Archive for November, 2008

Memo For File LXXV

Monday, November 3rd, 2008

Today, I’m linking to a page on Lew Rockwell…

Hey. Come back.

On Lew Rockwell, there is the story of one Horatio Bunce, who may or may not have actually existed, quotes within said story having may or may not occurred. I’m inclined toward the negative — they tend to drone on for a bit, without any mention of who exactly is so meticulously scribbling ’em down.

Be that as it may, the principles involved make good sense, and the principles are what the story is really about. Click on the link and read. Top to bottom. I’ll wait. Believe me, I’ve got nothing better to do with my time. I’ll just wait for you to come back. La dee da dee da…oh but do make sure, if you’re the casually skimming type, that you give an especially hard read to the passage below:

The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

I’d like to add just one other thing.

I am, by the grace of God, presently employed in an industry and in an occupation which is compensated to the extent of excess, and I am debt free. In my economic circumstances, any ol’ numb-nuts can post such a thing without a second thought.

It was passed on to me, by one of my blogger pals who has been out of work for quite some time and whose gas tank and cupboards are becoming quite empty. He is the very picture of the human wreckage being tempted toward voting for Obama the day after tomorrow. He will not be doing that — in fact, he is manning the console, forwarding on fascinating true-patriot libertarian material such as this.

If he can remember principles such as these, I say, then so can we all.

And in a position like that, this takes heap big huge ginormous balls. The kind that an ordinary gentleman cannot easily ambulate, without the benefit of a wheelbarrow, and not of the casual-gardening kind.

Join me in raising a glass to my as-yet-anonymous blogger friend and those like him. And do give him a think or three on Tuesday as you step into the voting booth. Frankly, if he isn’t quite yet ready to give up on capitalism, then I really don’t see where anyone else better off has any business contemplating such a thing.

Obama, no, merci beaucoup.

Mister Madison…

Sunday, November 2nd, 2008

H/T: Ryskind Sketchbook, via Wheat & Weeds, via Gerard.

Disapproval is Not Discrimination

Sunday, November 2nd, 2008

Blogger friend Alan, who you may know as Seablogger. He speaks for me, on the issue of same sex marriage, with each word (except, of course, for discussions on how it involves him personally). And that is noteworthy since his post is five years old.

I suppose it’s past time for me to sound off, in my usual contrarian fashion, since I disagree with almost everyone on both sides of this issue. As far as I can see, this debate is a tug-of-war over the meanings of words. I’m more concerned with substance: the laws pertaining to civil unions, child-custody, taxation, and inheritance.

In older usage, marriage is not a contract; it’s a sacrament, and as such it is properly defined by religious texts and sects. When gay couples demand the right to marry, they are committing a trespass that drives some insecure believers batty. What’s the point? A lot of gay activists seem to cherish confrontation for its own sake: they seek to humiliate and ultimately eradicate scripturally-based, anti-gay viewpoints. This is a dangerous game for a small minority to play, and it’s completely unnecessary.

As a neo-libertarian, I want to see individuals treated equally under civil law. Ecclesiastical law is none of my business. Disapproval is not discrimination. I really don’t care whether some yahoo fundamentalist dislikes gays. If he throws a rock through the window over my desk, however, he may get shot. The Second Amendment and many legal precedents secure my right to self-defense. But I don’t spend my days thinking up ways to enrage ignorant people (none of whom read this weblog), so it’s pretty unlikely that rock will fly in my direction.

Under U.S. law there is nothing to prevent a gay couple from establishing joint property, power-of-attorney, and other legal protections. In this sense, gay people can “marry” right now. Furthermore, pressured by employees, firms in the private sector are rapidly rewriting pension and insurance plans to extend rights and benefits for unmarried couples of any sexual persuasion. Alas, many inequities persist in tax and child-custody laws at all levels of government. If our solons insist on rewarding procreation through the tax code, they should provide financial incentives for households to remain intact, regardless whether parents or guardians were wedded in a house of worship.

