Archive for the ‘Slow Poison’ Category

Pretentious Snobbery Versus Common Sense

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Dr. Melissa Clouthier dares — dares! — to make a distinction between the two.

Sarah Palin inspires vitriol for many reasons among the smug knobby-headed class. The latest unguarded moment came courtesy David Brooks who called Sarah Palin a “cancer on the party” to a group of writers from The Atlantic. (As AllahPundit points out, this outburst is a lot like Peggy Noonan’s opinion, also caught in an unguarded moment. And, of course, it differs little from Barack Obama’s “gun clinging” comment.)

Why do they dislike her so?

1. Her state school education and path to power devalues the elite’s Harvard training.
2. She’s homespun. Intellectuals despise homespun. They prefer the calculated indifference they’ve worked so hard to master over the years.
Red Sonja Palin3. Sarah doesn’t seem to care what they think. Perhaps her most grievous error is that she just doesn’t give a moose turd what David Brooks thinks. Everyone should care what David Brooks thinks. And Peggy Noonan. And the rest of the obnoxious snobs.

Here’s the thing, for those in the elite class, who go to parties and hang in social circles, they spend their time telling themselves a story: the story is that middle America is consumed with the provincial and that the provincial is horrible. It doesn’t occur to them that middle Americans have the same concerns and often discuss some of the same things as the elites, but that middle Americans have what is called a life which gives them a context in which to put these fancy-pants ideals. Many theories sound good in theory, but the small business people, and white and blue collar blokes have to actually live with the consequences of these theories know how they affect life practically.

What she’s talking about is What Is A Liberal? Part One. It’s Yin and Yang stuff. Before I connect that all together, take a look at what Melissa has to say a bit further down…

When a person has spent his whole life living theoretically, a person who lives real makes him feel insecure. The DC elites are no different than the actors in Hollywood. No wonder they all pal around together. At a certain point, their lack of concrete contributions and endless pontifications sounds hollow and empty. They want their lives to have meaning so they inflate their contributions in their own minds. No one dissuades them of the notion because they hang around people just like them.

Here’s a great example.

The oil companies are gouging us. You can tell they’re gouging us because these two gas stations representing two completely different companies are across the street from each other; the same night one of them raises the price from 3.929 premium to 4.199 premium, the other one raises it from 3.939 to 4.189. The same amount, more-or-less, to the same new price, more-or-less, within the same hour, more-or-less. Obviously there’s a conspiracy at work.

So let’s raise their taxes through the freakin’ roof.

If you live in the real world, you live in a world of cause-and-effect. A world of “butterfly effects.” And so, as ticked off as you may be at the oil companies, and as much as you believe in that kind of conspiracy, you still can’t get behind this because it’s ridiculous to think we’ll make it artificially expensive to peddle some product, and as a result, the price of that product will come DOWN.

So if you’re Yin, you may feel anger like anybody else, but you get over it. You live in a world of IF…THEN. The Yang live in a world of protocol. “S’poseda.” You’re s’poseda cut your carbon emissions. You’re s’poseda behave humbly so the rest of the world likes us more.

The decision-making is always externalized to someone else. And that “someone else” is always some vague, non-corporeal, undefinable entity. “Them.” “The People.” “Everybody.” “Us.” “Out There.” You dare to make this distinction, after awhile you see this everywhere. I see it in this Charles Gibson interview with The Messiah — Gibson explicitly asks him “what will you do different from what the current administration is doing now” (or some such)…and here comes the reply. The People have lost confidence. It’s always someone else making the decision that matters.

People who populate this whole other world, have good reason to be jealous. Once they own a task, a task that depends on real decisions being made by an individual who’s directly responsible for how things turn out — they’re lost. And they know it. They’ve spent too much of their lives living theoretically…spooning out the right answers to please others. Ignoring cause and effect.

There are some social skills involved in this. It is a certain brand of “smarts.” In a way. But it’s not the right kind of smarts to build anything; at least, not anything new. It certainly isn’t the kind of smarts compatible with “Change We Can Believe In.”

I remember one of my less-inspiring old bosses who was opposed to my retaining the title of “Senior Network Systems Engineer.” His argument was that the title of “engineer” was something like the title of “doctor.” You should have a certificate from somewhere, with a serial number on it, and a licensing board ready to pull it if you screw something up.

I can certainly see the logic involved in that. But I see a problem with it as well, because this isn’t something that’s based on the IF…THEN that engineering is all about. Such a rule is based on convention and protocol. Technology, people forget often, is the direct opposite of protocol. It is directly antithetical to doing things the way you’re “s’poseda” do them. Because if you’re always doing something the way someone else has decided you’re supposed to do them, how are you ever going to build anything new?

And yeah, that’s why we have this rage at Sarah Palin. It isn’t the traipsing around out there hunting moose and field-dressing the carcass. It’s knowing how to do it — and to find your way back, using only a compass. Melissa hit the nail right on the head. These people have lived their entire lives “living theoretically.” S’poseda, s’poseda, s’poseda. Deep down, they know this is not how things are built. This isn’t how anything was invented or discovered or provided, that we have today, that we use. It’s how you go about copying something somebody else has said or done.

They understand this difference deep down, themselves, without anyone else pointing it out. And so they find Sarah Palin threatening. But Barack Obama doesn’t threaten them one little bit. He’s plugged into the same collective power-structure, so he’s guaranteed to never show that anything is flawed, wrong or weak about it.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Laboratories

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, delivering the opinion New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, March 1932:

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

Twelve months after that, with the inaugration of FDR, that mindset would be delivered a devastating broadside and the United States would change forever.

The irony, in my mind, is that we still live in a nation that has these state laboratories. And they’re being used. One state may try things one way, another state may try things a different way. The Federal Government can still threaten to withhold highway funding, but this is put into practice far less often today than it was when I first started voting. The states remain properly independent.

The one thing that is not being done, is to gather the data about how these experiments turn out, and simply present it where people will read it. If someone were to do that, the information wouldn’t travel that quickly, even with blogs. The left-wingers still have a near-monopoly on our media of communication. And you know it wouldn’t make them look good. There are too many states and municipalities plowing all their energies into finding the most left-wing way possible to run…things that have absolutely nothing to do with left- or right-wing. What’s the most left-wing way to bury people who are dead. What’s the most left-wing way to collect garbage. What’s the most left-wing way to wire up traffic lights in an intersection. There’s no answer to those questions. But granola meccas like San Francisco and Sacramento are determined to find one.

Vicious CycleCalifornia is surely near the top of the list of mismanaged states in this union. The situation has become so preposterous and absurd, that even our state officials wouldn’t deny it (they’d argue about where the blame lies, endlessly). But the situation is going to get even worse. How do I know that? Because of the way our local media outlets word things. Look — I just saw another report come up on the idjit box a few minutes ago…the state is “being hit with another wave of economic woes.” Being hit. Passive voice. The state is just like that fat li’l brother momma is always protecting who eats pickled pigs’ feet out of the jar and watches wrestling all day. He doesn’t do stupid things; bad things just happen to him.

This state isn’t being hit with anything that isn’t of its own making. The fact of the matter is, no business is going to relocate or expand here. Not unless it’s backed into a corner, bribed with one hell of a tax relief deal, or run by crazy people.

The state’s finances start sucking, everyone talks about a tax increase. If your finances start sucking, where’s all this noise about a tax cut? Don’t hold your breath waiting for it.

I’ve lived most of my life on the Left Coast. Within my experience, the pattern is unmistakable. You put left-wingers in charge of things, and here comes the vicious cycle. I personally have experienced no exceptions to this, and personally know of none. When do we start taking Justice Brandeis’ advice, and using our states as laboratories? I mean, all the way…not just until left-wing policies start to look bad, and then stop our learning. Let’s keep an open mind. Isn’t that supposed to be what liberalism is all about, keeping an open mind?

Update: Blogger friend Virgil has some of the hard data…the bottom line data, not state-by-state. It’s got to do with what’s flowing out of the union as a whole, year by year. Not looking good. Not lookin’ good at all.

Boortz on Jobs

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Learn it, live it, love it. Context is unimportant…although not completely so, so here’s your link. But memorize the verbiage, for it is common-sense stuff, it is being missed and covered-up by many…and it is heart-attack serious this year:

Do you want a job? Are you looking for work? Tell me, are you going to go try to find a job from a member of the middle class? Probably not. Perhaps you think your chances of finding a job might be better if you go to a small business owners and large corporations. So .. while you’re out there looking for jobs from these people, do you want us to be back in Washington raising their taxes? Do you want us to be plotting ways to relive them of the very money they need to hire you?

That’s it. That’s all that needs to be said. Although I have to ‘fess up, the bold emphasis is mine.

D’JEver Notice? X

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

It’s not just this subprime mortgage mess, it’s every single economic issue, seemingly with no exception: Each issue has a left-side and a right-side. Universal healthcare. Minimum wage. Labor unions. Income taxes. Corporate taxes. Estate taxes. Offshore drilling.

Sometimes the right side of the issue is to “do something!” and the left side is “don’t do that!” Other times, the roles are reversed. With the drilling issue, for example, the left comes up with all kinds of excuses not to do anything. With raising the minimum wage, it’s the left that says we should do something and the right that says we should not. In both cases, the conclusion comes first, the justification comes afterward, as a rationalization.

But here’s something that remains consistent:

The “left” answer always has to do with making things more expensive. This is absolutely consistent. They can talk their way around it sometimes because their solution has to do with making a certain commodity “affordable for all”…which is quite a different thing from making something less expensive. In the case of the subprime mortgage mess, the left twisted arms, and installed layers of “regulation” and “oversight” — to make sure more people would qualify for loans. But it didn’t make anything any less expensive, and we’re about to learn that in spades right now.

The left side of any given issue, always has to do with diminishing the value of the dollar. Making the price tag of goods and services higher. Especially the labor commodity…especially that.

If I want to sabotage an engine, I don’t cut the fuel line and I don’t pull spark plugs. These can be replaced inexpensively. Instead, I’m gonna work on the cooling system and rev it way up high; make that sucker burn out.

Making Yourself Useful

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Awhile ago The Anchoress laid down a challenge that someone should define: What’s wrong with the world? She imposed a one-hundred-word ceiling on the resulting essay, which I first honored, and then flouted. In the more loquacious version of my essay I identified a whole bunch of problems and then tied them all into a singular “root” cause. The root cause was: Us. We change the way we think to get the next piece of comfort, and in so doing make ourselves useful. Once we have that next piece of comfort, we take it for granted. We dispose of all the things we acquired, and all the things to get it, in order to chase after whatever comes next.

This is helpful when that next piece of comfort demands an accumulation of skills.

Much more often, it demands an atrophy of skills. It demands we become weaker than what we were before. So when we fail to appreciate what we have, what we end up doing is evolution via atrophy.

This leads to being over doing. Placing a greater value on what we are, than on what we do. This means we forget that love — is an action. Evil — is an action. Wealth and poverty — are actions. We forget all these; we start to visualize each other according to our states. We group each other that way. We start fighting fights that aren’t worth fighting; even worse, we avoid other fights, that actually mean everything.

Andy at Dipso Chronicles noticed the same thing, through something Mike Rowe said. You know who Mike Rowe is: He’s the “dirty jobs” guy. He has a television show that’s all about doing stuff. It doesn’t talk too much about what people are, it talks about what people do. It’s one of my favorite shows.

