease credit requirements on loans that Fannie Mae purchased from banks that were "a notch below what our current underwriting has required" may have contributed at least as much to the foreclosure problem as his extravagant $90M bilking of borrowers and the $400M civil fine paid by Fannie Mae.

Furthermore, the author has unwittingly made a good case for not socializing banking. He appears to be arguing that by removing bureaucratic control and decentralizing the decision making by placing it in the control of those who are most interested in conservative and judicious use of the assets - the consumer - that tragedy can be averted.

Another example is found in health care. The free market creates for-profit businesses ranging from medications, medical testing, medical treatments, medical research, to hospitals. None of which have lowered the cost of health care through innovation or through competition.

Absent a parallel universe, how can this statement be made with certitude? The medical cost issue is complicated, messy and needs an intervention. However, to assert that competition and innovation are not fostered by free markets strains credulity. Does competition and innovation bring about the lowering of cost in any other arena? Are groceries cheaper, better and more available because of competition? Does this inability of the market to reduce prices only exist in healthcare? And if so, why? It may not exclusively be the free market aspects that are messing up the healthcare industry. Could regulation and rule making play any role? It is likely not all one thing or the other. This is an incredible statement for the author to make.

This is because the demand of which is a basic necessity, or in other words is non-negotiable. Like clean water, oil, and electricity, humans cannot survive without such products or services. The demand of which is a constant, therefore they are not subjected to the Keynes supply and demand curve. When prices go up, demand does not lessen beyond a certain threshold. Americans may forgo a pleasure trip to conserve on gasoline consumption, but their demand for gasoline to take them to and from work is non-negotiable. Where the free market brings economic ups and downs which effects everyone, Socialism believes that there is a limit on the protections a free market provides. And quite simply, some things should not be run for profit, especially at the expense of everyone else.

The author’s primary objection appears to be profit. Profit in and of itself is not evil. I am sure the author allows that some profit is good. Labor unions want profit for the workers. They certainly want profit for the union itself, at the expense of everyone else. That profit is useful since much of that profit is used to influence elections in the form of political contributions and donations that help to elect politicians that create laws that ensure higher profits for the union members and therefore for the union.

This fixation on profit alone is fallacious. Is the author contending that the elimination of profit equates to the elimination of wrongdoing, waste, fraud, incompetence, and a whole host of other human frailties? The Franklin Raines debacle recited earlier should demonstrate that the ability of a company to make a profit is not the sole source of the author’s discomfort since Mr. Raines conducted his dealings in a quasi-governmental organization, under the watchful eye and collusion of OFHEO officials, and is a fellow of the left. If anybody should have been able to avoid this sort of exorbitant behavior, it should have been Mr. Raines and especially the co-conspirators at OFHEO. Failed human character might be a better place to point one’s finger.

If bad character is universal, it will crop up in corporations and government with similar frequencies. If not, are we to believe that something draws the seedy crowd to the private sector with greater frequency? Is it profit? But many would argue that power is more alluring even than filthy lucre. Is power as intoxicating to the politician as profit is to the businessman? And as corrupting?

Would the author argue that only the righteous enter politics while the immoral enter the private business world? Does this explain why, as the author proffers, if profit were removed and the government produced and distributed “some things” that prices would lower and quality rise? How is this squared with all the waste and fraud that leaders say they will excise from Medicare and Medicaid programs in order to lower costs and fund increases in benefits? Since profit couldn’t have produced the waste and fraud, from whence did it burst forth? It is a silly notion to think that corruption, greed, avarice, vice, et al. can be expunged from humankind by simply removing profit.

The Founders sought to minimize corruption and other vice by encouraging healthy religion to attack the moral problems of humanity. This is made clear from statements such as this one by John Adams:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.”

If the left wants to argue that religion is an antiquated method of moral conditioning that is no longer needed, that is fine. But moral conditioning will need to continue somewhere and somehow. The author is engaging in it when he makes moral judgments about profit. The reality is that if religion is not heavily relied upon as a co-worker in forming a good, just and moral government, then the government itself will have to take on the role of moral conditioner by imposing moral codes in the form of laws. If religion ceases as the primary agent of moral conditioning then government must take up the task. The moralizing of the left about not using government to legislate morality is hard to understand when the only avenue allowed by leftward policy is to have the government fulfill that role and, in fact, legislate morality. (This brings up interesting church and state discussions.)

Merely removing profit from the economic equation will not prevent bad bahavior.

Furthermore, when the author states that “some things should not be run for profit,” who shall decide which things are profit worthy and which aren’t? And if it is immoral to allow profit for this select group of chosen tasks, why would it be moral to allow any industry to function with profit?

Capitalism is an economic term for the free market system which is structured upon the accumulation of money, where the means of production are privately owned and operates for profit. Capitalism is neither right nor wrong, it is simply an economic term.

