Archive for the ‘Poisoning Capitalism’ Category

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.

“I Don’t Want Michigan To Die. It’s Home.”

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008

Dr. Melissa Clouthier’s requiem for her home state of Michigan. Fire it up the flatscreen tonight, folks. Commit it to memory, just like Washington’s Farewell Address. Live it, learn it, love it.

When I moved to Detroit seventeen years ago, I was struck by this weird succotash of concrete jungle urban decay, and the beauty of neo-colonial classic architecture that began with the suburbs, on or about 16 Mi. Road. I had never seen anything like it. And half a year later, the following summer, was the first time (software developer, remember?) I really stepped out of the office for any length of time. Drove ol’ Bessie up and around the “mitten,” saw Batman II, spent the night with an eccentric but beautiful young barmaid in Cheboygan, jetted over from there to Sault Ste. Marie, and just really did all the the partying I should’ve been doing in the half-year leading up to that. Ah, it was really all the sightseeing I would do in that area for the entire year I lived there. And I still have regrets about that. I regret not taking a camera. Lots of young-mans’ indiscretions, committed within hours of each other.

Great googly moogly, what a beautiful country.

Geographical locations are just like women. I don’t know if it’s politically incorrect to say that now…I suspect it is…but I don’t give a good goddamn, it’s true. Ranking them is quite useless. They’re all special. If I had my life to live over again, it would be missing something if I didn’t swing by Yreka, CA, Portland, OR, Kirkland, WA, Coure d’Laine, ID, Fargo, ND, and on and on and on…and Cheboygan, MI. No, not because of the barmaid. She was quite a good looker, but my real memories (aw gee, I hope to hell she’s not reading this) are of those three hundred miles plus-or-minus of lush greenery. Wonderful, wonderful place. I hope to go back there again someday.

I digress.

The real lesson has to do with liberal policies destroying places. I saw it in the winter of ’91 to ’92, the coldest one Detroit saw in some 25 years at the time. Back then, the state was conservative (Engler) but the city was liberal and corrupt as all holy hell (Young).

It was bad. Heap big bad. But the badness started on 8 Mi. Road back then, and headed south. If you were on foot and darkness was falling, it might’ve been a good idea to be somewhere north of 12 Mi. Road by the time the sun set. But anyway, I guess it got worse than that since then.

It didn’t have to be this way. Egregious taxation results in disastrous economic consequences. There’s no avoiding it. The Wall Street Journal summed things up nicely (go read the whole thing to get a perspective of how taxes can kill a state):

The tax hikes have done nothing but accelerate the departures of families and businesses. Michigan ranks fourth of the 50 states in declining home values, and these days about two families leave for every family that moves in. Making matters worse is that property taxes are continuing to rise by the rate of overall inflation, while home values fall. Michigan natives grumble that the only reason more people aren’t blazing a path out of the state is they can’t sell their homes. Research by former Comerica economist David Littmann finds that about the only industry still growing in Michigan is government. Ms. Granholm’s $44.8 billion budget this year further fattened agency payrolls.

Michigan’s unemployment rate as of June was 8.5%. It will get worse as GM makes more cuts.

And that’s another thing: the Democrats, for all their lovey lovey talk seem to not understand that high gas prices brutalize the families they ostensibly care about so much. With high gas prices, just getting to work is an issue because money is already tight. Democrats, Obama leading them, seem to think that another industry bailout by the government (taking more money from taxpayers) will solve this problem, but it just creates more of the same. Then, high gas prices change consumer behavior–i.e. they buy smaller vehicles. Plants making bigger vehicles close. The guys working at those assembly plants, the guys working at sub-contractors manufacturing parts for the plants, and the smaller businesses that supply parts for the parts, fold. Jobs are lost. And when jobs are lost, taxes aren’t paid. And then the government services can’t be sustained just when people need them the most. Here’s what the Heritage Foundation found:

Analysts at The Heritage Foundation recently examined how going from $3 and $4 retail to $5 and $6 retail per gallon of gasoline would affect the U.S. economy. If prices continue to rise at an accelerated pace over the course of a year:

Total employment would decrease by 586,000 jobs, Disposable personal income would decrease by $532 billion, Personal consumption expenditure would decrease by $400 billion, and Personal savings would be spent to help pay the cost.

The contrast couldn’t have been greater in Michigan: gorgeous landscape, bereft of people. Again, I am reminded of Upstate New York, where the death occurred fifteen years ago. The Finger Lakes region possesses the striking loveliness that characterizes Michigan. And yet, these once vibrant areas are devoid of industry and the people who fuel it.

Well, now.

At least we’re making these rich, greedy, evil businesses pay for what they’re doing to these poor people, right? By that, I mean, those awful things businesses do to people. *cough* Give ’em jobs *cough*

That is, after we blame all the suffering poor people do, on those businesses.

Still waiting for someone to explain to me, how jobs are made, and how products are brought to the market with lower price tags, by means of artificial barriers that make it artificially more expensive to do those things. How capitalism is made more painless, after it’s been mucked with by people who just want to make the process more difficult for all concerned. How’s that work again?

I have been waiting a very long time for that explanation, but I’m a patient man.

Memo For File LXXIII

Friday, August 1st, 2008

I’ve come to be aware of something: There are three different grades of bullshit, each one distinctly different from the other two, both in substance and in purpose. There could be more than three, but a quality personal awareness of just those three would be useful in detecting it. If you think in simpler terms of “bullshit” and “not bullshit,” it is far easier to get snookered by it.

The background is this: I was having a debate with one of the characters over at Cassy’s place during my guest-blogging stint, which is still ongoing until sometime Sunday…and during the debate, we began to wander into the overarching theme of whether private industry exists because of government, or is it the other way around. People keep questioning me about why I do this with these people. It’s not like an obsessive-compulsive disorder or an addiction; contrary to belief, I really am trying to learn something about what makes them tick.

It’s more complicated than it looks. I’ve been arguing on the innernets for over twenty years now, and I’m still learning things. This last epiphany is more practical and useful than most.

First, another few words about bullshit. About three years ago I bought H. G. Frankfurt’s three thousand word hardcover book (yes, you read that right) On Bullshit, in which the following profound point is made:

What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to.

This is the crux of the distinction between him and the liar…A [liar is] responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it…For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

So in the bullshitter, we have this sense of apathy about what the truth really is — which is missing altogether from the liar who must know what the truth is so he can misrepresent it.

There is something insidious about the kind of bullshit we’ve been enduring lately, I notice. It has evolved to become sufficiently sophisticated to bullshit people in the twenty-first century. We need to learn about how that works, so that we can fight this new-grade bullshit when it engulfs us. And engulf us it does; often. Without this edification, you don’t really have a mechanism for deflecting bullshit when it comes to consume you, apart from the purely Victorian-era method of cataloging your acquaintances according to whether they’ve been known to bullshit you or not. That’s a nineteenth-century technique that simply isn’t going to work now.

In March of last year, I noted,

People are presented with a premise A. A is proven by B. Global Warming is proven by “Day After Tomorrow,” or President Bush called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper” because some crappy tabloid says he said it. In cases like this, B is widely acknowledged to be bullshit. Even people who desperately want to believe A, understand B is bullshit.

And yet, they believe in A more fervently with B, than without B.

Stating the reasons why they believe A, they cite B, which they know to be bullshit…this trend lately of reinforcing assumptions that may or may not be true, based on pieces of evidence known to be rancid crap and nothing more — with a straight face no less — is a harbinger of bad times ahead.

Prophetic, no?

So there’s a sultry and subtle seductive quality to the results of this exercise of mixing different grades of bullshit together. This is a sort of epoxy bullshit, if you will. The mixture has a more powerful bond than either of the component agents in isolation. What has merit, is blended together with what lacks it.

You see it in the comments of “Baz,” my sparring partner…

The job stability created by unions enabled mortgages to come into existence. The interstate highway system encouraged car-buying and promoted tourism. The Internet spawned whole segments of the economy. The GI Bill made it possible for many families to have their first college graduate, with all the economic benefits that go with it. Investors demand the safety that government-regulated economies provide. When a government collapses, money is the first thing to flee the borders. Why is there no investment in Mexico? Weak government.