Renaissance man. And no, ladies, that doesn’t mean he knows how to make a butternut squash risotto while you are at the Jiffy Lube with his dirty Subaru, it means he knows how to do a lot a of shit that you women really want your men to be able to do, and then walk into a room full of REI-clad Berkely intellectuals and tear them a new one, to boot. That’s why I listen to him when he says things like “where we once encouraged each other to ‘make yourself useful,’ we now say ‘make yourself happy.'”

No kidding. How many things do you suppose that little ideological shift has screwed up? I came up with 5, but that’s because I am at work and only had about 18 seconds to think about this. Marriage, family, education, employment, and professional sports.

I think that’s what Andy is exploring here — doing, versus being. Hell, you saw it in that stupid debate a few minutes ago. Brokaw kept asking Obama and McCain what they would do. The candidates then spun the question around, and went into these litanies about what decent people they are.

This is a dead-end road. If you have what you have because of what a wonderful fellow you are, instead of the things you have done, this is something that is constantly up for review. You do not want to have a bunch of cars and a nice house jammed full of pretty things because you are a nice guy. Someone, somewhere, in a position of authority can get up one morning and decide — hey, that guy isn’t a nice guy anymore. He’s something of a jerk. Bam, you lose all your stuff.

McCain and Obama already live in that world. That’s why they underwhelmed so many tonight.

No, you want to be defined by what you do. It seems to suck green nickels some days when you can’t get everything done you want to get done — but that way, once you get things done, it’s locked in.

You know, now that I give this another think-or-three, that’s another one for Andy’s list. The subprime thing. That’s exactly how we got there. All these nice, wonderful, poor people who’ve been treated so bad, they deserve houses. How unfair it is to judge ’em by what they’ve done! Fast forward a few years, and we’ve got this massive financial crisis. It is a sinkhole crammed full of worthless paper. The paper is worthless because of a handful of years wasted evaluating people according to what they were, rather than what they did.

Or, to use Andy’s terminology, we demanded that people become happy instead of becoming useful. I’m pretty sure he’s exploring the same thing we explored a few months back. We haven’t changed our position in the last few months that this is what’s screwing up the world. So, by implication, we agree with him and Mike Rowe.

Update: We have attracted the attention of The Anchoress, probably through a trackback. She says our post is interesting. That’s what all the good-lookin’ girls said about us back in high school, they wrote in our annual “you made the year so…interesting.” Anyway, welcome, Anchoress readers. An additional reason why this might be worthy of mention, is Anchoress has seen fit to re-issue her question. She’s ready, willing and able to set the “blogosphere” on fire with this stuff, she’s done it before.

Anchoress, in turn, has attracted the attention of the other blogger super-diva Cassy Fiano. We know we’re of like mind with blogger friend Cas, because once she free-lanced on what’s wrong with the world, her thoughts were nearly identical to ours:

Once, it was understood that you could do anything… if you were willing to work for it. Americans now expect everything handed to them on a silver platter. Not eating out and buying used cars was called “sacrifice” last night. Americans have no concept of hardship, of sacrifice, of responsibility. And when we abandon the will to work, we lose the American spirit. Its in the eagerness to cut-and-run in Iraq, the panic over times being economically a little harder… sucking it up and working for the long run is unheard of. And that attitude is hurting us.

Anyway, this is a happy accident, in our mind. Can you think of a better time to ponder, seriously, what exactly is wrong with the world? Obama and McCain hit the campaign trail and rip into each other; the speech of each, is that the other (and others like him) is/are running around like a loose cannon and that is what is wrong with the world. You’d think the first time they were stuck in a room together, it would end with bloody entrails dangling from the light fixtures. Bloody entrails of one, or the other, perhaps both.

And instead you get the ultimate snooze-fest. In fact, they spent so much time agreeing with each other, the diligent observer is hard-pressed to name too many points of what’s-wrong and how-to-fix-it upon which they truly disagree. These are the guys who, together, are supposed to be representing the rest of us. If that be the case, and I think it is, then we have the ultimate dichotomy: We’ve got lots and lots of passion that something is terribly wrong with the world, and we haven’t got the slightest clue what exactly it is…nor can we claim to have spent too much of our energies earnestly trying to figure it out.

Ms. Fiano then goes on to list some of the things that are right with the world, pointing to an older post of Dr. Helen’s for her inspiration.

Equivocating

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

equivocate
equiv·o·cate
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Cassy’s pretty disgusted. I started listing reasons why I disagreed with her, and by the time I was done I realized I didn’t.

Hawkins declares Obama a huge winner. I’d like to disagree with that one. I’ll have to go over everything later. Hope he’s wrong.

Melissa says it’s an Obama win, but notes that Mr. Socialist was forced to admit he’s a socialist. I hope that’s more significant than she gave it credit for.

Althouse is neutral for now. She’s disgusted by many of the same things that disgust me, so I hope she’s in the majority on this.

Stephen Green says McCain won, but not by enough to matter.

Anchoress agrees with Cassy, saying: Worst. Townhall. Ever.

There is something about our nation’s upper legislative chamber. Everyone ensconced therein seems to be afflicted with “moderate” disease. The story’s always the same: “All this partisan bickering’s goin’ on, and I’m going to dive into the mosh pit as Mister Moderate and forge compromises!” Hey look. Republican senators are opposed to partisan bickering; democrat senators are opposed to partisan bickering. They’re all on record. If they meant what they said, we’d see an end to partisan bickering overnight. And yet, since Jefferson vs. Adams…we’ve had red-hot partisan bickering every goddamned day.

In fact, what does the White House have to do with gray areas and neutrality? Seems to me, the U.S. Constitution is making a practice of yanking every important decision that truly matters, out of the legislature and jamming it into the White House where someone with balls will deal with it. That means no, or very little, equivocating. That means when Brokaw asks if the Soviet Union is an “evil empire,” Barack Obama’s answer is “well, they’ve certainly done evil things”…that’s what we don’t want at 1600 Pennsylvania. But that’s not Barack Obama equivocating. That’s a typical senator spewing his bullshit.

My idea of a constitutional amendment: Senators cannot run for President. They have to resign, and then wait a long time to rinse that beltway neutral-gray crud out of their systems. Seven years, at least. Then they can run.

Because the President is an executive. And you can’t be an executive without calling things what they are. A legislator, sure. But not an executive.

Update: Screw this. It’s degenerated into nothing more than another demonstration of how & why people come to hate politics. I’m ready for a serious case of Attention Deficit Disorder.

Let’s browse some bikini ice fishing pictures (click the pic).

The “Fact Checking” Fad

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

James Taranto savages the “fact-checking” fad. It’s your must-read column of the day. Maybe even for the week.

The “fact check” is opinion journalism or criticism, masquerading as straight news. The object is not merely to report facts but to pass a judgment. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog ends each assessment with between one and four “Pinocchios,” just like movie reviewers giving out stars.

Like movie reviewing, the “fact check” is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be “fact checked.” The facts themselves are sufficient. “Fact checks” end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along, applying them more rigorously to the candidate he disfavors (which usually means the Republican).

Example: USA Today has a “reality check” of a McCain ad whose script runs as follows:

Narrator: “Who is Barack Obama? He says our troops in Afghanistan are . . .
Obama: “. . . just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”
Narrator: “How dishonorable. Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops, increasing the risk on their lives. How dangerous. Obama and congressional liberals: too risky for America.”

The USA Today headline reads “Quote From Obama Taken Out of Context.” In a way this is a tautology, since a quotation by definition is taken out of its original context (and placed in a new one). But of course the phrase out of context usually connotes “used in a misleading way.” Is that the case here? Here is a longer version of the Obama quote, per USA Today:

“We’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

One the one hand, Obama was making a broader argument, which the McCain ad ignores: that America should send more troops to Afghanistan. On the other hand, Obama clearly did assert that America is “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” (the subsequent clause makes that undeniable), though one could argue about whether he was asserting or merely worrying that we are “just” doing so.

We’re slowly going insane, you know; confusing the subjective with the objective is the first milestone to complete insanity.

One More Thing On That Veep Debate

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

You know how the CNN news-babe had her teleprompter programmed to reminder her that Whoah, we have an overwhelming consensus that Biden won the debate!

Well, that was fishy from the get-go because anyone watching for themselves could see the special CNN panel was more-or-less deadlocked.

For those who care about consensus-politics…which is most people…Blogger Friend Phil has gone through and tallied up the votes. Hit the freeze-frame button just as many times as he needed to. And yes, indeed, it would appear that whether fourteen is a bigass overwhelming number or a teeny-weeny throwaway number depends…entirely, not just a little bit…on fourteen of what, exactly?

You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the CNN Zone!

This is why we have blogs, folks. You really have to wonder what kind of crap we were being sold by Jennings, Rather, Brokaw, Cronkite, et al. You really do have to stop and seriously wonder. This bullshit has a long history of working; if it didn’t, they wouldn’t be trying it.

Hook Up Culture

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

We put a scratch or two in Jessica Valenti’s argument, that our culture’s “obsession with virginity” is somehow hurting girls and young women.

Blogger friend Cas just drove her freakin’ monster truck over it. She also ‘fessed up, she is the “female friend” John Hawkins was talking about. We had that one pegged when we saw the female friend was asking the question we’d been asking awhile…

What is it with feminists and wanting to turn America’s teenagers into raging whores?

In spite of all the shredding that has been going on, however, there is one other point that has to be made. It lies precisely at the fork in the road, where reality veers away from what is politically correct:

For the last several decades, the feminist movement has upheld as an ideal that women of marriagable age should assume all of the responsibility of deciding on their couplings, and that Dad should butt out. This has been an unspoken agenda item, and it’s good for the feminist movement that it is unspoken, for the effect it has is to force feminism to indict itself.

A picture has emerged during the heyday of the feminist movement, of the desired male object-of-affection — the stud who is chosen most often, now that it’s all up to the liberated woman and Dad has nothing to say about it. It’s not a pretty picture at all. Tragically, most of the time, it’s a picture of a guy who’s no longer there. It’s “(Insert name of oldest kid)’s dad,” small-d.

Lots of fun. Never could hold down a job. Turned into an asshole a year after the marriage…or when the kid was born…and that, of course, is all his fault. Maybe this inspires the next question “If he’s a dick down to the marrow of his bones and he’s never been anything else, why’d you pick ‘im?” — which, in the feminist age, is the quitessential Question Of Rudeness. The answer to which is: He changed. Or the subject abruptly changes. Or both.

What does reality embrace, that political correctness does not?

Feminism was all about experimenting — having women just coming to an age of maturity, making decisions about their suitors that their daddies used to make for them, or at least influence.

And the experiment failed.

It failed because those young ladies were still virgins, in this age of eschewing virginity. Sure — perhaps they weren’t virgins in the traditional sense. But they were virginal to this world of going to bed early Sunday through Thursday and waking up fresh and energized so you could go to a job, and bring home a paycheck to buy groceries and pay a mortgage. They were virginal to that. And they picked their studs, before losing that virginity.

Their score overall? You’d have done a much better job calling heads-or-tails a thousand times in a row. They mucked it up. They screwed the pooch. They went out looking for a guy who’d be with them, help them raise the kids, help them pay off the house, and they selected as their criteria does he make me laugh. Fast forward a few years, they were forced to saddle some other poor schlub with all the responsibilities after blowing their own fun-filled younger years on some “fun” guy who got ’em pregnant and then ran off.