As noted earlier, kudos to the author for de-fanging the terms and allowing the use of terms as descriptors and not as pejoratives. Similarly, it is OK to discuss aspects of the left in America as socialism in the modern, European socialist sense. It is also OK to discuss the writings and ideas of Marx and draw comparisons between some of his work and aspects of the American left. His ideas are legitimate explanation of a particular political economy. Referencing his work is not intended as an attack of character but rather a reference to a concise explanation of a particular political economy. To note that the left shares the Marxian maxim “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” is not to attack the motive and worth of the person of the left, but is rather a concise statement of a fundamental belief and value held by the left. Why isn’t this association embraced and acknowledged by the left just as the right acknowledges Smith’s enlightened self-interest? Why does the left consider somebody that they largely agree with on economic matters to be taboo?

Nor is Capitalism patriotic!

If patriotism is defined as “a feeling a lot of love, respect, and duty toward your country”, then both sides of the issue can of course be patriotic. But, the Howard Zinn view of America, which is widely taught in schools using his textbook “A People’s History of the United States,” is that America has done more bad than good in the world. He thinks that the the policies and values of the Founders would better be replaced with democratic socialism.

It is hard to imagine a person loving and respecting a country that he believes has done so much evil and deserves such widespread condemnation. Could it be said that conservatives are in love with what America has been and would like to preserve its better aspects while progressives are in love with what America could be if it were fundamentally changed? Fundamentally changing America was, after all, one of President Obama’s campaign slogans. Should a conservative be faulted for taking the President at his own word?

Of course liberals can be patriotic. And conservatives that pretend that patriotism is the exclusive province of conservatism are over stating, or perhaps simplifying, an argument. But in light of much of the self-flagellating and America bashing of the left, there might be some nuance here that should be considered and understood. It seems clear that somebody who thinks America is exceptional is in love with Americanism. It is not so clear that the person who is highly critical and angry about American injustices is in love with Americanism.

And, of course each side is going to view support of their preferred political economy as more patriotic since, ostensibly, they support that economic model because they think it is more fair, just, right, better than the other and better reflects American values. And believing that something is a better option certainly would lead to a feeling of love, respect and duty toward the society that it supports.

A system which encourages the accumulation of wealth does not salute a flag, nor is it loyal to a native country. This market system crosses state and national borders in order to provide larger profits for business owners. If labor costs are cheaper overseas, then it is capitalism which will drive businesses out of our country.

The alternative to this is to prevent businesses from seeking cheaper alternatives in other countries. Again, the author assumes that profit is the only criteria considered by businesses. Walmart is a testimony to what the consumer prefers - lower prices. Laws can be passed preventing Walmart from seeking lower costs by mandating that all products sold on their shelves must be produced in America with higher labor costs, but the price of everything will increase in spite of any profiteering that may occur. Profit aside, this protectionist concept will increase prices and defeat the author’s intent. Additionally, forced increases in labor costs imposed by unions have the effect of driving industry overseas to cheaper labor markets in an attempt to control costs. Again, this can be prevented, but at a cost.

If a company finds it cheaper to produce a dangerous product than it is to produce a safe one, it is capitalism which will produce the most profitable option without consideration of customer safety.

Companies that produce unsafe products do not stay in business very long. So any profit realized will be short lived. This line of thinking assumes that businesses are so corrupt or inept that they will continue to produce unsafe product thereby jeopardizing their future profit in spite of what consumers want. This is not to say that unsafe products are not produced by business. They certainly are. But it is not capitalism that is the root of this behavior. Many government bureaucrats have accepted or approved inferior work on the taxpayer's behalf.

Capitalism only seeks profits

This is a trite and irresponsible comment. Would the right be correct to say that socialism only seeks to destroy prosperity?

and will by nature migrate operations towards areas which promotes greater profits. Capitalism has no allegiance to any one country as it operates in a global economy. Again, capitalism has no allegiance with patriotism. Where would a business find themselves most profitable? Would they find a country with extremely lower labor costs to be more profitable for manufacturing than a country with higher labor costs? Would they find a lower taxed area more profitable than an area with high demand for their products? But most of all, wouldn’t it be more patriotic for an American business to spark demand in order to operate, manufacture and sell their goods or services inside America, as opposed to overseas?

This might be ideal, but some onus must be placed with the consumer. Consumers are at least equal players in this interaction. The author will later make the case that consumers are in fact the job creators by creating demand. These demand creators also demand lower prices. And because consumers prefer lower priced items, market feedback pushes business to meet that need. If the author's later argument with regard to job creation is to be taken seriously, then the consumer must be at fault here, not the business that is simply responding to the consumer's demand.

I wonder if the author is in favor of lowering the price of prescription drugs? Or re-importing them from Canada? If so, he is violating his own prescription for lowering prices and counter-acting profit. The prices are higher in America in part because the companies are covering their costs. Other countries don't respect patent law and reproduce the drugs in defiance of the pharmaceutical companies that spent all the money to develop the drug. Profit is part of the equation, but does the author wonder why the pharmaceutical companies aren't sticking Canada with the profit? And if safety is a concern, is the author prepared to trust China with the production of his medicines or would he rather pay a higher price to pay Americans to produce quality drugs. Using the author's reasoning, that would also be more patriotic.