It seems to me that gay organizations ought to direct their efforts toward altering religiously-rooted laws that discriminate in favor of married people, rather than seeking the status of marriage for gays. That way we would have a lot of heterosexual allies, and we’d probably get most of the reforms we want, without inducing such fits of hate and hysteria among sectarian opponents.

Thing I Know #8. It is hard to get people to argue about private matters, but easy if you can somehow turn them into public matters.

Obama’s Directive 10-289

Sunday, November 2nd, 2008

He’s going to try fleshing it out in real life. For the uninitiated, Directive 10-289 is ratified roughly halfway through Atlas Shrugged as an emergency measure. It locks the economy in place.

As they learned the hard way in the subsequent pages, economy, like an education, is motion, not a status, position or level. To lock it in place is to kill it.

Point One: All workers, wage earners, and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment…

Point Two: All industrial, commercial, manufacturing, and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit, nor leave, nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business…

Point Three: All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes, and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift…

Point Four: No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufactured or sold after the date of this directive…

Point Five: Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount of goods per year as is, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more or no less…

Point Six: Every person of any age, sex, class or income, shall henceforth spend the same amount of money on the purchase of goods per year as he or she spent during the Basic Year, no more and no less…

Point Seven: All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present figures, as of the date of this directive. (But taxes will be allowed to increase as needed for the public good)

Point Eight: All cases arising from and rules not specifically provided for in this directive, shall be settled and determined by the Unification Board, whose decisions shall be final.

It wouldn’t…couldn’t…happen in real life? Could it? We would never do such a silly thing. Or surely, if we did, those responsible would be carved in the concrete of history ignominously. Their names would never enjoy high honor ever again…there’s no way we would do such a thing as, for example, stamp their profiles into our ten-cent pieces and leave them there.

Whoops, though, yes we did such a thing. Yes it did happen. And his face is right there on the dime in your pocket.

Obama’s New Deal No Better Than Old One
By Michael Barone

With victory in sight, Barack Obama’s supporters are predicting that he will give us a new New Deal. To see what that might mean, let’s look back on the original New Deal.

The purpose of New Deal legislation was not, as commonly thought, to restore economic growth but rather to freeze the economy in place at a time when it seemed locked in a downward spiral. Its central program, the National Recovery Administration (NRA), created 700 industry councils for firms and unions to set minimum prices and wages. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), the ancestor of our farm bills, limited production to hold up prices. Unionization, encouraged by NRA and the 1935 Wagner Act, was meant to keep workers in jobs that the unemployed would have taken at lower pay.

These policies did break the downward spiral. But, as Amity Shlaes points out in “The Forgotten Man,” they failed to restore growth.
:
The postwar Republican Congress elected in 1946 dismantled some New Deal anti-growth policies. Labor unions’ powers to strike were sharply restricted. Tax rates were lowered, and wage and price controls were dismantled. Many hold-the-economy-in-place policies were retained until the deregulation of the 1970s and 1980s. But the New Deal was transformed sufficiently to permit buoyant economic growth for two decades after the war.

Obama seems determined to follow policies better suited to freezing the economy in place than to promoting economic growth. Higher taxes on high earners, for one. He told Charlie Gibson he would raise capital gains taxes even if that reduced revenue: less wealth to spread around, but at least the rich wouldn’t have it — reminiscent of the Puritan sumptuary laws that prohibited the wearing of silk.

Here in the 21st century, after millions of schoolchildren have been indoctrinated to the notion that FDR “saved us from the Great Depsression,” economists are just starting to wake up to the idea that the Depression ended in America not because of the New Deal, but in spite of it.

We’re just starting to catch on to that…that the New Deal, like the fictional 10-289, harmed much more than it helped. A vote for Obama on Tuesday says, essentially, “Prove It.”