Which, irony of ironies…is not fun. They went lookin’ for something, and failed to find it, when they’d have stood a much better job finding it if they didn’t sacrifice so much to go lookin’ for it.

Fun is a lot like love that way.

Fact Checkers

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

This post is going up at 8:35 PDT.

FOX News just put on what may very well be the most valuable “news bumper” segment I’ve seen in years. I hesitate to call it “informative” because it makes a point that is only obvious, and should’ve been under discussion all along. The point had to do with fact checkers who check facts after a debate closes up or a campaign advertisement spot comes out…rhetorical question raised was, who checks the fact checkers?

In sum, what really matters, is this: These “non-partisan” fact checkers look at the same facts, in different ways. They come to different conclusions. And the segment had examples to offer. Obama knew William Ayers: This fact checker says that’s true, that fact checker comes to the conclusion it is false, this other one takes no position. So it isn’t good enough to just rely on one fact checker, record the conclusion, take note that they are “non-partisan,” wash out all the details and call it good. Yer bein’ used. Maybe not even deliberately…but you’re becoming a useful tool if that’s all you’re doing.

We Watch the Same Thing, We See Different Things

Saturday, October 4th, 2008

Here’s something interesting about human behavior. The following clip was added by 1stAmendmentVoter who is apparently an Obama supporter. This person seems pretty sure that when Palin and Biden went head-to-head, the Senator from Delaware was a clear victor. It’s only two minutes long. Why don’t you scan it for some actual reasons that a neutral observer should think Sarah Palin lost the debate.

Did you see what I saw? A poll. A poll of strangers decided, 51-36, that Biden did a better job. If you go to the page for this clip you see a bunch of quotes from luminaries. Also strangers. But what neutral, objective, balanced and dispassionate strangers they are, huh.

Bob Shrum: “She Barely Kept Up”… “McCain Lost the VP Debate Too”… Madeleine Albright: “Biden’s Night… We Need A VP Who Can Be Persuasive With Foreign Leaders”…Leah McElrath Renna: “Biden’s Tears Did More For The Equality Of The Sexes Than Palin’s Presence”… Newsweek’s Fineman: Palin Like “A Wolverine Attacking The Pant Leg Of A Passerby”

Now, back in ’95 we saw our country’s racial divide open up just a bit, as O.J. Simpson’s trial entered the home stretch and then finally reached a verdict. What arose to confront us was the Rashomon syndrome; two people with different interests, especially different interests seldom discussed in polite company, see something. It’s a singular thing. They disagree about what it is they saw. They shouldn’t, but they do.

That’s what’s happening right now with this Palin/Biden debate. What interest me here, however, is what is presented by the two different sides as they each make the case why they saw things the way they think they saw them. In 2008, this is what makes the sides truly different; these different perspectives, speak to their character. Go back and watch that clip again. Study it, one more time, for reasons you should think Biden won the debate. What do you find? You should think Biden won the debate…because…this other person, over here, thinks Biden won the debate.

Compare and contrast. John Hawkins has a YouTube clip too. His clip gives reasons to think Palin won the debate. Except Hawkins does something pretty strange here: He allows viewers to listen to the debate themselves! Wow, you’re putting a lot of faith in the hoi polloi, aren’t you John?

For me, this defines a crucial difference between the way liberals and conservatives think. How they see things. What goes on in their heads when they see things. Liberalism is the last gasp of a dying age — the twentieth century, in which it was a novelty that one man could speak, and in that very moment be heard by thousands or millions. By the nature of that kind of technology it is impossible to unworkable for those masses to have any efficient way of letting the speaker know what they thought of him. Mass communication is not necessarily bidirectional communication. And so, having reached maturity on this imbalanced diet, liberalism has nurtured down to the marrow of its bones a reflexive proclivity to tell people what to think.

A liberal is not necessarily inclined to make the clip John Hawkins made. Some liberals do, of course. If you show a great level of competence and creativity in selecting the clips to include, and sequence them just so, so that your compilation eventually compels an uninformed viewer to reach conclusions directly opposed from what reality would suggest — what you have there, then, is a Michael Moore product. And isn’t Mr. Moore’s career just a damning indictment of liberalism itself. He became famous because he discovered ways to c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y show some footage in such a way that liberalism looked good. Question: If that’s Moore’s contribution, but liberalism is already supposed to be a good idea, then why was his chosen craft such an incredible novelty? Answer: Because there is some difficulty involved in getting that done.

Now, look at Hawkins’ clip one more time. There is no Michael-Moore trickery involved here; this is exactly the way the debate went down, just with a little bit less waiting. What he’s showing are, for all intents and purposes, random samples. Liberals must tell people what to think, conservatives allow people to make up their own minds about things. And this is the way things went. Palin would highlight in some subtle way the difference between the way people decide things inside the beltway, and the way people decide things in the rest of the country. Biden, if he is truly a master of expressing the best part of an argument through his words and his tone and his facial expressions, must have been making a counter-argument of “look how white my teeth are” because that’s all he had to say about it. Just a big ol’ crocodile smile. Nothing else.

That would be an effective and fair summary of most of what took place.

Palin: Something is wrong in Washington. Those people do not think about important problems the way people with real responsibilities think about important problems.
Biden: Yeah, but look what a great smile I have!

Well, you know what my conclusion is about it? Biden and Palin both represented the grievances and passions of millions of their virtual constituents in this match-up. And that’s how debates are truly won. But Biden’s constituents are a bunch of peaceniks. Their battle cry, of an “illegal and unjust war,” is old and tired by now. We invaded Iraq; get over it. We can debate what to do going forward, but as far as going in in the first place, it’s a piece of history. Furthermore, Biden’s tent is way too big. Some of his constituents genuinely do hate the country. They do, they do, they do — some of ’em. Others have a more sincere desire to see peace. Some are pie-eyed absolutists living in utopian bubbles, and insist war should become a thing of the past. Others are more realistic and say war is sometimes unavoidable, but it should only be engaged when it is inevitable, and that was not the case here. Some are anarchists. Some are totalitarians. Some are isolationists. Others desire a one-world government with more authority invested in the United Nations.

Obama and Biden face an impossible task of uniting them…should they win this election. I don’t think it’s really do-able. These people have nothing in common with each other. Their egos are wrapped up in the Obama/Biden ticket because of Barack Obama’s personal charisma, and Obama’s charisma holds such an appeal for them because they’re uninformed on the issues. That’s their commonality. The only one.

Wonder Palin!Palin emerges as the true heroine here, fighting the good fight. She’s representing the rest of us. We’re out here in “flyover country,” living our lives…our normal lives…and Washington, DC is getting further and further away from us. Quite frankly, we don’t know what to make of it. We’re working and paying bills, and nobody’s bailing us out of things. This “Dick Cheney” guy Biden kept bashing all night long, calling him the most dangerous Vice President ever — what is the Cheney doctrine, anyway? It’s also called the One Percent Doctrine and it says if there’s a 1% chance that shenanigans are going on, sometimes you have to treat it as a certainty if you regard the potential shenanigans to be a sufficient cause for concern. This just goes to show how far apart the beltway is from the rest of the world, because out here, that makes perfect sense. It may very well be the most unpopular doctrine to ever have been voiced around the Patomac, since the day our nation’s capitol was located there. Out here, meanwhile, everyone who manages their own life’s business, believes in the One Percent Doctrine. It is how we do things. Everyone believes in it…except for those who are somehow sheltered from making decisions that matter.

One percent chance there are black widows under your kids’ play equipment, you treat it as a certainty.

One percent chance your wife’s car has a leak in the brake lines, you treat it as a certainty.

One percent chance you left the stove on when you left the house, you act as if you most certainly did.

It really all comes down to management styles. Palin won the debate, because the way she makes decisions about things that come under her executive management jurisdiction, flows seamlessly into the way she managed this debate; and that, in turn, flows seamlessly into her personality. She’s the mother bear protecting her cubs — but she doesn’t treat the rest of us as cubs to be protected. She treats us as other mother bears, who are also protecting our cubs. Because that is precisely what we are.

And we don’t understand voting for something before voting against it — as she pointed out (right before another impressive display of Biden crocodile teeth). We don’t see how it’s okay to lie about something under oath just because the question was “personal”; we don’t understand comments about “letting Wall Street run wild” when we know the regulators had much more of a hand making the problem in the first place. We don’t understand bailouts. We don’t understand saying all these nice things about John McCain, and then once you’re Barack Obama’s running mate, trying to get people to pretend you never said them. We don’t understand radical left-wing democrats when they protest a war, make up lies about the soldiers killing and raping civilians — and then claim to support the troops. We don’t understand all this brow-beating that global warming is a big concern, but the damage to our infrastructure from these carbon cap-and-trade initiatives are not…and these creeps all over the world putting fatwas on the United States and trying to develop nuclear weapons…are also not a concern. We don’t see how it’s any of Germany’s or France’s or Canada’s damn business who we’re going to elect as our next leader. We don’t understand that. We just don’t get that stuff, and we don’t want to get it. You have a job to do, you do it. If something comes along that might mess up that job, you treat it as a certainty that it will.

And you do not, do not, do not, ever lead people by giving them sanctimonious and poorly-informed instructions that they shouldn’t be worried about something, that in reality, should worry the dickens out of ’em. It’s a contrast between weak management and strong management. That’s what this election is really all about. So if someone is out there thinking Biden won the debate, and they’re voting, that’s just the latest piece of evidence that we have way too many people in this country voting.

Our candidates for high office shouldn’t be selling us weak management with slick sales pitches, emotional connections, mosh pits and crocodile teeth. They shouldn’t even be tempted to mobilize a campaign like that. Yet they are not only tempted, but acting on it.

Don’t blame the candidates, blame the people. But Palin won. Among thinking men and women who have real responsibilities, there can be no question.

Thing I Know #112. Strong leadership is a dialog: That which is led, states the problem, the leader provides the solution. It’s a weak brand of leadership that addresses a problem by directing people to ignore the problem.

How the Markets Really Work

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

How the Veep Debate Went Down

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

1. I’m glad she brought up the nasty things Biden said about Obama before he was considered as part of the ticket. I wonder why she just whacked that nail once and then left it alone. Doesn’t seem to me Sen. Biden holds any cards there. He looks, on this topic, like exactly what he is: A lifetime beltway fixture who befriends whoever and whatever is good for him at any given moment.

2. The McCain campaign has been listening to us, I think. Gov. Palin was liberated from her talking points. She wasn’t excellent, but she was much better than people thought she would have been.

3. I was right when I said this was a rehash of the Galloway/Hitchens debate. Biden possesses a lot of momentum Palin doesn’t have. She stutters, she stammers, she barely manages to eek a few syllables out, without ever quite hitting her stride. But — what she says, makes a lot more sense. Yin and Yang. People who looked for a reason to support Obama/Biden, found it, and people who looked for a reason to support Palin/McCain, found that. I mean…wait…which one comes first, again?

4. She should’ve used the word “populist.” This is the true weakness of Obama/Biden. The ticket seems to be bound by a consistent philosophical underpinning that if something has a certain effect on nine out of ten of us, then it might as well have that same effect on us all. This talking point about the tax cut for 95% of us, for example. It’s a dinosaur. It’s lumbered on long past the asteroid already. It isn’t even true.

5. Assuming science is all about voting — which it isn’t — when did we lose this vote on cutting carbon emissions? Obama/Biden is for it, McCain/Palin is for it. Doesn’t Sarah Palin understand how this undercuts all her other pro-capitalism positions?