The wealthy are not necessarily the job creators. Poor and desperate innovators have sparked many new business ventures despite their lack of wealth. Many small businesses began out of practically nothing, but only an idea executed inside of their garages. The fact of the matter is that neither wealth nor lower taxes create jobs; only demand creates jobs. This little tidbit of truth is lost in translation when the wealthy are deemed as “Job Creators”. This ploy is used to promote additional tax breaks for those who already have enough and while promoting cuts in public services on those who do not have enough.

When the luxury tax was imposed on yachts and the rich stopped purchasing yachts in America, who lost their jobs? The non-wealthy yacht makers. This is job creation from the demand side. When those garage businesses want to expand their idea and employ the masses, where do they acquire the capital? Even universities must find a sugar daddy to fund their research. It cannot be done without wealth. So those that are good at creating wealth should be encouraged not vilified.

Another tidbit of truth which is diluted in this argument is the inequality of income between the workers and the owners. A manager typically earns 343 times more than an average employee. And while 88% of domestic profits go to corporate bank accounts and CEO bonuses, only 1% of these profits gets applied towards labor. The business owner shoulders no responsibility for producing any product or service.

This reveals a profound lack of understanding about what it takes to run a business, oversight of capital and the difference between physical and intellectual labor. If this statement were absolutely true, wouldn't some good leftist have slapped his forehead and fired all of this needless overhead and let the business run itself? This is not acknowledging the enormous risk of ownership nor the intellectual contribution. Does the author suggest that since Stephen Hawking does no hard labor that his contribution is meaningless? Or that he has no responsibility for producing any product or service? Or that Hawking should not be compensated at a higher rate for his specialized labor?

Rather the business owner invested their money (and in most cases time) into a business which is productive.

Well, when the business is successful. What about the multitude that try and fail? And lose their life savings? Just investing cash does not a successful business make.

Productivity is a result of the balance between the investors, the managers, and the workers. It is a symbiotic relationship, which many Americans cannot conceive of. For where would any business be without any one of these three elements? Despite conservative talking points, even the lowest of employees is an invaluable asset to a business. In a restaurant, an effective business owner knows that the dishwasher and busboys are just as important to their operation as their managers and customers. If you remove the dishwasher and/or busboys from the equation, the business suffers. Yet an effective manager can be absent from their responsibilities and the operation should not be sacrificed.

This is an amazing statement. It is hard to imagine that the author has ever worked in the private sector. But even if he hasn't, even in government good managers are hard to come by. In the case cited, a busboy is an example of low skilled labor. And yes, even though the busboy is integral to the success of the company, the pool of potential candidates for this job is almost limitless. Accountants, however, are not so plentiful. Supply and demand alone suggest that a busboy can be hired at a lower rate than a skilled manager or accountant.

And again, if the manager can be AWOL with no impact to the business, why hasn't somebody other than the author figured this out? Certainly a greedy business owner would realize that he could add the cost of the manger to his profit margin if the manager is as useless as the author suggests.

So which employee should be valued more than the other, the laborer, the manager, or the investor? The answer is neither of the three. For without one, the other two would not have a business operate or a job to tend to. Yet the argument goes that only the wealthy create jobs. Without enough demand, even these jobs won’t last very long.

We should not tax our job creators in a time of economic recession. But we have misidentified exactly who these job creators are. When our recession is being prolonged out of a lack of demand, it is not the business owner who can create jobs. But rather it is the customers who spurn on demand who create jobs. The businesses who pocketed great sums of cash during our economic catastrophe will still be there when we come out of it without the need to create more jobs. But these businesses will find themselves with greater profits when demand picks up again, and that is what will create jobs. So let’s not overburden our true job creators, the customers. In order to spark higher demand, we must effect the largest target market we have at our disposal. It’s not the wealthy who can spark this demand; they only constitute up to 2% of our populace.

It is comforting to see the admission that the wealthy are at most 2% of the population. This group already pays about 38% of ALL income taxes. Even if all of their money were taken, there would not be enough to cover the current levels of indebtedness. And, even though, according to the author, this group doesn't create any jobs, they are free to move their wealth when taxation becomes too onerous. And if that 2% is as worthless and parasitical as the author suggests, it may be an advantage to have them all leave. But then, who would we tax when the group that currently pays 38% of the entire tax burden - and the group who legislators wish to further tax in order to get them to pay their "fair share" - is gone, or stops investing because it makes no economic sense to risk their wealth?

Rather, we should focus our attention on the other 98% of our populace, our struggling middle class and poor. Henry Ford believed that his product meant nothing unless there were customers who were able to purchase it. In order to ensure his company’s success, he paid his laborers more than other businesses, so they may buy his cars. This enabled his employees to comfortably afford to buy Ford products. This sparked higher demand, which in turn produced higher job growth. Which led to Ford’s success story. Henry Ford did not believe in paying the least amount possible for labor, eliminating the minimal wage, or acquisitioning higher profits. Instead he realized the symbiosis between business and labor and between the business and its customer.

He also said "We try to pay a man what he is worth and we are not inclined to keep a man who is not worth more than the minimum wage." His view of symbiosis was largely merit based and did not shrink from releasing those that did not meet his needs for production.

Good businessmen will treat their staff kindly and the best they can. The decision is the business owner's, but I agree with encouraging businesses to treat the employee as good as possible. This leads to satisfied and happy employees. With this aspect of Ford's - and the author's - ideas, I agree.