It’s just like renting this movie. How it ends is guaranteed, even if you’ve not yet personally acquainted with it. The question is whether you’re up to sitting through the frustration, suffering, boredom and misery that will deluge you before the inevitability unfolds. The dialog surrounding the build-up is nothing more than a suffocating formality, no matter how much skilled line-delivery and hopey-changey goodness you want to mix in.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Quote Roundup

Sunday, November 2nd, 2008

You enter a comment on a blog, even on The Blog That Nobody Reads — it’s in the public domain, folks. And that can be a terrible risk if you say something embarrassing…or ingenious.

No stone will be left unturned in the effort to destroy marriage or anything that leads up to it.

Shannon in AZ, on third-wave feminists deploring long-distance relationships

They act — more than a little — like the blushing bride waiting for the rings to be exchanged so she can gain back the weight, stop wearing make-up, spend truckloads of money down at the mall, start shagging the best man, and never cook another meal again. Caveat emptor.

Me, on democrats trying to win elections and filibuster-proof the Senate

Wow, I’ve got power? usually I feel afraid to touch women for fear of lawsuit.

Tom the Impaler, on the notion that men have all or most of the power in “heteronormative dating”

I have often thought that when Homer Simpson so eloquently said “Beer: the cause of and solution to, all of life’s little problems.”, someone should have stood up and said “Testosterone: the cause of and solution to, all life’s BIG problems.”

Bill (wch), inspired by my belly-aching about another third-wave feminist’s belly-aching, on the subject of womens’ skimpy halloween costumes

The women who usually complain about this crap generally don’t have much going on the looks/figure department. It’s easier to blame piggish misogyny than lose a few pounds and hit the makeup counters at Sephora.

Daphne…the same subject, continued

If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it’s not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets.

Erica Jong, providing a much more accurate encapsulated picture of the typical Obama supporter, than the typical Obama supporter would like people to think

No matter what your feelings about Gov. Palin, I think you’d have to agree there is a fair amount of negativity about her that could be fairly described, I think, as forced.

Me

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Weekend Question

Saturday, November 1st, 2008

Summer ended in my corner of the union on Thursday. This morning, I’m considering the addition of a resource to the sidebar, and out of the clear blue my mind started wandering and settled on a question:

What exactly makes the singular form of the word “thigh” so much less appealing than the plural?

Nevermind, I think I get it.

She Owes Them Nothing

Saturday, November 1st, 2008

Seems an opportune time to dredge up this clip from six weeks ago. It didn’t get the exposure it deserved, especially, that paraphrased quote headlined above.

No matter what your feelings about Gov. Palin, I think you’d have to agree there is a fair amount of negativity about her that could be fairly described, I think, as forced. That means — the mission is to find something ugly about her, Katie Couric dredges up a morsel that partially fulfills that and there’s a swarming hoard of ankle-biters appearing suddenly from the woodwork to say “Good! That’s what I wanted to see happen!”

Because of a high-minded concern about preserving the noble, sacred office of the Vice Presidency from an occupant whose qualifications might fall short, thus contaminating that sacrosanct chamber for all eternity?

I think not.

It’s personal.

It’s hateful.

It dare not describe itself to any of the rest of us. But there’s something going on there…and it isn’t good. Is it really that we have these self-important left-wing institutions, virtual and otherwise, somehow arousing a faux-populist undulation of reactive rage to the fact that Palin “owes them nothing”?

Maybe I’m wrong; I’ve been wrong before. But this makes as much sense to me as anything else.

My Cheap Shot

Saturday, November 1st, 2008

I’m tempted to disclaim this with a paragraph or two about my high-minded intentions, but what in the hell is the point. I know I’ll be accused of taking a cheap shot for writing this, and that’s not what I’m trying to do, nor does it speak to what I’m trying to say. It isn’t my point to say “gay people stab each other with screwdrivers” and it isn’t my point to say that “writers for the Huffington Post stab people with screwdrivers”…but why should I have to say that. To conclude that this is my intent, would be bad logic. Measurably bad logic. Expressably bad logic.

Fish have gills, fish swim in the ocean, dolphins swim in the ocean therefore dolphins have gills.