Palin Underworld6. I loved it when she made that comment about being for things before you’re against ’em, and how hard it is for her to understand how things work in the beltway. That’s a true Mister Smith Goes To Washington moment right there. If it was some big ol’ Paul Bunyan lookin’ guy in a plaid shirt with a big blue ox and a giant axe in his hand saying that, he’d get voted in in a landslide. Well, that’s exactly what Sarah Palin is. In a skirt.

7. I have to criticize Gov. Palin here. I don’t think she understands how it sounds when she mispronounces “nuclear.” She’d fix that, toot-sweet, if she did.

8. I don’t think Sen. Biden understands how it sounds when he repeatedly uses the name “Bush.” He’d stop.

9. Four years ago John Kerry lost the election by asking us to believe in a dichotomy. He said, I’m brilliant so I can think in nuanced terms, unlike that dolt George Bush who sees the whole world in black-and-white. But I have a serious case of confirmation-bias because George Bush is my perfect reverse-barometer about what to do. If he did something — it must be wrong. Biden left himself wide open by subscribing to this same confirmation-bias: If George Bush did something, it must have been the wrong thing to do. Palin should have struck right there. Stick a javelin right where the armor leaves that gaping hole, and shove it in to the hilt. It would have been a fatal blow to the Obama/Biden campaign, I think. Most Americans understand: If you strive to oppose something at every turn, on some level, you are trying to emulate it. Obama/Biden is failing to deliver something, here, in the very moment it is promising it.

10. Palin was at her best when she quoted Reagan. Americans are glorious and wonderful and deserve everything good that any other country deserves. Credit for being decent, when we are — and we are, quite often — the right and privilege to defend ourselves, to conduct ourselves as a civilized nation as we see fit, and to emit the hell out of everything with our pollution. Okay, that last one I’m just kind of pulling out of my butt. But the point is…fer God’s sake quit apologizing for existing! If you sympathize with that, your choice on Nov. 4 is quite clear, and the An Idea Bomb guys don’t have a lot to do with it.

Update: Ah, I had this one rattling around in my cranium and it leaked out my ears before I hit the “Publish” button. Dang it. It’s probably the most important one out of everything.

11. Comes under the heading of “potentially fatal blows to the Obama/Biden campaign” — another opportunity not taken. It happened when Biden was yelling over and over again, emphatically, and I think (?) pounding his hand on the podium “Obama and I will end this war, we will end it, we will end it.”

His jugular was exposed in that moment. Gov. Palin could have drawn a razor-sharp blade right across it, simply by taking advantage of a dramatic pause and then saying, “You and Barack Obama wouldn’t be able to decide that, Senator. Not unilaterally.”

It’s a critical point to make. That’s really what the election, insofar as foreign affairs go, is all about. When two forces are at war, does one side get to decide unilaterally that the fighting is going to end even though the other side doesn’t have its mind made up to behave-n-play-nice? This year, our liberal democrats insist that the answer is yes. One side can say “Okeedoke! It’s time for some peace!” and all the fighting will come to a stop.

Palin seems insistent on repeating talking points over and over again that help substantiate John McCain is the only decent choice for our nation’s President next year. In this respect, it’s really true. Our democrats think you can end a war just by wishing for it to end. We can’t afford for them to run anything. Not a flower cart, not a veterinary hospital, not a football team, and most certainly, not the country.

Update: Michelle Malkin liveblogged. Enjoy.

Update: Cassy too. And Melissa. And Sister Toldjah. Andrew Sullivan has his contribution, here. Wonkette. Althouse. Stop The ACLU.

Yes, I’m mixing you all up, in no particular order. No offense intended.

Not In It For The Attention, Mind You… XXI

Wednesday, October 1st, 2008

Nobody reads this blog, the saying goes. Except, since we started distinguishing ourselves that way, people have been coming by to read it. And that trickle of traffic has been slowly but surely rising throughout the last four years…in that time, more than one other blogger has come by to say “Hey, I’ve got the real blog that nobody reads!” But then they respect a sort of virtual trademark that we don’t really have, and allow us to continue to claim the tagline as our own.

That’s a good thing. “The Blog That Nobody Reads” has a sort of slippery, surreal definition to it; it doesn’t mean “no traffic.” It’s rather like the literal interpretation of “utopia”: noplace. House of Eratosthenes refers to thinking in such a logical way, that you gift yourself with being able to perceive things that ought to be, according to convention, beyond your grasp. “The Blog That Nobody Reads” indicates that nowadays we don’t do this so much. Nowadays, we settle for being told what to think by others.

That, and an informal blogging policy that here, we don’t mold and shape what we say in order to get more traffic. That’s how you fall into the trap. That’s how you end up saying silly bullshit things. Like, for example, that fire has never melted steel before — and a lot of other stuff like that.

But of course we do have Sitemeter. And we pay attention to it. It does have meaning to us. We do like making friends, and we’ve made some good ones here. Also, the numbers are doing some interesting things. They tell a story of readers who pop on in, and make it a point to keep on keepin’-on. You nobodies, it seems, are real creatures of habit. The daily hit total climbs or else it does not climb…on the days when it does not climb, it stays where it was the day before almost precisely. I mean by that, within five or ten hits, out of a daily total of between four and five hundred.

We are, evidently, being incorporated into daily routines of strangers.

Now, this is a source of interest, and it also inspires hope. We do not write, in these parts, for the benefit of readers with diminished attention spans…we absolutely do not do that. We labor, we linger, we inspect, we analyze, and when we engage in process-of-elimination, we tediously enumerate all of the possibilities. This is a cardinal sin, of sorts. We break rules of writing in favor of rules of sound engineering. And it gets pretty damn dry, sometimes, we think.

ThumbnailLike right now.

Anyway, September of ’08, although no doubt somewhat modest according to the average among four-year-old blogs, was nevertheless a record for us, and caps a trend of record-breaking over the last year (click on the thumbnail to the right for more detail). We look forward to hearing from our new readers, for in the end, what we’re advocating is not quite so much political conservatism, but simply — thinking like a grown-up. That makes for better friendships than political ideology. And if this is just a slice of Americana, perhaps our weary nation is outgrowing what had become previously become a national pastime of thinking like a spoiled brat. Maybe we’ve just outgrown the bullshit. Maybe we’re just so fed up with being told stupid idiotic things…like we never should’ve gone into Iraq because Saddam Hussein had no weapons and therefore was just a harmless, lovable old teddy bear who’d never hurt anyone…or when your President is being questioned in a disposition under oath, he gets to decide what answers are nobody’s business and therefore when he gets to lie his cheating, perjuring ass off…or that the Government set up explosives around the World Trade Center to justify the passage of the PATRIOT Act and the War on Terror…or GOOD SIR YOU MUST CONTACT ME AT EARLIEST IMMEDIATELY I HAVE 25,000,000 TO BE WIRED TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT HAVE A GOOD KIND REGARDS LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU…

…well, maybe we’re at that point you get after a lot of drinking, when you can feel your body start to be overwhelmed by the toxins. When the room starts spinning — it’s just not fun anymore. Maybe we’re sick and tired of the nonsense.

The possibility exists that it’s this whole subprime/loan/mess/bailout thing that really put us over the top in that department. That’s a pleasant idea to entertain, for us, because there’s a wonderful example of thinking like a child, and being rewarded with exactly the kind of disaster you get after the children have been put in charge of things. We already know for sure, that this particular event was the inspiration of our loquacious ramblings snagging a “quote-of-the-day” award for us this month.

Hooters & HorsesIt’s just a theory, at this point: We, as in the Big “We” that represents all of us, or a majority consensus therein — are tired of the bullshit, and we’re tired of the lies. If we can’t make ’em go away, we want them to at least improve in grade. Stop trying to fool us with tidbits of nonsense that can only fool complete imbeciles. We have grown to the point where we are ready to test what we are told, with meaningful tests, in the moment in which we are told it.

We’re demanding something better than bumper-sticker slogans that sound good, and reflect juvenile populist rage and nothing more.

Right now.

And Sen. Obama’s going to see if he can get elected as our President. Heh!

Ah well, this can still turn out any which way. But for now, The Chosen One is in a spot in which I wouldn’t want to be if I were him. I like my theory. Sure I like it because the outcome that would substantiate it, is one I find pleasing…not necessarily because I’d bet a lot of money on its likelihood. But I’ll take pleasing. There’s only one way to test it, anyhow, and that is to wait another five weeks. We’re ready to test it that way.

Welcome, all you nobodies not stopping by to not read the Blog That Nobody Reads. Take the time to look around, and write in. Introduce yourselves. We don’t bite.

On the $700 Billion

Monday, September 29th, 2008

Ace

Did Paulson Pull The $700 Billion Number Out Of His Ass?

Um, maybe.

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

In that case…Mission Accomplished!

And Obama says the answer is more regulation. Yeah, let’s do it! Subject the businesses that have to justify every little number on every little ledger to “oversight” by pencil-neck government bureaucrats who so easily pull big numbers outta their butts. Put the inmates in charge of the asylum.

Anyone who agrees with that, I say, has his head crammed so far up his ass that I estimate he can stick his tongue out and lick his own tonsils.

Not that that’s based on any particular data point or anything.

Toilets With Urinals

Monday, September 29th, 2008

Manchester Evening News

STUDENTS say new signs on toilets at their union building might be making their WC just a ‘bit too PC’.

The traditional sign on the door of the Gents has been temporarily replaced with one that says ‘toilets with urinals’.

And the sign on the Ladies now simply says ‘toilets’ in a move to make the lavatories more inclusive for trans-gender students.

The signs on the toilets in the basement of Manchester University students’ union were changed after a meeting of the union’s executive in the summer.

It is thought the temporary ones will be replaced with permanent new signs in the near future.

How come it is, that over across the pond as well as here, when people become especially worried about making the right decision they start to talk in passive voice?

That really is the most effective way to make a bad decision, I’ve noticed. People start babbling away about what’s going to be inevitable, managing to squeak on through without muttering a word about who exactly thinks something’s a good idea, or what they plan to get out of it…they do it a couple more times…and voila. Poor decision. With consequences. That will be blamed on no one.

Thing I Know #243. With an amazing consistency, ideas mature into dark futures and cloudy legacies after having been repeatedly expressed in passive voice. When they are unowned. “It was decided that…”

Is Modern Liberalism Gene Roddenberry’s Fault?

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

Ah, now this is my kind of article. Western Chauvinist tooted her own horn over at Gerard’s place when he linked to us, and I’m glad she did. To the sidebar she goes. It’s a little difficult to tease this posting the way she’s structured it; I’ll do my best…

Is Modern Liberalism Gene Roddenberry’s Fault?

Anyone old enough to have seen the original Star Trek series created by Gene Roddenberry might recognize the utopian ideals of today’s liberals in it. Think about it. On any major policy we debate, Star Trek is the fulfillment of the liberal playbook.

Start with environmental policy. No fossil fuels burned in GR’s world. Nope – only dilithium crystals and warped space needed. Isn’t it grand? No CO2 emmissions at all…

Next up, how about economic policy? Capitalism or socialism? How primitive. As far as I can tell, no currency ever changes hands. Everyone in the Federation seems to “work” for the Federation…

How about health care? Well, Star Trek gives a whole new meaning to “universal healthcare”! I never saw Bones turn away anyone…

And finally, we can wrap up social policy, civil rights, race relations, international relations conveniently in “the prime directive”. This is encompassed by today’s liberal ethics of multiculturalism, political correctness and moral relativism…

She forgot two things, though. One helps to reinforce her theory, the other one challenges it somewhat. The challenging one is more important, but we’ll go with first things first.