As for the input of an owner, Ford disagreed with the author's sentiments when he said, "The hours of labor are regulated by the organization of work and by nothing else. It is the rise of the great corporation with its ability to use power, to use accurately designed machinery, and generally to lessen the wastes in time, material, and human energy that made it possible to bring in the eight hour day." Ford thought there was some worth to his input as an innovator, manager and organizer and that the business would not simply run itself with the addition of unending waves of labor.

Ford is a great case study to help understand the difference that an observer's ideology can make. Ford had some good and some bad in what he did. Owing to his ideology, the author is going to see much of what Ford did as supportive of leftward ideals. Everyone does this - me included. We interpret the world through our understandings, beliefs, desires, ideology, etc. Any successes on the part of Ford are going to be chalked up to adherence with the observer's ideals. A leftist and a rightist are both going to look at the same evidence and come to much different conclusions because of their different view of humanity, incentives and other factors.

As the author noted, this doesn't make either one correct or incorrect. But each side does have real and significant ideas on what motivates people in a political economy and the proper role of government. Although it is not likely that ideologues on either side will be persuaded by the other's recital, each side should strive to present their ideas in a rational and respectful way. And for this the author is to be commended.

It is good to understand where each side disagrees with each other. Understanding ideological differences brings clarity to the discussions. And that is a good first step.

True Measure of a Society

2011-07-21T21:30:00.000-06:00

The true measure of a society is how it treats the weak and needy.

Audio File.

Lower Taxes

2011-07-18T07:00:00.002-06:00

There is always an argument about whether or not taxes should be raised or lowered. It is very important to understand the terms when discussing this topic.

Tax

The money that we pay to the government that is used to provide public services and pay for government institutions.

Tax rate

The ratio (usually expressed as a percentage) at which a business or person is taxed. For example, you might be in a 15% tax bracket which means that 15¢ of your next dollar will be taken in taxes.

Revenue

The actual dollars collected through taxation.

Tax Capacity

The capacity, or amount, that an economy can be taxed before revenues drop because of disincentive.

Discussion about taxation is important. There are deeply held beliefs on both sides of the aisle. It can be useful to look at the different beliefs side by side.

Liberal	Conservative
Wants a safety net.	Wants a safety net
Defines the amount of taxation based on the perceived need.	Defines the amount of taxation based on what the economy can afford.
Envisions a predefined or relative desired standard of living for the citizen and anything beyond that is seen as excess and open to high taxation or confiscation.	Believes that high earnings are OK as long as they are legally and ethically obtained.
Sees welfare as mandatory.	Sees welfare as charity.
Believes society has a moral obligation to provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate and that government is the correct vehicle for this giving.	Believes society has a moral obligation to provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate and that churches and private sector charities are the correct vehicle for this giving.
Strives for equality of outcome.	Strives for equality of opportunity.
Believe that incentives do not matter. That is, if the earnings of an individual above an arbitrary threshold are taken through taxation, the person will continue to work just as hard for others as he does for himself.	Believe that incentives do matter. That is, if the earnings of an individual above an arbitrary threshold are taken through taxation, the person will not continue to work just as hard for others as he does for himself.
Uses an static scoring model. That is, there is a linear relationship between the tax rates and tax revenue.	Uses an dynamic scoring model. That is, behavioral responses preclude a linear relationship between tax rates and tax revenues.*
There is enough money held by the rich to pay down current deficits.	There is not enough money held by the rich to pay down current deficits.

*The following videos are very good at explaining how a dynamic model affects how one views the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues:
Static v Dynamic Vid 1

Static v Dynamic Vid 2

Static v Dynamic Vid 3

It is possible to raise tax revenue by lowering tax rates. During the Reagan administration, two things happened: tax RATE cuts and the elimination of certain tax loopholes, preferences, and exemptions. The rate cuts incentivized economic growth by not taking large portions of the next dollar earned. By eliminating many of the loopholes, preferences, and exemptions the tax base, or number of people paying taxes, was increased. These two concepts together had the effect of RAISING revenues.

The dynamic model acknowledges that incentives matter. The static model says that incentives don't matter and that production and capital investment will remain unchanged even if tax rates change.

Lockbox Letdown

2011-07-13T21:39:00.004-06:00

Maybe the lockbox doesn't really exist after all? IBD discusses it.

Obama beat everyone, however, with his scaremongering claim that Social Security checks are at risk if he doesn't get his way on the debt ceiling. "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on Aug. 3 if we haven't resolved this issue," he told CBS News, "because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."

Wait! What happened to Social Security's "guarantee"? You know, the iron-clad assurance of Social Security benefits in exchange for paying into the program your whole working life? It's something Democrats constantly talk about, particularly when attacking Republicans who propose privatizing the program.

Also, Taranto on the issue.

Voter ID in Mexico

2011-07-12T15:04:00.002-06:00

The Pueblo Cheiftain editorializes on voter ID.

But we don’t think such laws are aimed at potential Democratic votes — Latino or otherwise — but rather at attempts to subvert the election process. And it would be good for those critics to look southward.