Here are your two grades of bullshit. You have sub-bullshit, which isn’t bullshit at all, it’s absolutely true. Mexico has a weak economy, because Mexico’s government is corrupt. There is a slight skewing of the facts here, sort of a sleight-of-hand. As far as I know, nobody in a position of knowledge is asserting Mexico’s government to be particularly lax. It’s just dirty.

That’s something of a miniscule and insignificant distinction, since Baz’s argument is essentially utopian. Governments should be benevolent, strong and meddling. His vision incorporates all of these things, and I would agree that all three of those attributes would have to be present in any situation that honestly tests his theory.

And then this sub-bullshit is paired up with opti-bullshit, which is the bullshit that is supposed to be carried around and gossipped. Eventually, it will be sold via argumentum ad populum fallacy — everyone believes it, so it must be so. Mexico’s corrupt government is injurious to foreign investments…therefore…an economy rises and falls based on the strength of a country’s government. And here we have our epoxy effect — the mixture of these two layers of bullshit, is much more salable than either one of those layers by itself. It would be silly to contest this by advancing the notion that Mexico’s government is a good one, and this has an intimidating effect on those who would challenge even more vulnerable parts of the argument. Like, for example, that the mortgage owes its existence to labor unions.

This is what we see with global warming. Sub-bullshit, bullshit that exists as bullshit to sell other pieces of bullshit, but by itself isn’t bullshit at all. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere…carbon dioxide is recognized as a greenhouse gas, and in recent years we have a higher concentration of carbon dioxide; human activity contributes to this. All of these things are measurable. From that, we have — human activity is about to push us past a point of no return, and the world will become incapable of supporting life as we know it. That’s silly and absurd. If you can’t bring yourself to dismiss it, you’d certainly have to permit a challenge to it. But the human tendency is to evaluate challenges to this complex argument, as challenges to the single strand of the argument that is most durable.

“Are you denying there is such a thing as global warming?” How many times have you heard that.

But there is a third component to this, the supra-bullshit. This is what I saw Keith Olbermann pumping out tonight as he was giving his softball interview to Paul Krugman. My goodness, the things I learned from that.

– Our high national gas price average is the direct result of “two oilmen in the White House,” and we really should’ve seen it coming.
– All these other countries are years ahead of us; they’re already driving around in cars powered by sugar cane.
– Vice President Cheney is the “Worst Person in the World” because he doesn’t care when people get killed.

As I watched this drivel pour out of the boob tube, it slowly dawned on me what Olbermann’s position is in all this bullshit we’re being sold. He and Paul Krugman bring to the table this third layer of bullshit, which is more important to the process than those other two.

Quoting myself from summer of ’06

We indulge in “modest” bullshit about why we were late for work; why we aren’t wearing the sweater Grandma gave us for Christmas; that our wives’ asses aren’t fat; being from the Government and being here to help you; that the check is in the mail. But on the subject of dangerous international criminals who would give their very lives to take a few of us down, and on the unrelated subject of good-lookin’ young women in skimpy clothes, logic takes a complete, pure, undiluted, five-star don’t-even-page-me holiday. “Modest” bullshit, on those two subjects, isn’t good enough for us. We wade in neck-deep into triple-A grade, twenty-four-karat, 99+44/100 percent pure platinum bullshit. We use this high-grade quality bullshit, it seems, on no other subject save for those two…and on those two subjects, we haul it out with a reliability and with a punctuality we display nowhere else.

To the list of terrorists and girls in tiny outfits, we should add the subject of our oil men in the White House driving up gas prices.

The job of the supra-bullshit is to be this platinum bullshit; it is there to be doubted. It is there to fail the sale.

It’s exactly like negotiating a salary increase with your boss. You walk into his office wanting a ten percent increase, knowing he wants to give you a four percent increase that will barely keep pace with inflation. The boss is probably expecting to give you a six percent increase anyway, so if you walk in asking ten, six is probably what you’re going to get. So here is what you do: You ask for a twenty-five percent increase you know you’re not going to get. He’ll say no, and demonstrate by his counter-offer just how ludicrous you’re being…seven is as high as he can go. Well hey, you’re not that tough, you could settle for fifteen. And he says aw, shucks, maybe nine. Maybe at this point you bring up another company that has been interested in your talents lately. The negotiations proceed from there.

And that’s all it is, is negotiating.

That’s exactly what the bullshitters are doing with us. You have your sub-bullshit, your opti-bullshit and your supra-bullshit. We get snookered by this blend time and time again, because we have a tendency to say: I know the sub-bullshit is true; I do not agree with the supra-bullshit, but compared to that the opti-bullshit is believable. And so we believe the opti-bullshit, the bullshit calibrated to the optimum degree of self-reproduction. We will repeat the opti-bullshit to people we know. And if anyone dares challenge it, we will treat the challenge as a challenge to the sub-bullshit. Anytime the sub-bullshit is demonstrated to be true, which it will be, we will take that as further proof of the opti-bullshit, and become more convinced of the validity of the opti-bullshit…which we haven’t even tested, or observed anyone else testing.

Through it all, we will think of ourselves as critical, skeptical thinkers simply because we’re showing some ornamental reluctance to agree with the Olbermann brand of supra-bullshit.

“I do not agree that we’re going to lose the oceans in ten years…but…it seems to me there’s definitely global warming going on and that humans are causing it, and if we don’t bring our excesses in check we’ll pass a point of no return.” Good, smart, reasonable, and even critically-thinking people say that every single day. Every single one of them is a convert to the cause, and the poor bastards don’t even know it. I mean, read that aloud as one sentence. Listen to how reasonable it sounds! It certainly comes off sounding responsible. But it isn’t either one. You’re saying humans are about to irreversibly alter the climate of the planet. George Carlin’s monologue makes much more sense.

The moral of the story is what I said at the beginning. You can’t protect yourself from bullshit if you don’t recognize it. You have to know enough to break it down into its component parts, the sub-bullshit, the opti-bullshit and the supra-bullshit.

As a chain, an argument is as strong as its weakest link, not its strongest one. We are not inclined to evaluate complex arguments that way. We tend to treat complex arguments, all complex arguments, even complex arguments to which we’re not necessarily endeared, as sacred cows. We tend to become more hostile to honest challenges to the idea, than to the idea itself. There is no intellectually sound reason for us to behave this way.

Thing I Know #121. One verifiable fact can sell a whole package of unlikely speculation. One appealing opinion can sell a whole package of outright falsehood.

Cross-posted at Cassy’s.

Becky on Corporate Income Tax

Saturday, July 19th, 2008

Becky, the Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Stuff, is making sense today.

We’ll keep watching for her to stop making sense. She’s fun to watch.

Becky Makes Sense TodayThe United States corporate tax rate, at 35% (40% when state corporate taxes are factored in), is the second highest in the world. The “socialist” countries of Europe not only have lower corporate tax rates, but they only tax the income earned by the corporation within their country. This is why Anheuser-Busch is now a citizen of the European Union, and one of the reasons the Euro is worth sixty percent more than the dollar.
:
In a perfect world there would not even be a corporate income tax. This is money that is taxed twice, and only causes increased costs to consumers and lower wages. There is no logical reason why corporations are taxed. When they pay out the money earned, either in the form of dividends to shareholders, interest to bondholders, or as wages—including the grotesque salaries that some CEO’s get, the money is taxed. There is no rational reason for taxing it twice.

Other than the government’s insatiable appetite for money, the only reason corporations are taxed is the populist-socialist idea that corporations are evil and all their money is ill begotten gains. So it feels good for people, who are struggling or parlor room Marxists, to strike out at these organizations, even if economically it makes no sense at all. [emphasis mine]

Like a breath of fresh air, isn’t it? Real capital-L Libertarianism. If we’re beating up on each other just for the sake of beating up on each other, let’s stop doing it for a year or two and see what happens.

That, my friends, is what Libertarianism is.

Sadly, in 2008 it has more popularly devolved into a small-l libertarian squishy, oozy mess. I would describe the more popular definition of libertarianism as something like this: “If a law is enforced against you and you don’t like it, do a lot of complaining about your ‘civil liberties’ being violated, add “Can I Get An Amen Here’ and if enough populist mob whores join you then we can grab some headlines.” Nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with mob rule and anarchy.