An important part of being a modern liberal is to intermingle subjectivity and objectivity, which is the first of the seven steps to complete insanity. This means “anyone who thinks differently than you do must be a flaming idiot or must have something wrong with them.” Perspective is a meaningless quality. Things are the way you see them, period.

You see this in Star Trek, in which the audience is invited to identify with the Captain in nearly every episode. Watch for this pattern, for it is almost as consistent as it can possibly be: If the Captain (Kirk, Picard or Riker) tells a subordinate to do something or stop doing something, the crewman or bridge officer will carry out the order without question. If he does not, it means the subordinate’s body has been possessed by an alien or he has caught some exotic otherworldly disease. Throughout this, the Captain’s orders are the pathway to well-being — obedience leads to the Enterprise surviving whatever calamity is looming, disobedience spells certain doom for all.

There are other ranks above the Captain, and there is a meaningful flip-flop here. If an Admiral is visiting, or if orders arrive from Starfleet (outside of the first five minutes of the episode), then these orders are bollywonkers. They must be, for they compel the Captain to do something that is outside of what he would normally be doing…the Captain is the embodiment of perfect moral reasoning…therefore, Starfleet is drunk on power, infested with aliens, or something. The flip-flop that takes place above the rank of Captain is that obedience leads to disaster and rebellion is the only shot at salvation. But if the Captain (with whom the audience relates) tells you to do something you’d better do it.

Back in reality, our post-modern liberals emulate this behavior just fine. Grown-up hippies driving around with “Question Authority” bumper stickers on their cars…and if they have dinner with you, and catch wind of the fact that you “question” global climate change, they’ll call you “stupid” just for questioning it, without perceiving so much as a hint of the irony. Rebellion — they can dish it out, but they just can’t take it.

Thing I Know #235. What a self-parodying mess it is when a command hierarchy is constructed within any rebellion, for there it becomes undeniable: The rebel is only a fair-weather friend, at best, to the act of rebelling.

The other thing WC forgot is Star Trek’s mission: To explore strange new worlds, and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has ever gone before! Back in the sixties, liberalism loved to talk a good game about this, and according to the evidence that has come to my attention, had not yet directly contradicted itself here. But nowadays it’s a whole different century; liberalism is all about not doing this. It is about bathosploration:

Opposite of Exploration. A progressive movement over time which endeavors toward an ideal, rather than toward a frontier. This makes fulfillment of the Exponential Growth Instinct absolutely impossible over the long term.

Bathosploration is about doing less instead of doing more. It is about making things clean and sanitized instead of finding out what’s possible. It goes down instead of up, inward instead of outward.

Probably the best embodiment of this in modern times was the Clinton administration’s revised drinking water standards:

At the end of his eight years in office, Bill Clinton set a number of political traps for President Bush. One of them was changing the allowable level of arsenic in our water supplies from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. At the time, the scientific evidence that this change was needed was, at best, weak. And the proposal put severe burdens on some small towns. When the Bush administration took office, they set the rule aside and asked for a second look at the evidence. Immediately there was an outcry that Bush wanted to poison our children. (Sometimes from politicians, such as Tom Daschle, who had supported the higher level for years.) There was enough political damage from the charge that the Bush administration yielded to pressure and, after some months, accepted the lower standard.

And here’s the joke: More recent studies showed that the level of 50 parts per billion is fine. In fact, there is some reason to believe, thanks to the curious phenomena of hormesis, that a level of 50 parts per billion may be healthier than lower levels.

This is what bathosploration is. Can we polish what’s already been polished, and make it even smoother and shinier and more sanitary? Surely, there must be a way. Forget about exploring. Go inward instead of outward. Trudge toward an ideal instead of toward a frontier.

Liberals embrace this warts and all. You see it everywhere. You see it in the offshore drilling controversy. Don’t drill that! Something’s endangered. Buy carbon credits instead…bring your net carbon emissions to zero, like Al Gore said. Be a zero. Stop existing meaningfully. Abort your baby, show your patriotism by paying higher taxes, and when you die have a green funeral.

Star Trek is about the polar opposite of that. Oh sure, the individuals are likewise diminished…bridge crew notwithstanding, everyone on the Enterprise is just a nameless extra wearing spandex. It’s the exploration part of it. Reaching for the stars, finding out what’s out there — forget it. Liberals like to talk a lot about what could be out there. Stepping on out, once the technology is available, to find out for sure? Not on the liberal’s watch…not while he has anything to say about it. That disastrous episode Force of Nature in which Starfleet imposes a Warp 5 speed limit due to this discovery that the warp drive damages the fabric of space…that would end up being your pilot episode, right there. Omigod!! By existing and doing bold things, we’re damaging the environment! Again!

Funny how that never, ever seems to change.

Liberals think humans are so special, in our own way. Killer whales bite seals in half, or swallow ’em whole. Lionesses strip chunks of bloody flesh off the bodies of antelope that were frantically running away just moments before. Spiders inject venom into the bodies of flies that dissolve them into a ghastly milkshake from the inside out, while the flies are still alive, writhing in agony. That’s fine. But you, you human schmuck, are destroying the world simply by driving to work.

So if modern liberalism is Star Trek’s fault, the monster seems to have turned against its creator since being first animated. Perhaps that part of the Star Trek culture never was terribly well thought out. After all, what good does it do to seek out new civilizations and new worlds, and then once you find them…make extra sure you not have anything to do with ’em because of your revered Prime Directive?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

I’ve Got a Bracelet, Too

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

Matthew Sheffield, Newsbusters.

In recent memory, every presidential debate eventually distills down into a few catchphrases. Al Gore became known for his sighs and love of lockboxes. John Kerry actually served in Vietnam. Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy.

I've Got A Bracelet, TooBarack Obama has a bracelet, too.

That inartful comeback will likely filter out through the political ether in the days ahead. What might not filter through our partisan press is that shortly after pointing out that, like John McCain, he sports a bracelet given to him by a military family, Barack Obama had to stop and look down find out the name of the soldier he’s honoring.

That soldier is Ryan David Jopek. Barack Obama doesn’t appear to have known that fact.

Here’s his complete line:

“Jim, let me just make a point. I’ve got a bracelet too. From, Sergeant, uh, uh, from the mother of, uh, Sergeant, Ryan David Jopek.”

Had a Republican, say Sarah Palin, made this gaffe, who wants to bet that we wouldn’t hear this clip repeated endlessly during the post-debate spin shows and in the days ahead? How much would the sincerity of our hypothetical Republican politician be called into question.

I didn’t hear it discussed once in the post-debate coverage. Did you?

Let’s be fair, here. Can you imagine how the mother of Sergeant Jopek would have felt, had Obama simply let this go — right while the bracelet was dangling on his own wrist? He had to say something. I hope that’s what motivated him, and I think he does have some human decency, and that that is indeed the case.

Now having said that, this kind of thing strikes me as extraordinarily sad. Because the people who are most enthused about supporting Barack Obama, voting for him, defending him — they don’t understand there’s a problem here. They have their own special definition of caring about someone.

They live in a special world in which nobody actually labors toward getting something done, except in the realm of “CALWWNTY” (Come A Long Way, We’re Not There Yet). Outside of the CALWWNTY vicious cycle of civil-rights-movements “we’re still working on that,” anything that requires effort is a manifestation of someone not caring about someone else. It’s the way they were raised. If you’re working on something, someone else should jump in, do it all for you, and present you with the results, immediately, or else you’re a victim of someone else’s lack of caring. Wherever there’s caring, there has to be a quick fix. Real work, therefore, exists only where people don’t care about each other…unless everyone is working on it, which is why CALWWNTY gets a pass. As does building a post-modern Star Trek utopian universe.

In that utopia they’re trying to build, people simply — exist. Mill about. Order free chocolate treats from food replicators whenever they want. They don’t really labor toward anything…not unless all of them are similarly engaged.

And so, to some of us, Obama having to re-check the name on his bracelet was just natural. The Sergeant had a funny name, after all! To the rest of us, this completely invalidates the point he was trying to make…and it’s not because we had preconceived desires to see his point invalidated. It’s because he really, truly, does not “care” in the way we define caring. He wants to see people alive and healthy and whole, but wants to see them abandon the effort on which they’ve spent their blood, sweat and tears. Once that’s done, in his world, everything will be all okay, because people will be intact, feelin’ good, unscathed, and covered by some fabulous universal medical care. And not really doing much of anything.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Bipartisanship

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

This whole “bailout” thing — the actual money it’s going to cost is, is only a portion of the real damage, and it’s a minority portion. The real crippling payment for it comes out of the purse of our thinking. This is the price we really can’t afford.

We can’t have bipartisanship in the United States, because the fissure between our two parties is too deep. We have a party that values life, and another party that only pretends to value life when it really values death. We have a party that wants to work with the market and uphold the virtues of free enterprise, and another party that wants to get rid of free enterprise and put the market out of existence. We have a party that wants people to be independent and another party that wants people to be more dependent on their government.

You don’t find a compromise between these. You simply don’t.

This is where Sarah Palin really slipped and fell during that Couric interview. It’s always been her weak point — the talking points about bipartisanship. She runs out of things to say, she loops these things two, three, four times, it sounds terrible. Repeating something doesn’t automatically make it terrible. Speaking from talking points, instead of from the heart, sounds terrible. As a product, Gov. Palin has been enormously successful, and the success of that product comes from the prospect of translating ideas that work in the real world into our government. Whoever’s feeding her these talking points, is diminishing what’s wonderful about her and in so doing defeating the entire purpose.

Palin’s not alone. Nobody has said anything about the bailout yet, that has captured the public’s enthusiasm…which is a great pity, because the one thing that has a chance of getting us out of this mess is the one thing that would so capture the public’s enthusiasm.

And that thing is this.

Market forces, and populism, are like oil and water. Our nation has a long history, by now, of trying to mix the two together and it has never worked. It creates problems. Our tendency in dealing with these problems has been to blame them on the marketplace, rather than on the mixing, and then to indulge in more mixing. This latest meltdown is no exception, in fact, it’s already gone three laps on this merry-go-round and is starting a fourth. That’s why the dollar amounts we’re discussing are so staggeringly high. If we opt for more compromises where they aren’t possible, we will start that fourth lap and the next time we have to deal with it the dollar amounts will be even higher.

The marketplace has always been friendly to us when we have been friendly to the marketplace. That should be our paramount goal as we seek a solution to this crisis. And if it’s solvency we want, then we need to show our dedication to that solvency, and include that solvency in the objectives of this “oversight” we discuss so much and so often. I don’t know about you, but for the last several decades when I hear about regulatory oversight in the home lending market, I’ve heard a lot about “community outreach” and very little about solvency. So if solvency’s our goal, let’s make the oversight all about that, or else get rid of it altogether. But the status quo is, we pretend to appreciate the virtues of free enterprise, while engaging in a vicious assault upon it — and today, you see the result.