In Mexico, to cast a ballot, the voter — all of the voters — must prove citizenship and eligibility by presenting the federally issued Mexican voter ID card, which not only bears the photo of the registered voter, but a fingerprint, a barcode and a holographic image to deter tampering.

After having voted, the voter’s finger is dipped in ink to prevent repeat voting.

Gotcha!

2011-07-12T13:15:00.001-06:00

American Bridge 21st Century is looking to catch politicians acting badly. At least as they see it.

It is very depressing that destroying those that they disagree with, not ideas, is what animates this group. If this is the zeitgeist, then only Jesus Christ can run for office.

WWJD

2011-07-10T10:36:00.017-06:00

There is a lot of WWJD talk being used to justify policy these days.

Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC.

While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, He was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax.

Obviously, He [Jesus] would take from each according to their ability to pay. That is the clear, Christian, philosophical basis of a progressive income tax.

Jesus Christ's instructions to you could not be more specific. You can follow Christ's path to righteousness or you can follow the path of the damned. The choice is yours.

Rep. Charlie Rangel

What would Jesus do this weekend?

Eric Sapp/Thom Hartmann

In Matthew 25, which is to my recollection, I've only read the Bible four times, but, the only time when the Disciples actually sat down with Jesus and said, "How do we get into heaven?" And He said, "Here's the list. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked." The modern equivalent would be, you know, house the homeless. "Heal the sick. Visit those unjustly in prison."

The Hill

Jesus taught we should sell our possessions and give the proceeds to the poor...

Are they advocating for a religious state? One that operates straight from the precepts of Jesus? A theocracy? Christian Sharia law?

Ken Shepherd at NewsBusters does a good job of deconstructing O'Donnell's sermon.

There are a few assumptions that go into these presentations of WWJD that preordain the conclusions drawn by those cited above:

That Jesus was directing his comments to the state not the individual.
That the state is the singular method of helping the poor and Christian charity.
That those who don't think that the government should be the charity arm of the Christian church are mean and selfish.
It is OK for to judge the motives and eternal salvation of limited government capitalists and the rich.
There is no room for alternate interpretations.
The separation of church and state is only meant for 'those other guys.'

...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Those represented in the links above might believe that Jesus mandates that the government be a branch of the church, but this strains credulity since they are all people of the left. Traditionally, those on the left interpret Jefferson's statement to the Danbury Baptists to mean that even a creche cannot be placed in front of a government building or that circumcision is a primitive religious rite that should not be subsidized. Surely, if placing a creche in front of the courthouse next to Santa and his reindeer creates church/state entanglement, using the government to carry out a central doctrine of the Christian church is problematic. In the past, the left was satisfied with merely taking the responsibility away from the church and making it their own without the pretense of religiosity. Apparently that was then and this is now.

In his discussion with Thom Hartmann, Eric Sapp notes that hypocrisy is the only "sin in the New Testament that gets the divine death penalty." One wonders if Mr. O'Donnell will spend 10 minutes Bible thumping to his fellow sojourners on the left about how hard it is to get through the eye of a needle and sure fire methods of avoiding God's wrath, including "Give up everything. Those are the words of Jesus Christ. Give up everything."

It would be the Christian thing to do.

Debt Reduction

2011-07-08T13:25:00.002-06:00

How long would it take to pay down the debt by using corporate jet and oil company tax increases? Charles Krauthammer has done the math.

Ayn Rand and Jesus

2011-07-08T07:17:00.048-06:00

Eric Sapp/Thom Hartmann wrestled with the idea of whether one could like anything that Ayn Rand had to say and still be a Christian. It was a discussion aimed at those swing voters who do not have a fixed notion of what they think the role of government should be with respect to charity.

Sapp summed up his thesis by stating:

People who say, "well, I'm a Christian and I can follow Ayn Rand." Well, by definition you can't, because Ayn Rand taught you can't follow her and follow Christ.

What an amazingly puerile, vacuous and facile statement. To be sure, there are problems with the Objectivist philosophy. Ayn Rand's view of the world relies too heavily on individual integrity to work. There are dark and ugly traits in man that will prevent the absolute capitalism that she envisions. The corrupt and lazy would certainly ruin it for the rest.

Conservatives and Christians who gravitate toward the works of Ayn Rand connect with the descriptions of individualism and small government. Sapp and Hartmann's black and white, unnuanced view that one must either take all of Rand's philosophy or none of it is childish. This manner of thought might also prevent Christian progressives from supporting any governmental social programs since such policies fall within the bounds of Marx's teachings.

One would think that these gentlemen of the left would laud the 'big-tent' inclusivity of Christian conservatives that can find some common ground with an unabashed atheist.

Sapp said that he is hoping to engender discussion with the ad campaign by revealing that the fruits and roots of the Republican budget are rotten and not in keeping with Matthew 25 (if fruits are actions, then roots are motives), and that Republican politicized policies are rotten and based on a totally anti Christ message. Surely he doesn't hope that those who see the ad will then vote Republican after considering the anti Christ nature of Republican policies and the evil motives and trickery of those making that policy. He fully intends to persuade those who may have voted Republican to support the Christ centered, kind policies of the left that are in keeping with Matthew 25.