“Unconstitutional” means “I personally don’t like it.” Nothing whatsoever to do with whether there’s something in The Constitution proscribing against what you’re talking about. To throw around the “unconstitutional” word doesn’t even mean to make a promise, express or implied, that you’ve skimmed through the damn thing.

But this is good. She makes sense here. And I can’t help but wonder what her feminist friends think about her viewpoint on this.

Benefits and Opportunity

Wednesday, July 16th, 2008

The benefits they have won, are costing them the opportunity.

And among those who now enjoy the opportunity, many of them find they don’t want it.

I’m sure feminism will attend to these flaws in the movement, in the usual manner: By excoriating and stigmatizing anybody who dares to mention them.

Waters Backpedals

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

LAME:

In speaking to oil company executives at a May 22 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Waters tried to hold her tongue but nonetheless said: “This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh … would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.”
:
But Michael Levin, communications director for Waters, told Cybercast News Service on Friday that Waters did not mean what she said.

“It was one comment in a long hearing, and it has continued to have a life of its own in the blogosphere,” he said. “It was not her intention to announce a big policy proposal. It’s not a developed policy proposal. It was not an intentional statement.”

I wasn’t taking the cookie out of the jar, because you weren’t supposed to catch me doing it.

Thing I Know #230. We’d call them “rationalists” if they thought things through rationally; that’s why they’re called “socialists.”

Consider the following, substituting “democrat” for “burglar” and “socialist” for “encyclopedia salesman.” It holds true and sums things up rather nicely.

Yup, all the way to the end with the salesmen flying out of the window.

Update: I see Phil is still busy with his graphic artistry, and he’s had much the same idea before I had it.

One Question For Our College Kids

Saturday, June 14th, 2008

If I were a perfesser — don’t worry, not gonna happen anytime soon — I would ask my class a single question with the opening of every semester. Maybe again at the close.

It would be a very dangerous question.

I’m looking at Boumediene, and I’m looking at Burge. I’m looking at one of the Things I Know About People Minus What I Was Told When I Was A Child

27. People who make a conscious decision not to offer help or defense to someone who needs it, don’t want anyone else to help or defend that person either.

…and I’m looking at what I had to say about Gerard’s essay a couple of weeks ago:

Twenty-first century American liberalism in a nutshell: That which builds or preserves must, at all costs, be destroyed; that which destroys must, at all costs, be preserved.

I’m looking at things that need defending, that I’m told don’t need defending, and I’m looking at other things I’m told do need defending and there’s something reprehensible and atrocious taking place if those other things aren’t defended.

I’m looking at the defense that is provided to people who are convicted of killing other people. I’m looking at the “defense,” if you can call it that, of those people who have already been killed, and who cry out for justice from beyond the grave. The defense provided to the ones who did the butchering, always seems to be more energized. There’s a steep differential there, and it seems the people in authority — those who were provided this privileged “education” a generation or two ago — are the ones who say we should keep that steep differential in place. Without coming out and saying so. Without even admitting it to themselves.

Funny. I’d have presumed when you’ve been afforded the benefits of an expensive education, the very first thing you would’ve learned is the meaning of the words coming out of your mouth.

I see how politicians pledge to fight terrorists, and I see how they pledge to fight each other. They’ve prevailed over each other many times, they’ll prevail over each other many times later on — yet they have not yet prevailed over the terrorists. But the battle to prevail one more time over each other, always seems to be worthy of the greater expense of energy and effort. Battling the terrorists, taking no prisoners, never saying surrender and never saying die…well, these same politicians seem to be caught in an endless-loop of telling me it can’t be done.

So my dangerous question for our Leaders of Tomorrow, that I’d ask, if I could…and I can’t…would be…

What things, in your mind, are worthy of a costly defense? A defense that can be provided only at the expense of something precious. Safety…treasure…limbs…lives.

Not necessarily yours.

But I want specifics. “The Constitution” is too vague. Even “Freedom of Speech” is too vague. Don’t hide behind “the environment” because that’s too vague, too. “Civil liberties?” Try again. That is a cliche that was built to be vague. I want specific items, I want stated consequences, I want well-thought-out cause & effect. Now, tell me what things are worth a real, not merely lip-service, defense.

What, in our society, is so sacred that it justifies a defense involving overwhelming, disproportionate force?

What justifies an exorbitant defense?

What justifies an unreasonable defense?

What justifies a devastating defense? A deadly defense? A defense involving entirely innocent collateral damage?

What justifies a defense that goes beyond mere lip service?

Because I’m looking around, and I see everything our “hip & with-it” leaders want defended and preserved…each thing that they think is worth the sacrifice of something else…each and every one of those things…is something that destroys. Or, it’s something that defends something else that destroys. Or — something that defends something that defends something that, in turn, destroys. The last link in the chain, it seems, is always a destructive agent — if it isn’t, they’re just not that into defending it.

Halfway through Atlas Shrugged there’s an ugly scene in which James Taggart, who’s verbally abusive to his new wife Cherryl on a constant basis, hops over the fence and beats her for the first time. The last thing she said before he struck her with his hand, was the one thing he dedicated his entire life to keeping concealed from everyone, even from himself. He went about the entire thousand pages of the novel, without ever acknowledging this purpose he had to his life. This primary, central purpose — this purpose that took a back seat to none other, even though he couldn’t admit the purpose was there.

The words she said to him, just before being sent sailing across the room by his hand to her chin, were…

Then the headlight she had felt rushing upon her, hit its goal — and she screamed in the bright explosion of the impact — she screamed in physical terror, backing away from him.

“What’s the matter with you?” he cried, shaking, not daring to see in her eyes the thing she had seen.

She moved her hands in groping gestures, half-waving it away, half-trying to grasp it; when she answered, her words did not quite name it, but they were the only words she could find:

You…you’re a killer…for the sake of killing…

It was too close to the unnamed; shaking with terror, he swung out blindly and struck her in the face. [emphasis mine]

And that’s why he had to give her a beat-down. He couldn’t admit this to himself. In fact, at the end of the book when he finally said it out loud himself, (SPOILER: Highlight To Read) his brain melted down and he became a vegetable.

Maybe we’re there. Maybe our leaders of today and tomorrow are destroyers, who do their destroying by carefully avoiding any admittance that this is what they are. The trend, so far as I can see it, holds up: They defend only that which destroys other things. Any other kind of defense is, in Gerard’s parlance, uncool.

We can be such deliberate destroyers without being James Taggarts. Let’s just admit what we are. Much better for your mental health that way.

Imitation is the Sincerest Form XXII

Friday, June 13th, 2008

It has to do with the notion that we can get a better deal out of our industrialists by making it more expensive for them to deal with the rest of us.

Me, quoting me, on the fourteenth of March:

…there’s a prevailing viewpoint that the labor market has become soft for those seeking work; there’s a prevailing viewpoint that this is due to the “outsourcing of jobs” by “big companies”; and there’s a prevailing viewpoint that, to fix this, we need to elect someone who will raise taxes on those companies.

On Tuesday, I directed this concern toward the oil and gas companies. And I allowed myself some optimism that perhaps, just perhaps, our sanity might be recovered sometime this summer.

I mean, how much longer can this go on, where the man in the street is NOT yet saying “waitaminnit…duh…these ‘conservative’ guys, er, that’s a good point. You charge them evil awful oil guys more tax money and this somehow results in me paying a lower price at the pump, how does that work again??”

At some point, that question has to get answered. When enough people are asking about it.

I do not know if cartoonist Michael Ramirez of the Investor’s Business Daily reads my blog. I have always been inclined to presume that nobody, or hardly anybody, does. But then how else do you explain this gem which appeared on Wednesday (of which we learn by way of fellow Webloggin contributor Absurd Report)?

I’ve been robbed, but I’m not calling the police. I’m quite flattered.

Former President Carter, of all the deeply disturbed individuals of whom I’ve come to be aware, stands alone as the one that most deeply disturbs me. Consider the following:

We fired him.

His personality was just fine by us. After four years of his policies, we figured out the resulting wreckage was too high a price to pay for a toothy grin and appealing personality.

Upon being fired, Carter did not say (nor did any of his few remaining fans, to the best I can recall) you’ll be sorry you dirty rotten so-and-sos. Or…I respect your right to vote for the wrong guy and look forward to the day you finally see the error of your ways.

He hasn’t said anything like that since.