America needs to return to her roots. There is a difference between making it possible for people to live in freedom, with a minimalist government, and bringing them to harm. If you don’t believe that is so, you must not believe in the competence of people to eventually learn from whatever mistakes they may make. You have a right to that opinion. But that opinion is not centrist; it is not moderate; it is not compromise; it isn’t even American. From there, let the debate go forward, but let us debate things as they really are. Humans are glorious, intelligent creatures, Americans are among the most courageous and resourceful among humans, and we have always realized our most dazzling successes when left to embrace opportunity and danger as capable individuals. We got into this mess by putting security above opportunity. We will head in the exact opposite direction, to get ourselves out of it. And we will succeed. We will fix this mess we have made. That is the only way we can.

Update: Talk about humming from the same hymnbook. But there’s been no collaboration here, I found this after I’d written the above. It captures perfectly what I had in mind with these comments about the merry-go-round…so before anybody asks what that was all about, just hit play.

H/T to Neptunus Lex, via blogger friend Buck.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

How to Make a Pencil

Friday, September 26th, 2008

Via Gerard.

Good thing to point out right about now. We have this glaring failure of the “marketplace” — you don’t need to inspect it very long at all, to figure out there are some heap-big problems with trying to blame this failure on the market. But nobody else can jump in and claim credit for making that pencil. Or any one of a number of things much more complicated and much more essential than that.

Something to keep in mind next time you hear about Obama, Biden, McCain or Palin breezily throw around the word “oversight.” And to be fair about it, all four of ’em have done it. We don’t live in a country in which we can depend on our officials. The world of culturally-mandated ritually-dispensed sound-bites is far too rigid and unforgiving up at those high altitudes. We have to figure things out for ourselves.

Individualism and Collectivism

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

Thanks to JohnJ for pointing out this excellent series to me in an off-line.

This Is Good LV

Sunday, September 21st, 2008

Blogger friend Duffy

In an earlier post I mentioned it but only in the context of the upcoming VP debates. I completely missed something. If paying more taxes is patriotic, it stands to reason that paying less taxes is unpatriotic. Therefore, our troops in war zones who are exempt from income taxes are unpatriotic. That also means that poor people, who do not pay income tax, are unpatriotic. Obama’s efforts to exclude people from the tax roles are also unpatriotic. Joe’s deductions on his tax returns for charitable giving are unpatriotic. Any mortgage deductions are unpatriotic. Child tax credits? Unpatriotic. I could go on all day. I would really really like Joe to continue on this line.

Yes, Joe. Take these on. Babble away.

Thing I Know #164. Some ideas look serious, only because they’re never taken that way. The most devastating thing you can do to a dumb idea is to take it seriously.

I’ve noticed there is a particularly odious practice of “fact checking” about the tax plans of the prospective Obama/Biden administration — Obama/Biden is an anagram of “An Idea Bomb” — and the McCain campaign’s comments on those tax plans. Factcheck.org, to their discredit, has a wonderful example of this on their web site right now:

The ad continues McCain’s pattern of misrepresenting Sen. Barack Obama’s tax proposals as falling on middle-income families. It claims that Obama “promises more taxes on small businesses, seniors, your life savings, your family.” But that’s untrue for the vast majority of small businesses, seniors and individual taxpayers, who would see their taxes go down under Obama’s actual plan. He proposes to increase taxes only for those with more than $250,000 in family income, or $200,000 in individual income. [emphasis mine]

Via Karol, we have another such transgression committed by the AP:

Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama’s proposals.

Classic example of gulping the liberal koolaid without knowing you’re gulping it: “Oh don’t worry, that’s a tax on super rich people, not you!”

The pattern is that if it can be categorized as a tax cut for 95% of us, then everyone should be thinking of it as a tax cut for all of us, even if the remaining five percent see their tax liabilities go shootin’ so freakin’ high that it ends up being a net increase. It all depends on your point of view: In my world, if we all end up paying more, then we all end up paying more.

But I notice if you look at this through the left-wing lens, whether you know you’re doing it or not…like factcheck.org and the AP up there…then 95% of us pay less taxes.

And then if you look at that through the Biden lens — we’re just hemorrhaging our patriotism. Oh dear!

What’s the An Idea Bomb administration gonna do about that?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Prayer, God and War

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Via Gerard.

Blood on Gorelick’s Hands

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

Thank you Duffy. It’s about time this stuff was pointed out.

This is what happens when public servants mold and shape policies to prove what wonderful people they are. Moderation is the first casualty. Gosh, it just seems to make sense, doesn’t it — if a little of something proves you’re a great guy or gal, a whole lot of it would prove you’re just a walking bundle of amazement, wouldn’t it? “These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance” — Sorry, Jamie. In the real world, people will come to whatever conclusion they want to form. There’s no such thing as a policy that will stop that. Not in a society that allows freedom of speech and freedom of thought. In fact, it’s best just to presume that all politicians are scumbags, and when the time comes to form policies, form them based on that premise. That way nobody has to prove anything.

But you thought you had something to prove. And that you could somehow prove it. God only knows what unknown misdeeds, what skeletons in your closet, for which you were trying to atone, to gulp endlessly at some elixir trying to slake the thirst of a guilty conscience.

Whatever. You reformed policy to try to prove what a great wonderful public servant you are…going beyond what the law requires. And then people get killed. End of story.

Thanks a bunch.

Paleofeminism II

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

On the last day of last year, I said

I hope 2008 sees the end of this brand of feminism, I really do. The subject of the link in question is Page 8 of possible reasons Home Improvement jumped the shark, and “Guest” writes in with…

The show jumped with the “sandwich episode” where Jill really started to assert her own special brand of aggressive feminism. It was angering to watch Jill call her son a sexist because his girlfriend did his housework; the problem couldn’t possibly be on the girlfriend’s end, it must be the EVIL MISOGYNIST BRAD at fault because he LET her do his housework. In the end, everything was resolved, of course, when Jill converted everyone over to her point of view, aka the right one, including dimwitted Tim, who, of course, buckled under his wife’s demands yet again. Was there ever a single episode where Tim said, “Tough crap, Jill, this time it’s my way”?

I was watching this episode with my ten-year-old son, and found myself answering some complicated questions.

I went on to point out the flaw in Jill’s logic. I was garrulous, so let me sum it up in a single short paragraph here:

It’s the knight who is drawing this tangible benefit from the lady’s attentions. What, exactly, is he supposed to do according to this moral code handed down on high from matriarch paleofeminist Jill? The answer according to the script of the episode was — STOP the thoughtful girlfriend from making him sandwiches. Yeah that’s right. Snatch the peanut butter and jelly right outta her hands. That’s the scripted answer; the answer, in spirit, was “I don’t know.” That’s the trouble with paleofeminism. Paleofeminists won’t admit that their goal is really to get rid of men — but the elephant comes lumbering into full view in the middle of the room, when they are observed spraying instructions and orders at everyone in earshot, like some fully automatic rapid-fire trebuchet — or to invent a metaphor more functionally fitting, a claymore — and at the same time don’t know what to tell the men to do. We’re sexist pigs if our girlfriends make us sandwiches…how, then, do we remedy the situation and stop being sexist pigs? Catch the samrich-makin’ bitch in a full nelson and force her to drop the mayonnaise? It just doesn’t make any sense.

SardoSo I had good reason for wishing 2008 would see the end of paleofeminism. Very good reason. I like it when pretty ladies make me samriches. That’s because I’m sane.

Good reason…but not high hopes. And rightly so. For the frost is nearly upon the pumpkin, and what did blogger friend Cassy Fiano find for us. That’s right, another screeching screed at Feministing.

Check out this 1970 ad for bath oil (via Found in Mom’s Basement):

The text reads:

Sure. You live with him and take care of him and hang up his clothes. But just because you do the things a wife’s supposed to do, don’t forget you’re still a woman.

One of the nicest things you can do for a man is take care of your skin. That means Sardo. No other bath oil or bead has Sardo’s unique dry skin formula. It’s pure bath oil. The richest. The best. 3 out of 4 women saw and felt and loved the difference after just one Sardo bath.

How about you? Why don’t you do something soft and young and special for him. Feel wonderful all over with Sardo.

Wow, this is really taking some early-nineties Bryan Adams to its sexist extreme. I wonder if, when she wipes her ass, she’s also doing that for her husband?

Cassy unloads. And as usual, it’s pretty priceless:

What’s hilarious is how offensive the feminists say this ad is, but the commenters have zero problem whatsoever insulting and deriding the man for the hair on his arms. So it’s OK to criticize men for their looks but not women? What if a bunch of men were making fun of a woman because of something beyond her control, like her arms being hairier than normal, these same women would be shrieking with outrage.

It’s stories like these that make modern feminism so out-of-touch with reality and the average woman. When you’re worried about trivial bullshit like an ad from thirty years ago, or a Bryan Adams video that’s over fifteen years old, and make abortion the holy cow of your entire movement, and then call it fighting for women’s rights, it makes people not really take you very seriously. The thing is, there is real sexism in the world, and real women who are fighting real oppression. Most of this does not take place in the Middle East, but modern American feminism finds things like thirty-year-old bath oil ads and abortion more important than, oh, say three girls being buried alive for the “crime” of choosing their own husbands.

What motivates these bitter women? It obviously is not the “rights” of the modern woman. If it was about that issue, the girls being buried alive would at least register as a blip on the radar, one would hope. In fact, the samrich issue would not — Brad’s girlfriend wants to make him a samrich, she can go ahead and make him a samrich…the “choice” is hers, you see.

*sniff* *sniff* Smells like…some sort of collective bargaining.

Yes, that’s exactly what I think it is. Start out slow, and slack off. You get hired on to the team, which pumps out eight widgets per man per hour — you start cranking out twenty widgets an hour, boss gives you a big atta-boy, life will be all wonderful. Until you go home from work that day. It’s your co-workers, you see. You’re making ’em look bad.

This is exactly the same principle. You’re a woman, taking baths in oils to make your skin soft for that man o’ yours, make him a samrich or two…you know how those uppity men are, sooner or later they’ll start talking! And this puts pressure on the other jealous wrinkled up old gals. Can’t have that.

Perhaps this is why the feminists aren’t too interested in the teenage girls being buried alive, Cassy. See, not being murdered is an individual right. Forcing one amongst your peerage to start out slow & slack off, so that mediocrity can continue to be confused with excellence, that is a group right. A collective-bargaining right. Don’t do good works as an individual person, because you’re making the group-collective look bad.

Lower the expectations. For the good of the collective.

Just as union management demands to step into the role of the “real” boss…the wrinkled up old paleofeminist harpies are demanding to become the “real” husband. That hairy ape you’re living with, he’s just in the way. Don’t do anything to please him, or we’ll make you sorry.

Okay that explains everything — except one thing. With all this Sarah Palin news floating around, we’re already getting a crash-course that the feminist movement is pulling a bait-n-switch on us. They’ve been pissing and moaning that not enough women are winning high offices because not enough women are seeking those high offices…and that must have something to do with us grubby, awful, icky sexist men. Along comes Gov. Palin. To a rational mindset, she would appear to be the fulfillment of everything the feminists had been demanding all these years. Well, the feminists don’t like her, which proves the “womens’ rights” movement never had anything to do with women, and most certainly didn’t have much to do with their rights. It was all about a political agenda. Putting pressure on people to vote for unqualified angry women, was just a tactic for enacting that agenda.

What’s really awful for the feminist movement, is that Sarah Palin and the attacks against her don’t clearly state this for the understanding of whacky bloggers like myself. These events make all this plain to the average, Main Street voter. It’s the kind of damage only self-evident truth can do.