Simple Socratean logic defends me…why should I try to toss up a bloated paragraph to try to do the same. It happened, I’m linking it, conclude what you will. Anyway, Morgan Rule #1 is if I’m gonna be accused of something, I wanna be guilty. But I’m not guilty — my motive for citing this is singular in nature.

Here in the land of fruits-n-nuts, in which we’re weighing the benefits and liabilities of Prop 8…we are rapidly settling into the disturbing and dishonest habit, of using “loving” as a euphemism for “homosexual.” Nobody’s complaining about that besides me, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything terribly wrong with it. As a straight dude who’s a parent, I find it grindingly offensive. And reasonability-wise, that’s the same dolphin logic cited above, or at least it encourages it.

Just as some things in the sea breathe water and some other things in the sea breathe air, that’s the way relationships are. Gay and straight people abuse their partners. Gay and straight people love their partners and treat them well. Neither sex-preference community has a monopoly on taking good care of children, loving the people in their households, beating ’em, butchering ’em, mutilating their bodies, killing themselves. It is non-correlative. At least partially non-correlative. On whether one community or the other demonstrates a statistical tendency for such things…I don’t wanna get into it and I see no reason to do so here.

No, I don’t want you to conclude anything about gay people.

If you want to conclude something about Huffington Post contributors, on the other hand, I’ll not do anything to stop you. Having read a few samplings from that corner, I’ll probably not even disagree with you too harshly about said conclusions, depending on what they are. There is something in the drinking water in that corner of the web. Not exactly a wellspring of cool-headed, rational thinking…

…having said ALL that…this is a little gruesome…

Woman stabs lover 222 times with screwdriver, then kills herself
October 31, 2008 – 1:30PM

An election writer for popular US blog The Huffington Post killed her 56-year-old lover by stabbing her 222 times with a screwdriver, before shooting herself, US police said.

Police said Carol Anne Burger, 57, attacked Jessica Kalish in the garage of their house in Boynton, Florida, on October 22 and then loaded Ms Kalish’s body into her car and abandoned it a few kilometres from the house.
:
Burger initially reported Ms Kalish missing, but committed suicide before police could question her, the paper said.

Things like this give me cause to take the comments of famous straight-lady and Bush-basher Ms. Jong in a somewhat different light (an Obama loss would spark rioting in the streets, et al). As you inspect the divide between left-wing and right-wing, a theme consistently emerges that concerns order versus chaos. The left wing likes to call itself tolerant, and deplores accusations of lawlessness. As you inspect left-wing positions, you find some of them are tolerant. Others are not. But left-wing positions on various unrelated issues do tend to possess a common attribute of finding lawlessness appealing.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the week before last and he asked an intriguing question: When do WE riot?? Answer: “We” don’t. That’s because of the “we.” The pronoun does not refer to registered Republicans, or talk show hosts, or people who like cigars or golf with Rush Limbaugh, or straight people or white people or even ideological conservatives.

“We” are people who long for a restoration of order. Not authoritarian/totalitarian order. Directional order. The kind of order that was upset on the playground when you got tired of the bully messing with you, punched him in the gut ONE TIME, and you both got hauled off to the principal’s office…the bully to get a ritual-nothing talking-to, and you to absorb the brunt of the real punishment.

We’re the people who think if there are rules someone bothered to scribble down, and an authority charged with enforcing them, then by implication the authority should be making life a little easier for people who follow those rules and tougher on people who don’t — rather than the other way ’round.

On a whole ballot full of issues, Proposition 8 is the one thing that divides my household. That’s because we think as individuals here. To me, as an individual, this stuff is all about definitions. As I declared when called-upon to defend my position, the argument has been put before me that gay marriage is all about a civil rights issue…I’ve considered the argument, and I’ve rejected it. I think of it as a big ol’ pig-in-a-poke, and I’m not buying. It’s not a civil rights issue. It’s a definition issue. And I’m sick and tired of seeing things defined as other things.