Another subtext in their argument assumes that the vehicle for Christian charity is the government. They offer no Biblical justification for this. It is just assumed.

What is particularly odd about this is that normally those on the political left are hypersensitive to any commingling of church and state. It doesn't seem to bother either of them that the leap from caring for the poor to having the government be the purveyor of that care clearly violates the cherished notion of separation of church and state. If they embrace the idea of the separation of church and state, they should recommend that Christian charity be done by the local churches. If, however, they desire that the government perform this directive of Jesus, then they should acknowledge that they do in fact want to legislate morality and have the government perform their religious duty on behalf of the church.

Sapp and Hartmann must explain how making laws imposing the religious ideals expressed by Jesus either does not establish a religion, or does not prohibit someone from exercising his religious choice (if, for example, his religion does not mandate that he give charity). One suspects that the argument in favor of government imposed religious belief in this case might sound similar to conservative's maintaining that a national day of prayer is not tantamount to government establishing a religion. However, since a day of prayer does not require input from anyone and the imposition of Christian charity mandates the taking of another's earned income, one might expect a more thoroughgoing and rigorous apologetic by Sapp and Hartmann.

However, they might argue that the concept of charity can exist outside of the religious dogma of Christianity and therefore isn't exclusively a religious teaching but rather a universal ideal. Of course, if this is the case for charity, it is also the case for the ideals that religious conservatives identify with in Ayn Rand's writings. Just as an atheist is not compelled to eschew the economic policies of a devoutly religious liberal, a religious conservative does not need to be bullied into abandoning ideas about limited government because the atheist Ayn Rand also shared those beliefs. And the thoughtful person is able to discriminate and is in no way obligated to accept or embrace every idea promulgated by any author. In other words, they are free to eat the hay and leave the sticks.

The throw the baby out with the bathwater approach suggested by Sapp and Hartmann is so inane that it hardly merits a response. But they present it in such a smooth and confident manner that is passes as sophisticated thought. Presented without critical review, this argument will likely persuade some voters who are not secure in their own world view.

Just as honorable liberals can favor a political economy that seeks equalization of wealth through redistributive policies without embracing the uglier aspects of Communism, so a conservative can favor a political economy that seeks competitive markets with minimal government intrusion without embracing the uglier aspects of Objectivism.

Chuck Colson video on Atlas Shrugged

BreakPoint Commentary

American Spectator

It's touching how liberal, religiously pluralistic groups like Faithful America and American Values Network are suddenly very concerned that Christians specifically remain faithful to the Bible and to Jesus. Their respective boards are populated with activists and clergy not themselves known for careful adherence to Christian orthodoxy.

The Atlantic

But calling Ayn Rand "brilliant," as Rush Limbaugh is quoted doing, or labeling yourself "a fan" of her work, like Rand Paul, doesn't mean that you embrace every tenet of her philosophy, never mind her every statement about Jesus Christ or the Christian religion.

Eric Sapp in The Huffington Post

It uncovers the heartless GOP and Tea Party wolves who've been parading around in sheep's clothing among the Christian flock, leading them astray.

Jim Crow Lie

2011-07-05T21:16:00.005-06:00

James Taranto: How could asking for ID be discriminatory only when it comes to voting?

Independence Day

2011-07-04T06:24:00.004-06:00

Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capacity, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence.
~Joseph Story

It is unfortunate that Indepedence Day is often reduced to fireworks and barbeques.

America is a collection of humans facing an ideal. No person, and therefore group of people, is perfect. And we will never be perfect. But we establish ideals to guide us and act as guardrails for our behavior. Just because the humans within the system of ideals have stumbled along the way, doesn't mean the system is faulty. Those that are constantly judging the American system by the behavior of some of the participants seem short sighted to me. Complaining that Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite for having written that all men are created equal and yet held slaves in a time when no other system existed seems to miss much of the nuance of the times.

Would they rather that he and the other founders not have made the statement at all, thereby lengthening the emancipation timeline? Or do they expect perfection from everyone at the end of their pointed finger while forgetting that they themselves may fall short of ideals from time to time? Dr. King, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are all imperfect progenitors of the American ideal. So are you and I. It is hard for me to imagine that those that think in this way will ever have a spiritual leader, mentor, or country to which they look up to since they will forever be fixated on the imperfections of those who aspire.

America aspires.

Most nations are formed by tribalism – association by ethnicity or race. In America the association is based on ideas. Look around and try to identify an American by race and you will quickly see the living example of America's motto, E pluribus unum – from many one. Research how cultures that respect familism prosper if you don't think this is huge.

In America, anyone can voluntarily join the country based on shared ideals. Where you come from does not matter. What matters is where you are headed.

What does an American look like?

The American founders established some ideals. Those ideals were good and they are still good to this day. Part of the American ideal says that every human being is precious irrespective of your origins. Tribalism is no longer the criteria for citizenship.

The founders asserted that every human being is created in God's image and therefore is infinitely precious. That their rights come from a creator not from the creation. That some other human is not the grantor of your rights.

This country created something new.