So why now for the attack on the Sardo ad? Why choose right here-and-now to really solidify that message to us…that feminism is all about marginalizing men, and driving a wedge between the sexes — that it has little or nothing to do with womens’ rights? It’s as if Feministing is terrified someone out here was not quite clear on things, and wanted to make sure the message was really spelled out for everyone.

Heyyyyyyy, here’s an idea. Let’s make the 2008 elections all about this. Vote McCain/Palin if you want men and women to get along, vote Obama/Biden if you think whenever a lady is softening up her skin or making samriches for her man, someone should jump in and force her to stop, whether she wants to stop or not. In the name of womens’ choice.

Meanwhile, if any nice-lookin’ ladies come along and start making me hot juicy pies and fetching me cold beers, I fully intend to support womens’ rights. I intend to let them. Sorry if that offends anyone.

Un-Cronkiting

Sunday, September 14th, 2008

Fascinating discussion going on at Dr. Helen‘s place, the inspiration for which is a Forbes column arguing the innerwebs have not offered us a tool that can unite us, but rather, a tool that crystalizes our differences.

The Web doesn’t bridge divisions; it multiplies and sharpens them. It doesn’t build consensus or national coalitions; it grows factions. Truth be told, the Web doesn’t network people at all–it lets them network themselves, which is quite different…During the Tet Offensive of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson is reported to have said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” Nobody would ever say that about anything posted on a cronkite.com or a CronkiteTube.
:
The challenge now is to get disconnected people to accept how little they can trust themselves and their closest friends. People who live overwired lives — which means the young, especially — may easily suppose that they have a very good picture of what all the rest of America is thinking. Quite a few of them are going to find out otherwise in a few weeks…

The thread underneath debates the merits and liabilities of spending time prowling blogs that disagree with one’s mindset. Sissy Willis points out the first thing that popped in my head…

The toe-curl factor is too great when I attempt to read “blogs and other sites” that “do not necessarily agree with [my] viewpoint.” I think they have bad ideas; they think I’m a bad person.

Add to that the observation that, if they’re there just to invent just so much b.s. about Sarah Palin faking her pregnancy or thinking dinosaurs roamed the earth 4,000 years ago, whatever-it-takes-to-win…the sensibility of Sissy’s pontificating becomes all the clearer. It is, almost literally, wallowing in muck (the word “muck” being a polite substitute for something else).

Why spend good time and energy seriously considering ideas that are so bad, that in order to be made presentable they have to be supported with lies?

dlb continues with a partially sympathetic line of thinking…

I’ve encountered this argument in various forms, but haven’t found it to be persuasive. Perhaps this is because I use the web to find the most credible sources that I can relevant to issues that concern me.

These individuals and institutions are often ignored by the MSM as they tend not to frame their arguments in the terms of a morality drama.

So rather than polarizing my views, I think that the internet has enabled me to recognize that those whom I disagree with are usually acting in good faith – that we share an ‘honest disagreement’.

In response to this, I would offer the notion that this thing we call the Internet has shifted the responsibility from broadcaster to receiver.

Walter Cronkite looks at the facts of what’s taking place on the ground, and comes to a conclusion. He disseminates the conclusion, under the guise of disseminating fact. President Johnson, apocryphally but accurately, surmises if he’s lost Cronkite he’s lost America.

Fast forward forty years — this web site says Barack Obama is a Muslim. This other web site says people who think Obama is a Muslim, are idiots. That other website over there says he attended a Muslim school. Another website points out he doesn’t anymore. Some web sites make things up, others don’t, others, stick to facts as best they can but get fooled by other websites that recycle garbage. Matt Damon thinks Sarah Palin wants to make America into a theocracy, and will, as soon as the old man bites it. Charles Gibson interviews Palin and tries to make her look like an airhead. Mark Levin gets ahold of the transcript that was edited to accomplish this, and posts the entire thing.

What is happening is caveat emptor. And it is a good thing. When you view the world through a Cronkite monocular, missing any perspective whatsoever, you may understand the principles of science and skepticism just fine and dandy — but you can’t very well use them, can you? You just get this tidy, sanitized, polished image of what’s going on, carefully cleansed of any contradictions large or small. So you can’t find the answers about what’s missing, if you don’t know what questions to ask. Therefore — yes, of course Johnson loses America if he loses Cronkite. This thinking stuff through, it isn’t even a responsibility Cronkite’s viewers surrendered…it was taken from them forcefully.

Left with the choice of simply believing versus not-believing, they had no opportunity to inject their own critical thinking into the process whatsoever. They might as well have been told their favorite color for a particular day was purple.

If being unmoored from that kind of Oceania drives us into separate factions, that’s a situation I’ll gladly accept.

In fact, it really makes me wonder what else we weren’t told before the Internet came along to divide us this way. A bunch of stuff…at the very least. And probably a good deal more than that.

Pam in San Bernardino Has Never Seen High Noon

Saturday, August 30th, 2008

Via Rick, a discussion taking place on Desperate Preacher, kicked off by Pam with some comments that are truly asinine noteworthy:

In John McCain’s recent commercials, he calls himself the Original Maverick. In our household, we’ve had some different responses to this. I’d like to know how you hear it and what you think he’s trying to communicate.

First time we heard the commercial, both my husband and son started yelling “Goose!”, much to my amazement. I didn’t understand it at all. They said it was a reference to Top Gun, and that Maverick was a character in the movie, as was Goose.

I pictures guns and cowboy hats, and a swagger down a dusty street.

Neither of these images work for me as an appeal for Presidential Character.

Any thoughts?

My comment at Rick’s place speaks for itself. (DP, by banning Rick, has indicated that the place desires to be an echo chamber above all other things, so I’ll keep my silence there out of respect for their wishes.)

Rev Pam wishes to broadcast to the world wide web that she has never seen High Noon before.

Very well. Noted.

You remember High Noon, don’t you. It’s a movie where the bad guy is coming to Hadleyville on the noon train, and the Sheriff understands a confrontation is in order. All the citizens of Hadleyville go hiding behind doors and shutters, leaving him to face the evil alone. The “consensus” of the town seems to be that evil, in fact, doesn’t really exist — or if it does, it’ll just go away if it’s ignored. Only the Sheriff understands this is wrong, and in his solitude he is not deterred.

Arguably, if this is not the best western movie ever made, it could very well be the western movie with the strongest connection to the unsettling conundrums that surface from time to time in real life.

In fact, I would argue that this is what makes a western movie. Clarity of moral definition…coupled with ambiguity about what to do. Personal safety placed in the corner directly opposite from the “make sure good prevails over evil” corner.

That’s why our leftists hate cowboys so much. Well, it’s true. High time someone said so.

Fuquod, being a keyboard-building fool, chimes in with the discredited chickenhawk argument:

…and rick…did you even attempt to serve?

We call them “keyboard builders” here because their argument is predicated on the notion that if you aren’t personally doing something then you have no business thinking positive thoughts about anybody else who is doing it, nor are you permitted to so much as to acknowledge, audibly or in silence, that what they do needs doing.

The argument they seek to make, depends completely on this nonsensical premise. Not just a little bit. Completely.

So I figure every time I read this argument, and it was typed into a computer somewhere, whoever said it must build keyboards for a living. I mean, the accusation they’re leveling is one of hypocrisy, so I know no way could those guys be hypocrites. They have to be building keyboards.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

How About Letting the Taxpayers Keep It?

Friday, August 29th, 2008

A mystified taxpayer writes into the Sacramento Bee on August 26.

Let us buy things, not pay taxes

Would the Democratic Assembly please tell citizens why paying taxes is more important than spending one’s money as one chooses? Why are government programs more important than consumer items that actually generate tax revenue?

When tax revenues fall, hello, there is a reason. Why should we, and especially those on limited incomes, be forced to pay higher taxes rather than on goods and services of our choice?

Just asking for clarification.

– Cynthia Van Auken, Chico

An eyeball-rolling fan of big government responds with mock patience, today. Like, what the hell is the matter with this beleagured taxpayer, is she stupid or something?

Tax dollars benefit the economy

Apparently, Cynthia Van Auken is the product of private schools, uses an autogyro for transportation, has a private security guard and a superior fire retarding system for her home. Otherwise, like most of the rest of us, she has benefited from the taxes we all, including the employees of civil service systems, pay (“Let us buy things, not pay taxes,” letter, Aug. 26).

When we build roads, the private sector, under the supervision of civil servants, makes money that goes directly back into the economy. When we hire teachers, our children grow up able to make a decent salary, and the teachers’ salaries go to purchase products and pay taxes. These tax dollars benefit the economy just as much as the dollars spent by those who don’t pay taxes. I suggest Van Auken could benefit from a short course in economics. We must pay for services we want to use, be they airports, highways, police departments or fire departments.

– Joy M. Doyle, Sacramento

I couldn’t resist adding to the melee. Being evil, and all.

Lady,

Just what do you think people do with money when they are allowed by their gracious and benevolent state government to keep it? Stick it up their butts, or something?

Whereupon I yanked that virtual draft out of my virtual typewriter, crumpled it into a virtual ball, and tossed it in the virtual wastebasket.

Rolling a fresh virtual sheet of virtual paper under the virtual platen, I began anew:

Cyntha Van Auken was “just asking for clarification” but Joy Doyle bit her head off. I hope she enjoyed doing it.

Ms. Doyle, can your argument take on merely the appearance of merit, if it’s presented in a civil tone? I think it could; evidently, you disagree. That’s a shame. I’ve found ideas consistently presented in haughty and condescending tones tend to be bad. I also notice Keynesian theory is often presented this way.

One other question: On your next job interview, when your prospective employer asks why you should get the job, do you intend to say something like “when you pay me money, I spend it, and that benefits everybody”? If so – that, of course, would be very silly. If not, then I’m afraid I need some enlightenment: Why should our state government get credit for spending money, when individuals don’t?

I think that’s the issue Van Auken was trying to raise. I see you pretty much sidestepped it. That’s probably because you felt the need to.

I should add that today’s letters section carried another letter making the same point as Ms. Doyle’s, but exhibiting an exception to this rule about advocating Keynesian economics in snarky, snotty tones.

Paying for our quality of life

Allow me to answer Cynthia Van Auken’s question of why paying taxes is sometimes more important than spending one’s money as one chooses.

There are things that can’t be bought but instead require the ongoing investment of all of society. The basics include roads, police and fire protection.

Then account for the fact that bad things can happen to good people. If your spouse has a stroke or your child has a disability, do you want there to be programs so that you can work, go shopping and have respite from caregiving? If you get cancer and your insurance doesn’t cover all the bills, should you face bankruptcy and foreclosure? Do you really want the kids down your street to lack quality education and job opportunities, leaving them so hopeless that they’re willing to shoot each other over the color of a jacket?

Government services to address those needs are not charity but investments in our quality of life. We can argue about which investments and how much, but let’s stop pretending that we can have something for nothing. Part of being a responsible citizen means being willing to pay for the quality of life we want.

– Kathy Campbell, Sacramento

However, I have a bone to pick with Ms. Campbell too (although I’ll not further burden my poor local letters-to-editor guy with it today).

I keep seeing the same bullshit used to defend our ravenous state government’s insatiable apetite for money.

Roads.

Schools.

Police & Fire.