Illegal aliens are just-plain-illegal…we have to have a big debate about whether they are, or should be. Vote registrations are fraudulent…we have to have a big debate about whether they lead to actual fraudulent votes. Clinton lies about having sex with an intern…we have to have a debate about whether the lie counts or not. Obama says he’s going to spread the wealth around…we have to have a debate about whether that’s what he really meant to say.

Our minds are WAY too open. And yes, there is such a thing. We debate WAY too many things that aren’t really open to question. And I’m sick to death of it. But that isn’t the worst of what we’re doing. What we’re really doing, is casting ballots about recognizing things, and laboring under — or imagining ourselves to labor under — some obligation to relegate our individual cognitions to second-fiddle status, behind the government’s opposing sensibilities mandated by the prior election. That is not how it works.

But getting back to the subject at hand. This central debate that goes undebated. Chaos versus order. Maybe this will be offset when, this weekend, some right-winger goes off and commits domestic violence, and some left-wing blogger will read something into that. It doesn’t matter.

Something has slipped out of a dark cave here, and allowed us to catch a rare glimpse of it. And it’s the order/chaos discourse that underlies all other agreements between right-wing and left. Try this: Gather together a list of issues we’ve been discussing. Make it exhaustive. Anything in which there is a clearly-defined right-wing and left-wing position.

Gathering the first five or ten should be easy for you. The “exhaustive” part may pose a little bit of a challenge. Start a spreadsheet. Start a database. See how many you find.

Now examine those left-wing positions. When do they have something to do with preserving order? When you define “order” as the excision of dissent from left-wing sensibilities…or the prohibition against punishment of someone whose actions have somehow brought it down. Just in those two scenarios. Those are the only situations in which the left wing champions anything that could in the wildest imagination be called order.

The rest of the time, they look like what they are: Agents of chaos.

So yeah, Carol Anne Burger turned her lover into hamburger, and yeah, I’m reading something into it. Just as countless others read something into it when Dick Cheney shot his hunting partner in the face. It’s not tit-for-tat; it just makes sense. Especially when you consider other evidence suggesting the left-wing masks some package of human impulses that demand, perhaps urgently, a little more critical inspection before someone else gets hurt. That’s my cheap shot.

Sarah Palin Unqualified

Saturday, November 1st, 2008

Millions of dollars have been spent to make us think so, and it’s apparently working.

All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up nine percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favor Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee. [emphasis mine]

Since the beginning of the month.

What events, pray tell, occurred since the beginning of the month to make people convinced of such a thing…people who were left unconvinced as of the thirtieth of September? The Katy Couric interview? Nope, sorry. Occurred before that. The “Bush Doctrine” thing, in which it turned out Palin was correct and it was the reporter who needed an education about it? Nope. That was even earlier.

It’s the time span declared, that creates the glaring logical problem with this. It’s a fair statement to make that throughout October, nothing substantial transpired to convince anyone of Palin’s unfitness or incompetence provided they weren’t so convinced before. Nothing substantial…and only one thing that was insubstantial. The spending of millions of dollars to get the word out.

That old meme about “all Republicans who pose a threat to democrats must be stupid if they were born after Pearl Harbor (and must be evil if they were born before).”

I guess that old warhorse still has a few years of life left in ‘er. That’ll always be the case, you know, as long as people are more malleable in their thinking than they believe themselves to be. And they are. Everyone wants to be placed on the pedestal reserved for independent thinkers…so few really merit that.

Meanwhile, here are a few words jotted down by Elaine Lafferty, who used to run Ms. Magazine. Yeah, that notorious right-wing libertarian rag Ms. Lafferty’s as loyal-democrat as they come, and she actually sat with and talked to that clueless dolt Sarah P. In close quarters. In October, and before.

It’s difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin’s “intelligence,” coming especially from women such as PBS’s Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker. As Fred Barnes—God help me, I’m agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.

I’m a Democrat, but I’ve worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin’s nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women’s rights.