When he talks about how wonderful his policies are, he doesn’t; he simply drones on about how miserable other peoples’ policies are. He says we “need” to talk to our enemies but he doesn’t discuss what the benefits are of doing this. He just rambles on about how we should be doing it.

In other words — neither he, nor those who see things from his point of view, will belly up to the bar and proffer an argument that his policies are good. That they will serve our interests. And they certainly won’t proceed from there to explaining, in step by step fashion, exactly how and why these policies would result in the things we say we want.

He talks us into our destruction and he seems to intend to. He doesn’t admit this is what he’s all about — but he doesn’t put forth even some token, ritualistic steps toward pretending anything else.

And to the best I can see, everyone in our country who likes him, was born after he got fired.

But forget about Carter. From what I’ve observed, whenever he earns the title of “dignified elder statesman” by re-defining it to mean some old buzzard who can’t shut up — his topic is foreign policy. There may be some news somewhere of his signing on to this nonsense about “bring the gas prices down by taxing the snot out of the people who make it.” I wouldn’t be surprised. My knowledge base says, his visible support for this took place mostly when he was in charge. He serves here, not as just another loudmouthed pundit, but as something far more valuable — a historical anecdote.

This is an interesting discussion my girlfriend is having with her mother fairly often lately. Throughout most of recent history, America has had a Republican President and a democrat Congress. During that time, our economic performance has been disappointing much more often than it has been pleasing. How do we evaluate what’s going on when the economy disappoints, with a Republican President and a democrat Congress?

Our democrats like to point to this bill being passed and that bill being vetoed, and war, war, war. But there’s this budget being passed every single year. Through the line-item veto, the White House has sought to have some say in that thing, and been denied. This is not part of the executive power, the Supreme Court said. This would transgress on “separation of powers.”

Okay, so the government’s budget is not what the President does. So when the government’s budget pisses in it’s own boot…we look to Congress when it’s time to point fingers, right?

Congress also decides things that relate directly to gas prices. Like the above-mentioned taxes. And, of course, the drilling. No, no, no, no, no, says Congress! You can’t drill there! There’s some crapglobbler penguin that might be endangered, and then the knobchogging mango shrimp is gonna get an upset tummy from the derrick booms, and the this or that other silly thing is “pristine.” Can’t do it. Gotta keep buying barrels from Osama bin Laden. Alrighty then. Bush the frat boy President had six years to mess up our gas prices, and all of the tightening and ratcheting he was able to pull off, was up to somewhere around $2.50 a gallon. That’s a pretty lackluster job of trying to screw us over, George Bush the fratboy President.

No, to really unleash his potential and mess things up, he needed a Jimmy Carter Congress. Hello, four-dollar-a-gallon gas! Five-dollars, we’re coming! Shouldn’t be long! And it’s easy to explain why. Drilling and not drilling…supply and demand…taxes.

The Jimmy Carter Congress, as it is explained in Ramirez’ cartoon, wants to fix things again by doing things the way they’ve been doing them to bollux them all up. We’ll show you, you greedy sunzabitches, we’ll lay down a windfall profits tax.

Now that Ramirez has put my idea into pictorial form, I’m less inclined than ever before to back down from it. At some point the gas consumer has to ask the question I said he’d be asking. I save money…when you guys make it more expensive for people to sell the product to me…how?

And it’s going to be frustrating trying to get an answer. Because nobody, least of all the people backing that plan, is alleging that a lower per-gallon gas price is what is supposed to happen.

And among we who lived through Carter’s four-year winter, it’s understood that this is an assertion upon which we should insist, before the discussion proceeds any further.

While you’re waiting — have you signed Newt’s petition yet?

D’JEver Notice? VI

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

Me quoting me, on March 21st:

The liberal has a proposal. He looks around and sees that we are living in an antagonistic relationship with each other; his proposed idea would put us into a symbiotic one. You spew carbon and are therefore killing the planet. You are keeping the money you make and are denying it to “needed social programs.” You aren’t paying enough tax on your income; your purchases; your gasoline; your tolls. You are killing the Iraqis. You are poisoning the caribou. The oil companies, in turn, are poisoning you. And if you have a gun, it’s just a matter of time before you shoot me with it.

The conservatives are putting out the message that we are already living in a symbiotic relationship. I breathe out and I spew my carbon, it’s a wonderful thing because the trees and plants need the carbon for photosynthesis. Notice that science, on this point, sides with the conservatives. The oil companies supply the gasoline I need to get to work, earn my money and live my life. Hard facts and evidence, here again, side with the conservatives. Furthermore, if the taxes are raised we’re just going to buy less stuff…and if the taxes are raised on the oil companies, they’ll just pass that on to the consumer. Once again: Economic science and historical evidence side with the conservatives.

The liberal says, enact my proposal and we’ll enter into a symbiotic relationship. Next week, the liberal will have another proposal, and offer the same pitch — he won’t admit the last proposal failed to get us into this symbiotic relationship. He won’t offer to roll back this previous failed proposal. To our discredit, nobody will call on him to do so…

The conservative says we’re already in the symbiotic relationship. You are good for me. I am good for you. We can all go on doing exactly what we’re doing. The only thing we should really change is to get those damn liberals to stop voting.

Phil Bond of Elk Grove, writing a letter to the Sacramento Bee which appeared this morning:

This fall, voters can choose whether our goals in the Mideast are better served by keeping our troops in Iraq or withdrawing them. But more important, we can choose whether we want four more years of a failed Republican economy, or whether we want Democrats to reverse its course.

Is our economy better or worse than it was seven years ago? Most would say worse. Crude oil futures, for example, are now more than four times higher than they were at the beginning of the Iraq war (2003).

The Republican economy is marked by the following mistaken beliefs:
• War is good.
• Wealth trickles down.
• The free market will take care of itself.
• Business regulation is bad.
• Consumer protection is unnecessary.
• The wealthy deserve tax relief.
• Health care is for those who can afford it.
• The working men and women of America are chumps.

With a Democrat in the White House, and with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, our economy can turn around. We can go from our current record national debt to a more manageable deficit, or maybe even a modest surplus.

The failed Republican economy must be replaced by one that works for all of us. [emphasis mine]

Must be a bitch when Howard Dean’s checks don’t clear, huh Phil? I notice you left the relevant question unasked: When did our economy do a better job of sucking, between seven and two years ago, or between two years ago and now? I mean, that just bubbles up to the top of my cranium when I hear things like “democrat in the White House…filibuster-proof democrat majority in Congress.”

Dude. Gas is up to over four a gallon, plus a good deal more in some parts. You’re making me think of…like…seven eight nine ten. A permanent ceramic plate riveted in place over the 48 states to keep anyone from drilling anywhere, a hundred and ten percent profit tax on anyone who thinks of making any money off oil, and a carbon sin tax to help regulate us little peons into the “correct” behavior.

Is that not the way it works with democrats in charge? If not, then when does this wonderful Nancy Pelosi Marc Foley Congress bring down the gas bill? Ah yes…they aren’t running enough stuff yet. That’s why they suck so much. We need to let them make more bad decisions, then everything will be all wonderful.

Ah, but those words I’ve put in bold, are the ones I think deserve special emphasis: Works for all of us. ALL of us. I’m thinking back on that symbiotic relationship, the one believed-in only by our conservatives…or our conservatives and our moderates, rather.

Our liberals don’t believe in it.

Phil Bond just got done bashing big huge chunks of this “all of us.” The “wealthy,” “those who can afford” health care, Republicans who’ve been running this “failed economy” (especially after the democrats got in to help them run it, which is when it really seems to me to have gone in the crapper, but anyway…). Big oil companies, Republicans, wealthy people — they all need to be taken down a peg in this economy that “works for all of us.” I’m having an Inigo Montoya moment with Mr. Bond on this “all of us” thing. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

Me quoting me, commenting on Rick’s blog (hours before I learned of Phil Bond’s screed in the letters section):

When liberals use the word “everyone” they never mean it. If [the] roar of a motorcycle or boat engine is music to your ears, and your interest is captured when you hear about a new barbeque sauce recipe, you probably don’t exist to them.

In spite of that clear difference — conservatives think we’re already living in a symbiotic relationship, liberals don’t — it still flummoxes and bedazzles me that the liberals I know, who are approachable and genuinely willing to debate things in good faith do see symbiosis as a noble ideal. These, I think, are the good-hearted people being bamboozled by the career politicians and public-relations hacks.