It is easy to forget the ideals or to believe they are something else. Many are busy twisting and bending the ideal into an ugly cousin of itself. Why not allow the ideal to stand? Can we celebrate the ideal while striving to better our fellow man?

Maybe this 'cup half empty' attitude comes as a result of birthright. We forget to teach the next generation about the ideal and how each and every one of us is responsible to lend a hand in making progress toward that ideal. Sometimes I wonder what this country would look like if US citizenship by birth was not allowed for anyone – that each of us had to return to our ethnic tribe and then apply for US citizenship. Would gratitude be more prevalent? Would we be better at imparting patriotism and the American story to the next generations? Would we be more willing to give than receive? Are those who grapple to get in more appreciative?

Do we look a gift horse in the mouth?

America was and is an aberration in the world. America can and does die for other's liberty like nobody else on this planet. America is unique and should be treated as a precious gift to humanity. Each and every American should express gratitude for the luck of being born into it.

America is bigger than you and it is bigger than me. Let's humble ourselves a bit in remembrance of all those that have participated in this idea that is America.

Let's not take for granted the extraordinary experiment that is the United States of America.

Cigarette Moralizing

2011-07-01T06:51:00.001-06:00

Government Selects Graphic Photos to Deter Smokers

Since moralizing is to be foisted on cigarette companies, should photos of naked obese people be put on fast food packaging; horrific crash scenes on cars and alcohol; aborted fetuses at planned parenthood; horribly mamed and disfigured burn victims on your electric bill and at the gas pump; and awful tooth decay on candy an soda?

How can it be legal to force a producer of a legal product to place messages against the use of its products on the packaging? If anti abortion activists pulled this stunt it would be called legislating morality. What is it called when anti-smoking zealots do it? Goodness? And if so, why wouldn't it be called goodness if anti-abortion activists did it?

If morality is defined as principles of right or wrong behavior – and it is – then much of the law is legislated morality. Anti-slavery, abortion, flag burning, choice of light bulbs, taxation, welfare, corporate welfare, same sex marriage, education, environmentalism – the list is endless - are all impositions of morality.

But there are a fair number of people who think that the imposition of their mores is anything but legislating morality. If we ever say "such and such is right (or wrong), there should be a law," we are imposing our moral views on others.

Other than an opinion about the rightness and wrongness of the issue, on what basis does somebody tell another person that they have earned enough money? On what basis other than morality would money in excess of some arbitrary number be taken? And if we should decide to make a person work for the benefit of others because it is virtuous to help our fellow man, at what point does that become immoral? If we demand the work without payment wouldn't that become slavery? Wouldn't that be immoral? Similarly, if I demand payment without working would that not be theft and immoral? And is everything short of slavery moral? Why are minimum wage laws imposed? Why do workers unionize and expend such effort to secure higher wages and benefits? To satisfy their greed? Or because they think it is wrong to deny workers the fruits of their labor? And other than calling to some sense of morality, what does "doesn't pay their fair share" mean? Is fairness a moral concept? So clearly taxation, minimum wages and worker rights laws are legislating morality.

If limiting access to abortion is legislating morality, then limiting access to guns is as well. Whether or not one believes that either is a murderer's tool or an individual's right to choose.

Laws are the codification and imposition of mores on the public at large. Laws dictate our preferences for behavior to our fellow citizens. I am a bit perplexed when those who are busy lobbying for the imposition of their sense of right and wrong deny that they are legislating morality.

Using one accounting of the California cigarette tax as an example, the taxes on a pack of cigarettes were doled out as follows:

$0.10 to the general fund;

$0.02 to the Breast Cancer Research Fund;

$0.25 was divvied up between:
-tobacco-related health education programs and disease research;
-Medical and hospital care and treatment of patients who cannot afford those services, and for whom payment will not be made by any private coverage or federal program;
-and programs for fire prevention; environmental conservation; protection, restoration, enhancement, and maintenance of fish, waterfowl, and wildlife habitat areas; and enhancement of state and local parks and recreation.

$0.50 to programs that encourage proper childhood development, including the development of professional and parental education and training, informed selection of childcare, development and education of childcare providers, and research into the best practices and standards for all programs and services relating to early childhood development.

So by my reckoning, 71.2% of the money is used for non-tobacco related stuff. Some portion of the remaining 28.7% was used for tobacco-related health education programs and disease research – not care and treatment of tobacco related illness. The balance of that 28.7% was used for non-tobacco related stuff (unless some portion of the second item included some smokers that happened to be poor, without health insurance and did not receive any other federal public assistance thereby qualifying for that portion).

Again, there is a moral component here. Every tobacco user is compelled to contribute to these nice programs, but should that be the purpose of this sin tax? Is it moral to saddle tobacco users with a portion of the cost of maintaining fish, waterfowl and wildlife habitat? Especially since lower income people make up a higher percentage of smokers?

The point is that somebody thought it was ok – nay right and proper – nay nay moral – to take a portion of smoker's income to fund state parks. That is the imposition of moral conduct on, at least, the smoking population. (That is, if you agree that spending money on parks is a good thing.) Maybe a more moral position would have been to use all of the money to help defer the medical costs associated with smoking. At least it would have been relevant.