Now by “smart,” I don’t refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don’t really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I’d heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

That’s probably why the millions of dollars were spent to get the word out that she don’t know nuthin’. Nothing scares a politician, or for that matter anyone in any position of power, like an everyman with a brain in his head who actually uses it. As Ayn Rand said, thinking men can’t really be ruled.

And this is the real concern about the nine-point swing. Palin certainly has had her stumbles and hiccups, one could even call them gaffes…but since they all occurred before this huge jump in her incompetence rating, what we have here is a jump of nine solid points, every single one of ’em delivered by propaganda, since the evidence did nothing to support this in the timeframe specified. Every single point, and every single fraction of a point — that’s all people parroting what they were told to think, there.

Should this concern us? I’d ordinarily say no, because people have always wanted to put on a big show of thinking for themselves, and they’ve always been dissappointing in this. It’s one of those things that go all the way back to the snake giving Eve that apple…or the first man’s ape-tail shriveling up into nothingness, if that’s your point of view. Humans have always wanted to be regarded by other humans as deep, solitary, independent thinkers. They’ve never wanted to do much to earn that.

Here’s what concerns me. You can’t just spend millions of dollars repeating over and over again that a certain smart person is stupid, and then enjoy a nine percent increase in the number of people who believe it to be true. People have to have some reason to clamber on board the bandwagon. Sarah Palin hasn’t been giving people reason to believe that it’s true. As far as I know, free cigarettes and hooch haven’t been passed out to people willing to sign on to the idea that Palin’s a moron…and so it comes down, by process of elimination, to a technique the democrat power-brokers and party bosses are known for using, and using very well.

The “I’m not too sure about you” technique. The “maybe-you-can-count-on-me” technique.

The weapon wielded here, is your own uncertainty. Tell a man you think he’s scum and nothing he does will ever change your mind, and you can’t get him to do anything.

Tell a man you think he’s wonderful and nothing anybody else does will change your mind, and you get the same result.

But you tell him you used to like him, now you’ve heard some ugly stuff, or accuse him of some skulduggery here or there…put on a good act that you’re thoroughly convinced that he did what he did, even though you just pulled it out of your ass…but are undecided about whether the fellow deserves the consequences that would surely rain down upon his head if word got out…maybe demonstrate the capability to convince others of this imaginary transgression, nevermind whether there are any facts that would back it up.

He’ll move mountains for you.

And he’ll believe everything you tell him.

It always has the potential to work, and it does work nearly always. That’s because we’re all flawed. If you’ve made mistakes in the past and haven’t come to terms with them, a complete stranger can accuse you of something else entirely unrelated, something of which you couldn’t possibly be guilty. If the facts don’t back him up but he still strikes a chord…he’s got at least a shot at owning your very soul. We seem to have it wired into our brains to think “well, I didn’t steal any office supplies like he thinks I did, but I returned a library book a week late a few years ago and he doesn’t know about that, so I guess it all evens out.”

The only exception to that rule, is the true Howard Roarks of the world; recall what Ayn Rand said about thinking men being ruled. People who believe in what they do everyday, who are strong enough to sustain their own definition of what’s worthwhile, and know that they themselves are it. In other words, that stuff we used to call “self-respect.” That isn’t being a perfect being, devoid of sin. That simply means making up your own mind about things. This technique of “friend yesterday enemy today maybe-friend tomorrow” doesn’t work on them.

Apparently, it does work effectively in the here-and-now. Hence my concern. It would seem this isn’t Howard Roark’s finest year. Individual self-respect seems to have gone on a holiday.

I wonder if we’ll ever see it again. It would be nice if we did…but if that doesn’t happen before Tuesday, I don’t suppose it very much matters. Enjoy your two years of socialism, and for being forced to live under it, you can thank the people around you who are utterly lacking in self-respect. Whatever the personal reason they have for missing it, in every country in which socialism has prospered, they are always the ones who brought it on in. The kind of person who yanks her daughter out of school to go see the Replacement-God-Man in action. Yay, the unicorn-fart man will pay my mortgage for me…

H/T for the video to Cassy Fiano.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.