Educating our chiiiiilllllddddrrreeeeeennnn…

I’ll not tear into the entrails of our state’s budget to demonstrate how off the mark this is. For one thing, I don’t have a budget I could inspect in such a way just yet! That’s part of the reason, I’m sure, Van Auken wrote her letter in the first place; there are few state-level boondoggles bigger than California’s annual clown-puppet show.

Just take it from this Golden State citizen — take my word for it.

This state spends money on a lot of other things besides schools, roads and fire departments.

The Coolest Thing: Sacrifice

Monday, August 25th, 2008

Jonathan Brink was pretty impressed, last week, with something Sen. Obama had to say about sacrifice.

If we pretend like everything is free and there’s no sacrifice involved, then we are betraying the tradition of America. I think about my grandparents generation, coming out of a depression, fighting world war 2. They’ve confronted some challenges we can’t even imagine. If they were willing to make sacrifices on our behalf, we should be able to make some sacrifices on behalf of the next generation.

And I agree with every single word of what Obama said. That’s what makes Obama’s remarks truly despicable.

You see, in my eyes this is just another example of liberals using words loaded with deep meaning, in such a way that they look like they’re saying something that’s the opposite of what they’re really saying. Notice how I put my response together: I agree with every single word. With the text as written, I have no quarrel; I’d even agree with it. Enthusiastically.

Trouble is, you have to inspect Obama’s behavior to figure out what he really means by this. And with our most popular leftist policies, lately, I can’t help but notice: Just when we’re about to get a payoff for our sacrifices, a payoff that will help the people we intend to be helped when we’re making our sacrifices — that’s exactly the point at which our left-wing politicians lose interest.

I was a little bit more wordy on this point when I replied to Mr. Brink:

The question that comes up with that word “sacrifice” is a divisive one, and is seldom explored: Is sacrifice the point?

It seems people like Barack Obama never directly address this, and from that, it seems like they cannot afford to. T[o]o many rhetorical questions have the potential to expose the platitude as the empty promise it is.

You mention abortion. Would that not be a virtuous sacrifice, if the Supreme Court were to overturn it? Sacrifice the convenience to people who want to exercise this “choice”…for the sake of the future generation being allowed to live, and have opportunities. That might be the best example possible. But Obama says it’s above his pay grade. How about affirmative action with quotas in hiring and college admissions? Sacrifice grudges and personal crusades for tit-for-tat nonsense…to finally realize this equality everyone says they’ve been wanting for decades, and really make racism a thing of the past, at least, institutionalized racism.

How about sacrificing the global warming campaign? Sacrifice millions of dollars to be made by Al Gore and other holders of stock in fraudulent carbon-exchange mercantiles…so that the future generations can realize their opportunities in full, and the message can be sent to other countries that they need to stop being jealous of America’s prosperity. Or…sacrifice that guy who raped and killed little kids, to make sure he can’t ever do it again. We used to call it executions, we could just call them sacrifices.

I could go on like this all day.

The point is — it seems with people like Barry O, whenever there’s a real payoff to the sacrifice that would be meaningful, and precious to the people who would be in a position to benefit from it, inevitably, that is the point where they stop believing in it. And that leads me to my conclusion: The sacrifice is the point. They don’t want an exchange of lesser-for-greater. They just want pain.

Last month, I droned on about this for quite some time, exploring how this fit into the treatise about the virtues of sacrifice, as discussed by John Galt in that dreadful speech of his.

I think liberals like Carl are confused on the concept of sacrifice. There are two definitions to it: There is the outcome-based sacrifice, in which the “sacrifice” itself is just a negligible and unpleasant side effect in the process of upholding what truly matters. The narrower definition, in which the pain is the point, is what John Galt was talking about in that monstrously long speech of his:

Sacrifice is the surrender of value — of a higher value to a lower one, or of the good to the evil.

The code is impossible to practice because it would lead to death, and thus moral perfection is impossible to man.

The Doctrine of Sacrifice cannot provide man with an interest in being good.

Since man is in fact an indivisible unity of matter and consciousness, the sacrifice of “merely” material values necessarily means the sacrifice of spiritual ones.

The self is the mind, and the most selfish act is the exercise of one’s independent judgment. In attacking selfishness, the Doctrine of Sacrifice seeks to make you surrender your mind.

The Doctrine of Sacrifice commands that you act for the good of others but provides no standard of the good. And it requires only that you intend to benefit others, not that you succeed.

The Doctrine of Sacrifice makes you the servant and others your masters –and adds insult to injury by saying you should find happiness through sacrifice.

Somewhere in there Galt made a mention of the mother who went without eating so that her infant could eat; that would not be a sacrifice, according to Galt who was using the pain-based definition of “sacrifice.” That mother would be upholding an ideal important to her system of values, simply paying a price necessary to acquire it. Sacrifice, Galt said, would have been giving up her child for the sake of something not important to her…That is what is meant by surrender “of a higher value to a lower one.” It entails a net loss, because the pain is the point of the exercise.
:
This is why [liberal] ideas are unfit for implementation in the real world. Out here, if you have a job to do, and you get it done but it didn’t cause you pain, that’s a success. If it was such a painful experience that it injured you, it’s still a failure if you didn’t meet the stated objectives. Reality says it’s all about getting the job done, not what you give up to do it. Our liberals don’t agree. They think, if you’re suitably diminished that you can’t do anything else, and your intentions were noble, then that’s all that matters. Whether the job got done, is just a side bunny-trail to them.

And a couple of weeks later I had applied this to — as an example — the “climate change” issue.

It’s supposed to be all about cause and effect, but nobody ever puts it that way. As in, “if we make these sacrifices the temperature will go up 0.6 degrees over the next fifty years instead of 8.5 degrees and here is why 0.6 degrees will be manageable…”

In fact, nobody comes out and says we’re going to LIVE if we make these sacrifices. They say “we can do this” all the time. It’s the “this”; nobody says what exactly that is.

[Tom] Brokaw speaks for perhaps hundreds of well-known luminaries in his prattle. He doesn’t think “anyone doubts that we have to make some profound changes in this country,” and yet he has to throw out his meaningless bromides about self-sacrifice four times. Why repeat it four times if everyone already understands this is the case?

Getting back to Obama’s verbiage: It is powerful. His voting record has very little potential to win converts to his side, especially from the conservative bloc — this is where he makes up for it. Our country is filled with folks who nurture and labor to reinforce traditional values, and we are sick to death of the overly-materialistic, narcissistic, borderline-hedonistic culture that threatens to consume all of us. Obama mixes his honeyed words with bile, and it sounds like when he talks about “sacrifice” he’s talking about caring for each other instead of for ourselves.

He never actually comes out and says that, though; it isn’t what he means. When he talks about “sacrifice” he’s talking about that narrower, pain-based definition. The one that has to do with getting rid of ourselves, and the things upon which we place priority. About working ourselves into a state of non-existence. He doesn’t really want us to do what people of our grandparents’ generation did. That would be: identifying evil; saying to oneself “dammit there’s gotta be something I can do about this!”; marching down to the recruiter’s office; shipping out to Iraq, and killing as many evil people as possible, until our country won the war. That is what our grandfathers did. And Obama will have none of it.

No, he means what Tom Brokaw meant about climate change. FORGET the goal. Just coming together as part of a crowd, forgetting about your hopes and dreams as an individual. Report to your post and await your orders; leave it to your village elders to define what is important to you.

It is these two definitions of sacrifice that are critical to the method by which Obama seeks to confuse. There is sacrifice for an ideal, in which a commodity representing a lesser value is given up in exchange for a commodity representing a greater value. I throw out a disc in my back to pry a car off my girlfriend or my son, so they can live. I take a bullet for someone.

And then there is sacrifice of the ideals. The sacrifice not only of body, but of mind as well. The sacrifice that brings a human being, as a guardian of objectives and principles, to an inglorious end. That, it has been shown, is what Obama really has in mind when he talks about sacrificing “on behalf of the next generation.”

This is proven, easily. Let’s put a proposal on the table that all spending in the federal government be brought down, across the board, to 1985 levels. Just find a way to get along with that. Sacrifice! For the children. After all, we don’t want the next generation to inherit a government chock full of debt they’ll have to pay. If you take Obama’s comments at face value, he’d be all in favor of that wouldn’t he? Surely, he’d have to be?

But no; that inference is far too logical. He means the opposite. When he talks about sacrifice, he’s talking about increasing taxes.

Too many among us throw around that word “sacrifice” — not as the exchange of a lower value for a higher one, but rather, as the forceful expulsion of individuality. What the rest of us need to keep in mind, is that for them, this isn’t a sacrifice at all. Individuality carries with it some heady personal responsibilities, and a lot of us aren’t in any hurry to take them on. The conundrum they face is that in order to expurgate individuality from their own lives, they have to do the same for everyone else.

And with Obama now the presumptive nominee, that’s become one of the most central issues to the election this year…sadly enough. Obama’s hope is that most of the voters will never figure this out, and he has reason to maintain high hopes.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Kobe

Monday, August 18th, 2008

Movie critic Pauline Kael is often quoted as saying something along the lines of “I don’t understand how Nixon won [in 1972]; nobody I know voted for him.” That quote seems to be apocryphal. Perhaps this one is better sourced somewhere:

I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.

Whether she said anything of this variety or not, the point is still there — it’s called the false consensus effect, and what it means is that you’ve been cloistering yourself without realizing it. Labor too long and too hard at chasing the next Hot New TrendTM, intermingle with a bit too much energy and dedication with your own Circle Of TrustTM, and gradually alienate yourself from whoever might be outside that crowd; pretty soon, you’ll become an expert on what everybody thinks, and you’ll be chronically wrong.

This, it would appear, is now an affliction suffered by Chris Collinswood of NBC (video at Ms. Underestimated, H/T to Karol), and manifested when he questioned Kobe Bryant about how it feels to be part of Team USA.

Collinsworth: Where does the patriotism come from inside of you? Historically, what is it?

Kobe: Well, you know it’s just our country, it’s…we believe is the greatest country in the world. It has given us so many great opportunities, and it’s just a sense of pride that you have; that you say “You know what? Our country is the best!”

Collinsworth: Is that a “cool” thing to say, in this day and age? That you love your country, and that you’re fighting for the red, white and blue? It seems sort of like a day gone by.

Kobe: No, it’s a cool thing for me to say. I feel great about it, and I’m not ashamed to say it. I mean, this is a tremendous honor.

I’m still mulling over a challenge posed by sf4 to come up with my own “comprehensive platform” defining conservatism as I see it. This one is definitely going in. I might call it the Collinswood Plank of conservatism: Yes, the United States is a great country, not in some liberal politician’s Utopian vision, but as you see it right now, in the moment in which you’re reading this sentence; and yes, it is very cool to think so.

That, and it’s up to the individual to decide what’s “cool.” We do not decide what is cool as part of a crowd. We use the brains the good Lord gave us, to figure out what’s right, and then we stand up for it.

I suspect the liberals would agree that this is emblematic of conservatism — as they usually do, by mumbling smart-ass comments, as opposed to coming up with meaningless examples purporting to express the opposite. And, I suppose further that the liberals would agree they are dedicated to the opposite — as they usually do, by changing the subject rather than debating the point. If I’m correct on all counts, I would advise the McCain campaign not to wait for my platform to emerge. They should campaign on this right freakin’ now. Let’s have an election about whether the United States is a great country or not. Make it about whether, when you happen to be in another country, you should be holding your head high as an American, or moping around, staring at your own shoes.

Vote for Obama if you think we should be ashamed.