I'm just not certain that this is a right (read: moral) way to get the money for fish. And if the argument is "who cares what the money is used for as long as we use the tax system to eliminate the evil of smoking," then I am even more dubious. If the product is so detrimental, make it illegal. That would be more honorable by my way of thinking than using the tax code to eliminate morally objectionable behaviors. Or apply all of the tax as a user's fee to cover the cost of medical care for smokers.

Do you really want those that you don't agree with using the tax-it-out-of-existence device to go after something you agree with? Or would you rather they use moral suasion and not use the tax code to impose their ideas?

There is nothing wrong with being animated by moral concerns – we should all be. I am just lobbying for telling the truth about our intentions. I want to impose my sense of right and wrong on the political process and so does everybody else.

Many people try to frighten Americans by saying that some want to impose their morality on others. No kidding. All participants in politics want to impose on others as much of their morality as possible. To the degree they have their way, it will be through democratic processes. And one or the other's morality will prevail, and be imposed.

Bin Laden, William and Kate

2011-05-02T06:58:00.002-06:00

In the past few days we have had two examples of events that illuminate the need for happiness. However, there are many who seem to be in an active campaign against happiness.

Some were cynical about the royal wedding and poo-pooed it as trivial and a waste of money. But why wouldn't we revel in something that is primarily happy and sweet?

There are many reasons to, at the very least, allow ourselves to crack a smile about the wedding. Just witnessing a marriage in Western Europe that invoked God and occurred in a church is somewhat of a rarity that should please many. It was a healthy societal event. And given that most news is awful, this was a brief respite from the constant drumbeat of unpleasant world events. To see a young couple commit to each other in front of millions who wished them well certainly induced happiness in the world.

And for the less emotionally inclined among us, the amount of human excellence that went into this wedding was phenomenal. And the celebration of such handiwork is appropriate. The dress making, the uniforms, the architecture, the ceremony, the music, the voices, the aviation, the horsemanship, the carriage craftsmanship. The best in all of these arenas was on display during the wedding. In a world where beauty has been taken over by the provocative in the arts, this artful demonstration was a breath of fresh air. It was elevating rather than debasing.

Sometimes a cynicism and machismo often stands in the way of enjoying events such as this and many of us (and I include myself) reflexively won't allow ourselves to revel in the moment of such events.

And then along comes a story that appears to be sufficiently manly that those of us less inclined towards ladies' hats can rally around; bin Laden has been killed. With a similar fervor to the fawning media that prattled on and on about Kate's dress, pundits are carefully dissecting every stitch and detail of bin Laden's death.

His death was satisfying. It was necessary. It was punitive. It was vengeance. It was the appropriate application of the death penalty by those in the world who are interested in justice. It was good – good to remove from the earth such an active enemy of goodness and happiness.

Goodness is harder to come by than evil and usually requires the concerted efforts of large portions of the population. Evil can be done in wide swaths by very few people. Consider the evil done to so many families and individuals by bin Laden and his small band of haters. And contrast that to the multi-year effort by so many in the US Armed Forces required to stop one purveyor of evil.

What does all of this talk of happiness and these two wildly different stories have in common? I do not suspect that bin Laden was a happy man. Happy people don't do the sorts of things he did or encouraged.

People are largely the product of what they ingest. This is true nutritionally, emotionally and spiritually. And in general, we are as happy as we allow ourselves to be. So allow yourself and others to ingest the happiness surrounding such apparently trivial events as a royal wedding. Crack a smile.

Then understand that seeing such large scale acts of goodness tells you something about the society from which it comes. There is an underlying happiness that is expressed in the celebration. Those cultures are beacons for goodness in the world and stand in opposition to cultures and philosophies that breed and encourage hate and acts of evil.

Be grateful that you live in a happy culture.

Is Downloading MP3s for Free Stealing?

2011-04-27T07:03:00.002-06:00

James Gannon: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Copy

Where Are the Climate Refugees?

2011-04-22T07:08:00.001-06:00

GlobalWarming.org article.

Today’s (pre-Earth Day) edition of the Wall Street Journal reports that the 50 million climate refugees did not materialize. In fact, many of the places UNEP supposed would be hardest hit by global warming are rapidly gaining population!

Eat the Rich

2011-03-31T07:56:00.010-06:00

Can taxing the rich really get US out of debt? Bill Whittle doesn't think so.

Protection Money?

2011-03-31T07:11:00.002-06:00

Wisconsin State Employees Union bullies those they disagree with. How is this different than what the mafia would do?

Wisconsin union's not so veiled threat.

Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means 'no' to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.

Hockey Stick... Not.

2011-03-17T07:18:00.004-06:00

Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller.

Let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline.

This justification would not have survived peer review in any journal that I am willing to publish in.

You Must Comply

2011-02-01T07:32:00.001-07:00

Another example of intolerance.

So far, students at Indiana University South Bend got the chain booted from campus, according to a post on Change.org

What happened to diversity? Is a private company not allowed to give as it sees fit? Thuggery. Pure and simple.

Leaving Afghanistan

2011-01-31T07:38:00.004-07:00

President Obama announces that US to leave Afghanistan.

Listen to what this Afghani had to say about the US back in January.

We should just be careful.