Your democrat-voting guy-in-the-street, so far as I can tell, wants everybody to live in harmony, with common interests.

But he’s everlastingly married to the idea that it simply can’t happen. He says a lot of words to the effect that he’ll always believe it’s possible no matter how discouraging things get. But his actions are the exact opposite. He continues to be shown, year after year, that we are living in a symbiotic relationship with each other — business owners and employees, men and women, blacks and whites, oil providers and oil consumers.

And he refuses to see it. He’ll pick a solution to our problems, either through multiple-choice, cheer-this-guy-boo-that-guy — or, he’ll put a solution into his own words. Through it all, there’s always a whole class of bad people, who need to be bashed.

Very often, how this helps someone is left unstated — the stated part, is what injures someone else. We’re going to regulate and tax those oil companies………yeah? And? Well, that’ll be good for everyone else. Don’t ask me why. You shouldn’t wonder. It should just be assumed.

He’ll insist this is in service of a society, or economy, or brand new zeitgeist, that will serve the interests of “all of us.” But all doesn’t mean all. It means the opposite. Logical opposite, not numeric opposite — not “none of us.” I mean, “not all.” The guarantee is that there will be a defined subclass of persons who, by design, are injured. It is an exclusive club of people who are serviced by this new economy; there are membership restrictions involved. THAT is what they mean by “all.”

Why Talk Radio is Racist

Monday, June 9th, 2008

Via Boortz, an interesting observation of an annual gathering of talk radio hosts. There’s some big money in talk radio, but if you think that translates to the players having a good understanding of and respect for market forces…well…your thinking would appear to be in need of a re-think.

The Lighthouse Theater on Manhattan’s upper east side was jammed packed Saturday afternoon for what Talkers magazine’s founder Michael Harrison billed as “the most important session” of the annual gathering of talk show hosts from across the nation.
:
By my estimation there was one conservative, one center-left moderate, and four liberals on the panel. The task was simple: to engage in a discussion of ideas as to how non-dominant voices could be used in the medium of talk radio today.
:
When [Jesse Lee] Peterson invoked that name of [Al] Sharpton and later Jesse Jackson he irritated the remaining two panelists Charles Ethridge a weekend co-host on New York’s KISS-FM, and Coz Carlson WWRL’s morning host also based in New York. Immediately the scene turned into five on one.

Immediately Mr. Ethridge claimed “racism” in the agencies that “buy” black owned stations, and what they are willing to spend as compared to “white” stations. Claiming that the “system” allowed stations who performed better in the ratings to only “earn” .92 for the “earnings” of 1.27 for “white” stations.

Once the panel considers what exactly is to be done about this racism, it gets even more interesting.

Getting It Good and Hard

Sunday, June 8th, 2008

George F. Will opines some more, this time about gas prices. And the villain he finds, is a rather interesting one. He’s mediocre some of the time, good much more of the time, and excellent occasionally. This one’s excellent.

“Democracy,” said H.L. Mencken, “is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” The common people of New York want [Charles] Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.
:
Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR’s oil in the ground, and who voted to put 85 percent of America’s offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — 10 times the oil and 20 times the natural gas Americans use in a year.

Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.

ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware) and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington’s Dulles Airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent — that is one-thousandth of 1 percent — has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore — and a thriving commercial fishing industry.
:
America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.

On an only slightly related topic, birds are building nests on the side of my apartment building. They’re up to somewhere around six nests, going bollywonkers over all the humans that are “invading” these nests…simply by opening doors and walking out of them. I bring this up because there are federal and state laws saying we can’t do anything about it. What we can do is sit around with our thumbs up our butts waiting for them to build a few more nests.

That, and George Will’s comments, inspire me to utter my doleful refrain one more time: When does anyone in any position of authority, ever tell the environmental activist to stick it? Can someone name three examples? I can’t think of one.

It would appear a given environment-related situation can disintegrate into ever-descending depths of dysfunctional mess, and it still won’t happen. I’m glad our standard of living is so sky-high we can afford to be held captive by this. That just tells me a fruit is most ripe right before it starts to rot.

Thanks to the environmentalists, I think we’re just about there.

H/T to Boortz for the Will find.

Can’t, Can’t, Can’t, Can’t, Can’t, CAN CAN CAN, Can’t, Can’t, Can’t

Friday, June 6th, 2008

Just had a brain fart on Cassy’s blog and you know, it’s a little bit of a threadjack — kinda. The Obamessiah got all tripped up with his opining, in that cute opining way he has…about whether we’re spinning our wheels in Iraq or not.

My threadjacking comes from my habit of taking a thirty-thousand foot view of this stuff. After all…Iraq isn’t the only thing our democrats say is impossible. I’ve noticed they have a lot of scorn and condescension toward anyone who dares to dream of a day when we’ll have so many violent criminals locked up, that the crime rate drops. They don’t like to hear that. Drilling for oil, over here, and finding some so we don’t have to import so much. Slowing down the sexual hunger of your teenager, especially your teenage daughter — I’m not even talking about keeping her a virgin, just putting a little bit of a damper on things. That’s another thing that brings the bile-snot flowing.

Can’t, can’t, can’t.

There’s a flip-side to that coin. Our liberals think we can do a lot of other things; they insist on it. Negotiating with our enemies is a popular favorite. Tearing down jails. Ain’t that a kicker? To the liberal mind, crime will never, ever, ever drop if we fill up the jails…but if we empty them out, it just might go away. Curing AIDS. Ending poverty. Bringing the carbon content of our atmosphere down to………………some level? Do I even need to argue how silly that one is. The planet is dying, but we can save it by slapping a solar panel on our roof and charging our cell phones with some kind of pedal-power Gilligan-bicycle device.

The liberal mind seems to be stubbornly opposed to the idea that anything can be 30%, 40% or 60% possible. No, it’s all or none. Everything’s either absolutely worth doing, and don’t you dare even suggest it’s beyond our ability or you’re some kind of heretic — or else, anybody who so much as makes a noise or two about trying it, is a damned fool. These are the people who brag about being able to comprehend “shades of gray” in things. When they contemplate what’s possible and what isn’t, gray suddenly disappears. It’s all black-and-white.

So here’s one theory. Among others rattling around in my head…

I’m inclined to believe, against my temptations toward the opposite, that I don’t need to argue how silly it is. I think it’s known. To everyone. I think liberals have just as decent a command of the evidence, and how it brings some objectives into the realm of the possible and easy, and pushes other objectives into the perimeter of mounting difficulty — as anybody else.

I think the agenda they have, is rooted in a personality defect. I say this because the agenda manages to achieve consolidation and coherence, without conspiracy. The communication isn’t needed for the coordination, because it’s a natural syndication among the similarly-handicapped. A conspiracy amongst them, to behave this way, would be needed like you need a conspiracy among hip replacement patients to limp. It’s a natural tendency that arises when something else is missing.

The thing that is missing, is true, productive, determination…stamina…grit. These people are suffering from a phobia against declaring things possible that are actually possible — but challenging. If they can switch these things around, that which is possible & that which is not, they get some sense of security. That means things are declared possible, that are not, and things are declared not-possible, that are. This way, they never have to try.

They say something can’t be done — and it can. If they can prevail, they’ll stop anyone else from trying it, and they don’t have to admit they might have been wrong. But there are some complications; maybe they won’t prevail. If they don’t prevail, and someone goes ahead and does it…that’s a little trickier. But they can just say it was a coincidence. We saw it with the end of the Cold War. Reagan didn’t do it, the Soviet Union just starved naturally, it would’ve happened anyway. Heard that one?

See how easy it is?

Conversely, if something is as realistic as a five-legged unicorn, and they declare it CAN be done, there’s safety in that too. They get their kudos for apparently showing such an impressive resolve. Since they don’t really deserve it, they place a premium value on that. But also, they don’t get nailed on the deception. How could they be? You can’t prove a negative…we’ll just be trapped in an infinite loop. Women — come a long way, but they’re not there yet. How many decades has that been going on? Ethnic minority groups of all kinds — same thing. These are things that can’t really be measured, although you can certainly make a convincing act out of pretending to measure them. And so…the President is a democrat, we’re getting closer, the President is a Republican, we’re getting further away. Who’s to dispute that? It’s so handy.

I think, as I look at all these things democrats tell me ABSOLUTELY can’t be done and these other things that absolutely can be done — the ultimate liberal nightmare, is measurable progress. An ongoing project, transparent, visible to all, at which everyone can look and say “Yup, no doubt about it, that sucker’s 43.6 percent of the way done.” Because the pattern seems to be unbroken, to me: When an objective ends up in the “CAN” column on the liberal-democrat ledger, it’s progress is subject to interpretation, and therefore to spin. Even gun-grabbing. Now that we’ve outlawed guns in City X, how many guns are there? Zero. Whoops, this guy just walked into a building and shot thirty people with a H&K 9mm. Number of guns is still zero. Progress…with things liberals tell us can be done…cannot be measured, or is extraordinarily difficult to measure.

We can measure how much carbon is in the atmosphere, given enough resources. But that’s a special case. You’ll notice, there has been very little discussion of how far down it should be brought.

Drilling stateside…that is always in the “Can’t” column. I dare you to find an exception. There’s the caribou, there’s adorable seal pups, some turd-sucking shrimp has to procreate in the vernal pools, we’re not giving the Indians their due because of some territory boundary dispute…and don’t forget the piddly limits to what lies beneath. There’s always that — it’s a constant. Ten or twenty barrels we’ll pull out, and then it’ll be bone-dry. I know it. I are a democrat senator, and I can feel it in my bones.

Defeating Republicans and conservatives — that is always in the “Can” column.

Defeating terrorists — “Can’t.” That’s a constant too.

Getting rid of discrimination: “Can.” That one actually strikes me as fairly normal. Until I remember, discrimination is pretty much whatever a liberal wants it to be. And they’re honor bound to declare on the side of caution. Ninety-nine sane liberals say “this example doesn’t seem to be discrimination” and then one paranoid raving lunatic liberal says “I think it is” — you’ll end up with a hundred liberals that say, yup-siree, that was discrimination right there.

So when it comes to controlling the private thoughts and property of other people — it’s “Can.”

When it comes to upholding law and order — it’s “Can’t.”

Maybe I’m over-thinking this. Maybe they’re just bossy. They do seem to have a strong tendency to meet behind closed doors, figure out what they want everyone else to do, and then tell us whether it’s a “can” or a “can’t.” Maybe that’s why it’s all-or-nothing.

This year, they’re doing a lot of talking about “hope.” I think, deep down, they don’t really have any. Oh, they’ve got hope they’ll win the White House and they’ll keep the Senate. They’ve got lots of hope when they hope things will be done their way. But I think that’s all they have.

It’s a funny thing about real hope. People who don’t have any, don’t want anyone else to have any either.

Teacher Sues Website

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

She wants six million. Via My Pet Jawa

A 60-year-old former teacher at Norfolk Elementary School, Loretta DiAnne Cruse, has filed a civil lawsuit against a blog in Baxter County Circuit Court, alleging defamation.

Cruse seeks $1 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

The lawsuit alleges that the web site known as Teacher Smackdown published malicious false statements that damaged her reputation while profiting financially.

It seems to center around one or several allegedly false statements, made in anonymity. To allow anonymous comments is malicious.

There’s a culture war taking place here, one that is much bigger than this particular lawsuit, that is seldom discussed. It’s a war against reputations, both good and bad. Although this particular suit might fail, there will be others…and through them, we’re slowly losing our God-given right to confer with one another about the character and performance of third parties.

To “gossip,” if you will…productively. As in, when we’re called upon to bet our fortunes and our livelihoods on whether an agent is excellent, or merely adequate — and we don’t know it for sure. Gathering what information we can.

Back in the olden days, people had a slang term called “No-Account.” It was roughly synonymous with “Ne’er Do Well” and “Good For Not.” It meant —

1. The person was not accountable to the things he was obliged, and/or had pledged, to do;
2. It was difficult or impossible to get an “account” of this person’s character — to get someone to vouch for him;
3. He exists, among us, only when it suits him to so exist — he dances the tune but doesn’t pay the piper.

There is evidence around, like this, that we’re slowly descending into a world in which we are all “No Accounts.” A world in which, what was once dirty slang, is now normalcy. You think of hiring a person, you call a former employer for a reference, and all you can get is confirmation that he worked here between this date and that one. That’s what you get if the person was an excellent performer…an adequate performer…a sub-standard performer. Letters of reference are not written, they are not sought, and if they do exist then nobody bothers to collect them or pass them along.

If anyone does bother to type one up — they worry about being sued. A website exists for the purpose of finding out the dirt on special ed teachers — and it is sued.

I have to wonder about something here. I have noticed, throughout my lifetime, that a lot of these things that apply to “all” industrial occupations often do not apply to lawyers. Is this another example? What happens when these lawyers, who file lawsuits to intimidate us from sharing information about this-or-that person’s performance, get together for lunch and talk about other lawyers? Do they say to each other “As you well know, being a fellow lawyer, I cannot say anything about that lawyer other than to confirm that he worked for our firm between X and Y”? Is that what they say?

I mean, it must be so. If it’s somehow possible for the rest of the world to function, flying completely freakin’ blind on the question of who’s a good-egg and who isn’t…why, the legal community must be able to hum along just fine as well in the same condition. So I’m sure that’s what they do.

Heh.

Maxine Waters — Inmate Running the Asylum

Friday, May 23rd, 2008

Two weeks ago I had observed about industries that seem to be illustrating for us the most treacherous, devastating and pure failures of capitalism:

These industries don’t operate on “capitalism.” At least, not to the extent that they can start screwing people over and failing to do what they’re supposed to do, and you can point at ‘em and say “Aha! See? There goes a prime example of the FAILURE of CAPITALISM!” No, these industries are hybrids between capitalism and something else. They are cooperatives in which we say, essentially…oh okay, let’s start exchanging goods and services, value for value…caveat emptor. But then let’s mix in a bunch of other bovine fecal matter with that. Let’s add in a regulating board, maybe one that sets prices at a certain level. And then let’s protect the “little guy” by guaranteeing some minimal provision, at the expense of someone else unwilling. Let’s have some people who don’t get any real work done, make rules about the people who actually do all the work.

And, as if some divine omnipotent kismet had said to itself, Hey, that Morgan Freeberg guy is spouting a whole bunch of gibberish, let’s make some stuff happen so his gibberish makes more sense —

Well, first of all, before I get to that. Neal Boortz brought in some news this morning about some neophyte in economic science, one Congressman Representative Paul Kanjorski from Pennsylvania, who happens to have a whole lot of authority in deciding what our laws are going to be — brandishing a brand new bill that would…that would…uh…

• H.R. 5800 would tax industries’ windfall profits.
• The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies’ profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.
• As oil and gas companies’ windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.
• Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates.

“Reasonable Profits Board.” Let me guess, the name of this bill is the Anti Dog-Eat-Dog rule?

The Divine Kismet remains dissatisfied with my delusional ravings, and has decided more events on the plane of reality are needed to make them sensible. And so we have Congresswoman Maxine Waters, which our parent site Webloggin has — well, our parent site, along with Rush Limbaugh, has embarrassed the bejeezus out of her by letting people see what she’s doing lately.

This liberal would be all about socializing, er, ah would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.

That’s just great, Maxine! I can’t wait to have my gas purchases work exactly the same way as all my Social Security investments. Believe me…that quote does not do it justice. You have to watch the clip. Two clicks of your mouse — what in the hell are you waiting for?

My original observation stands: Where is the purely capitalistic free-trade industry, or nearly-pure capitalistic industry, that’s doing such a swell job of showing us what a slipshod ramshackle system capitalism is? I’m looking at a growing list here of confiscatory, predatory, inefficient “capitalist” industries that are running on about an ounce and a half of capitalism and maybe a gallon or two of that good ol’ Marxist stuff…from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs…plus a stranglehold of regulations, and a crapload of compliance officers, lawyers, paper-pushers and bureaucrats. Wherever the compliance officers and bureaucrats and regulating statues and boards are missing…it’s something we don’t discuss very often, because there’s no reason to. You have some kind of ooze that you need on a regular basis, you run out of the ooze, you rummage around in your couch cushions for some nickels and quarters, you go down to the store and you buy some more of the ooze. Plain and simple.

When you get frustrated, because you have to pay a lot more for the ooze this week than you did last week — it’s usually because of taxes, regulations, or some unanticipated shortage that never would have happened, but for some type of “price cap” or “ceiling.”

Where, anywhere, are we screwing ourselves over by electively exchanging goods and services, for like amounts of goods and services? And so, I shall come up with a name for this observation of mine: To really mess things up, you need a politician. And some big ol’ stacks of rules that have nothing to do with capitalism at all.

Fewer Services, Lower Taxes

Wednesday, May 21st, 2008

A Rasmussen poll, about which we learn via Boortz.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 62% of voters would prefer fewer government services with lower taxes. Nearly a third (29%) disagrees and would rather have a bigger government with higher taxes. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.

Kinda funny. When President Bush’s approval rating is the same, 29 percent, we are instructed to believe the 29% are a bunch of…well…whatever. Stupid, drunk, crazy, either way the 29 might as well be zero.

On this issue, however, the 29% manage to end up running the whole freakin’ election. We’re all just squabbling on how exactly we’re going to get the 29% exactly what they want, even though 62% of us aren’t thrilled with it by a damn sight.

Hey — how many among that 29% who want “higher taxes” are talking about themselves? I mean golly, there’s just no way they could be talking about passing on the “higher tax” to someone else, is there?

Thing I Know #176. I’m slow to figure out what people expect when they clamor for higher taxes. They must expect their own tax bills to go down or to stay the same, because they’re consistently surprised when they’re expected to pay more like everyone else. And they must expect to unilaterally dictate where all the money goes, because they’re consistently surprised when other people have some kind of say.

What Has The Left Done to Reduce Gas Prices?

Saturday, May 10th, 2008

Isn’t it about time we started asking that question? So far, I have…

1. Don’t let us build nuclear power plants;
2. Don’t let us drill for oil stateside;
3. Tax our gas purchases, ostensibly for research of “alternative fuels”;
4. Make it more expensive to sell oil and gas, so those companies pass on the costs to US.

Anything I missed?

Well, Phil has been doing some slant-drilling in cartoon land, and he seems to have hit a mother-lode of sorts.

D’JEver Notice?

Friday, May 9th, 2008

Here’s my challenge: Think of three or four big areas in which capitalism has let us down. Shouldn’t be too hard, huh? Big health maintenance organizations (HMOs), big oil companies, etc.

Got ’em in your head yet? Okay, here’s my comment on that.

These industries don’t operate on “capitalism.” At least, not to the extent that they can start screwing people over and failing to do what they’re supposed to do, and you can point at ’em and say “Aha! See? There goes a prime example of the FAILURE of CAPITALISM!” No, these industries are hybrids between capitalism and something else. They are cooperatives in which we say, essentially…oh okay, let’s start exchanging goods and services, value for value…caveat emptor. But then let’s mix in a bunch of other bovine fecal matter with that. Let’s add in a regulating board, maybe one that sets prices at a certain level. And then let’s protect the “little guy” by guaranteeing some minimal provision, at the expense of someone else unwilling. Let’s have some people who don’t get any real work done, make rules about the people who actually do all the work.

The common thread is that capitalism isn’t exercised to such an extent that supply-and-demand equations determine prices. There are ceilings and floors and know-nothing pencil-pushers getting in the way.

That’s when the problems start.

And I think you’ll see as you go over that list in your head, that those industries have something else in common with each other. They are held aloft, and discussed a great deal, and inspected at high levels, as glorious, glowing, glittering examples of how capitalism ain’t gettin’er done.

Ultimately, we like to continually debate the best way of injecting a little bit of Marxism into specimens that are already swollen and bloated with it…because we already injected it a generation or two previously…and now we’re going to do it some more.

You know why that is? Part of it is that people who don’t like capitalism, aren’t inclined to admit it’s various successes. And the other part of it is that if you want one of those jobs wherein you don’t do any work, and you get to tell the people who do the real work how to do it — the first skill you need to refine is how to blame your screw-ups on other people. You get skilled at that, you can have that kind of a job. And if you don’t, you can’t — you have to do real work.

Meanwhile, the rest of us keep heading down the road that got us lost in the first place. Ladies, I’d invite you to think how you’d tolerate this if your husband used this technique to get “where we’re going” again when you know damn good and well he’s lost.

Just a good thought to keep in mind this year, in the advent of all the speechifying I think we all know we’re about to see in large, truckload-sized doses.

On the Easterlin Paradox

Saturday, April 19th, 2008

I’ll let the New York Times guest-column speak for itself:

Arguably the most important finding from the emerging economics of happiness has been the Easterlin Paradox.

What is this paradox? It is the juxtaposition of three observations:

1) Within a society, rich people tend to be much happier than poor people.
2) But, rich societies tend not to be happier than poor societies (or not by much).
3) As countries get richer, they do not get happier.

Easterlin offered an appealing resolution to his paradox, arguing that only relative income matters to happiness. Other explanations suggest a “hedonic treadmill,” in which we must keep consuming more just to stay at the same level of happiness.

One criticism of the Easterlin report is that the data upon which it is based, comes mostly from survey responses and there is a psychological hobgoblin at work here because we don’t tend to think highly of ourselves when we admit we’re unhappy. So it stands to reason the responses are going to be skewed toward “oh yeah, I’m ecstatically happy.”

But another criticism I would have is that we have a societal taboo against acknowledging one of the possible — and I would label highly probable — outcomes: That money makes you happy. Let’s face it: Overly-simplistic as that may be, missing money when you need some really sucks!

But I think anyone pondering the situation for a minute or two would have to admit there has been, at least since the 1950’s or so, a swelling of pressure on people to presume out loud that wealth is only tangentially related, if it’s related at all, to a state of happiness. The pressure is sufficiently significant that it has an effect on people who have no personal experience at all, with being destitute & happy, or with having wealth in abundance and being dismal. And that’s my definition of significant pressure: When people are missing anecdotes within their personal experiences that would be needed to back something up, and will nevertheless sit there and say “oh yeah…uh huh, that’s right on.”

Well, the author of the column, Justin Wolfers, goes on to drop a bombshell:

Given the stakes in this debate, Betsey Stevenson and I thought it worth reassessing the evidence.
:
Last Thursday we presented our research at the latest Brookings Panel on Economic Activity, and we have arrived at a rather surprising conclusion:

There is no Easterlin Paradox.

The facts about income and happiness turn out to be much simpler than first realized:

1) Rich people are happier than poor people.
2) Richer countries are happier than poorer countries.
3) As countries get richer, they tend to get happier.

Moreover, each of these facts seems to suggest a roughly similar relationship between income and happiness.

Now, you can see from the reports and the cool graphics, that there is an abundance of data going in to these conclusions. So a disturbing question arises: Assuming this attack on the Easterlin paradox withstands scrutiny better than the paradox itself, are there some negative social ramifications involved in realizing this? Once it settles in that money does indeed make us happy isn’t there a risk that we’re all going to become a bunch of hair-pulling eye-gouging money grubbing zombies?

Well…to answer that we’d have to get into the debate about the “pie people”: Those who insist, like Michelle Obama, that when some among us have bigger pieces of pie then someone else must have smaller pieces, and in order to get more pie to those deprived persons it will be unavoidably necessary to confiscate pie from someone else. All transactions are zero-sum, in other words.

Seems to me, if you buy into that you have to agree there was at least a social benefit to the Easterlin paradox, even if it wasn’t true. And there must be a commensurately deleterious effect involved in repealing it.

I suppose, like the Easterlin paradox, the Pie Paradigm ought to be given a benefit of doubt, of sorts, so it can remain standing on clay feet across the generations without much supporting evidence. There must be a truth to it, and even if there isn’t, there must be a social benefit to believing it, and even if there isn’t, darn it it just feels so good to say it’s true.

Except, like Columbo, I can’t help noticing just one…little…thing.

So many of these Pie People, like Ms. Obama herself — are stinkin’ rich. What does that say about them, if they really do believe in the pies?

Memo For File LVII

Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008

I’m linking this column, about which I learned via Neal, for three reasons:

Firstly, Robyn Blumner is a “hyperlib.” She shows evidence of motivation for being a liberal, that goes well beyond any desire to impress or ingratiate herself with others. She seems to genuinely believe private-sector endeavors are harmful to her. Interestingly, once again we have the spectacle of someone who labors under this delusion but is mostly unwilling to state exactly why. Her supporting arguments are anecdotal, and her anecdotes are cherry-picked and slanted. Naturally, she comes to the conclusion that the motives of government are pristine by nature, and the motives of business are rancid and rotten by nature. Better than fifty-fifty odds she came to that conclusion because she wanted to. Why did she want to?

Secondly, she has interesting hair. But her facial features are distorted and weird-looking. I strongly suspect that the hair is a compensatory agent for something else far uglier, and I further suspect that this is a metaphor for her liberalism.

Thirdly, I’ve never heard of an online article that accepts comments that, when submitted, must be no longer than two hundred fifty characters. In addition to that, the comments are moderated. And the moderator seems to be exceptionally lazy. I mean, you just knew what I was going to do when I ran into that, I submitted a comment that was exactly 250 characters, not 249 or 251…a little on the smarmy side…and I’m just waiting to see if they run it. They haven’t posted my comment, but they haven’t posted anything since yesterday morning either.

This woman is warped. Her arguments cry out not so much for philosophical dissection, as for therapy. Consider…

What I can’t get out of my head is the way we’ve been suckered again into believing the malarkey sold by Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan and a long list of conservative think tanks, that the market is our savior. It is so convenient to make government the bad guy, the one who interferes with everyone’s pot of gold, and make open markets the answer to what ails, as Reagan did so often. But the historical reality is that the free market has a dark side that causes social displacement and instability, and by its nature it is an uncaring thing.

“Savior.” “Uncaring thing.” From where, exactly, comes this breathless quest in search of saviors and caring things?

How do you get this way, exactly? Has this woman never in her life experienced some kind of conflict about life’s goals, ambitions, etc. against some nanny-savior that was so “caring” about her? Never had that “ooh, I just gotta be me” feeling? About anything? Ever? She must not have. Or else…maybe she faced down a disaster that was so dark and dire and threatening, that pleading for a savior was the only thought that went screaming through her blow-dried coifed little red head and all “gotta be me” thoughts are long gone. If so, how bad was it? What is the worst problem she, personally, ever had?

So after the government’s done rescuing Wall Street, the rest of us could use some kind attention too. But we’d need a different government for that — a very different government.

This is what makes her, in my mind, a “hyperlib.” Consider the ramifications involved if this woman is being completely honest…and you’ll see why I have to doubt that so strongly. Government, according to her words, is kinda like Superman. We get into these fixes that are absolutely, positively, without hope…just like Jimmy Olson or Lois Lane falling out of an airplane, or getting lost in a forest fire. No internal resource, no mortal man, can help us; we need our savior.

But with George W. Bush in charge, the savior is an evil, perverted thing. A “Bizarro Superman” type of thing. So we need a “very different government.” We need to get that red Kryptonite out of here so Superman turns good again. Then we can go back to trusting him absolutely, completely, in every way possible. To save our kittens from trees, save our asses from forest fires, catch us when we fall off bridges, etc., etc., etc….and to run our lives for us.

To trust him completely.

Just as soon as he stops being evil.

So I don’t believe this woman or people like her. What they’re talking about is placing complete, unfiltered, undiluted, uncompromised power — and therefore trust — in this leviathan that is government. But only when the right people are in charge. Never a single syllable uttered about limiting the power to be invested in that resource just in case, you know, one day, from one year to the next — sometimes the right people aren’t in charge.

Which is one of the founding principles of this nation. We aren’t supposed to put that much authority in government, because we’re supposed to presume a good portion of the time the right people aren’t going to be running things.

“Hyperlibs” are people who say we can trust government, unconditionally. Just as soon as we get rid of George W. Bush and his crew. Until then, it is the essence of evil, malevolence, and darkness. According to their own words, we should get ready to bare our jugulars toward the fangs of government, right now, before the evil has been driven from it, while those fangs are still sharp, sparkling, and lunging at us.

Such a twisted edict must arise from an underlying philosophy that is either dishonest or incoherent. And I don’t believe it is incoherent. So a puzzle arises: What exactly are they hiding?

Update: The pattern continues. Yet another “hyperlib,” salivating for us all to live according to the socialist/collectivist model, ostensibly in response to our current day-to-day discomforts and problems — but one gets the unmistakable sense that the discomforts/problems have little or nothing to do with the impulse — turns out to be…GUESS WHAT?

I’m an atheist – so what?
By Robyn E. Blumner
Published August 8, 2004

“What is it,” asked German philosopher Friedrich Neitzche, “is man only a blunder of God, or God only a blunder of man?”

I vote for the latter.

Though I was brought up in a religious faith, it was at a very young age – preteen – that I realized I had no belief in God and no amount of indoctrination was going to change that. This sense of nonbelief has been so strong and abiding throughout my life that I find it virtually impossible to understand the psyches of people who believe in anything supernatural.

Just to be clear, it is not just God that I can’t fathom. I also reject the existence of Satan or any form of afterlife beyond the redistribution of the body’s matter. In my book there are no ghosts, golems, angels or spirits. I do not believe in psychic power, astrology or predestination – and forget about karma, kismet or crystals. My view is that the “soul” does not exist outside a functioning brain, nothing was “meant to be,” and things that seem inexplicable are not miracles or paranormal experiences, they are simply not yet explained.

If I was a foster parent to some being from another planet…if I had a genie living in my house…if I had thawed out a being frozen during the age of Atlantis…if it was, in any way, up to me to explain current events to some sentient being, capable of rational thought, but a stranger to recent history and our social customs — I would not be able to explain this.

Why are those who are so resistant to placing any faith in the “supernatural,” so eager to force everyone else to place faith in their socialist models of government?

If I were the thinking sentient being thawed out from the age of Atlantis, I would fully expect the faithful to be the socialists. Those who reject faith, I would expect to be rejecting socialism as well. That’s why you’re supposed to be turning your back on God, isn’t it? For the freedom? For the fatigue you have with “bigger” things “telling you what to do all the time”? And on the contrary, isn’t that supposed to be why a lot of the faithful are indeed faithful? The insecurity? They like to worship “together”? Like socialists? And so, I would expect my theory to make good sense…for it would…but it would be completely bass-ackwards wrong.

It is the godless who are socialists. Perhaps it can be explained because socialism doesn’t leave room for a god. But that doesn’t explain everything.

The consistency is just amazing. Oh sure, there are exceptions I know. But I could make a lot of money betting on the religious beliefs of those who want us to live like insects, surrendering our individual ambitions and desires for liberty, laying them at the altar of collectivism. I could bet they’re all atheists. Every single one of them. I could work my way through an endless Congo line of socialists, placing the wagers on one head after the next, without checking out a single thing about ’em. For the few times when I’m wrong, I could pay out ten-to-one odds and still end up a very wealthy man.

People who persist in this leftist, bug-like thinking, insisting everyone else do the same…are socialists. It is not a perfect pattern, but it is definitely a strong one.

Why is this such a consistent trend? The only explanation of which I can think, is that rejecting God leaves them hungry for a replacement, and so in socialism they have found the replacement.

Are They Taking An Electric Bus?

Friday, March 28th, 2008

Well, I do think this is kind of cool because I’m much more supportive of “environment” stuff — as in, don’t leave the trial to go scampering down a hillside thereby causing heap-big erosion that doesn’t have to happen — than I am of the phony science of ManBearPig.

But it’s still a bunch of public-school indoctrination. And I can’t help but wonder if the message is being lost. What does a trip to Disneyland have to do with the environment? How about…a three day hike out in the wilderness, away from Mom and Dad, sleeping under the stars? Wouldn’t the enterprising, environmentally-conscious fifth-grader find that so much more rewarding?

Students at Phoebe Hearst Elementary in Sacramento got a fast lesson on how learning can be fun and pay off. A fifth-grade class at the school won the grand prize in a statewide environmental education competition.

During an assembly Thursday, Mickey Mouse delivered the surprise announcement to teacher Sylvia Rodriguez and her students, who snatched the top award – beating 45 other entries – for their project to preserve and protect the American River watershed.

Rodriguez and students jubilantly gave each other high-fives, jumped up and down and cried.

The 2008 Disney’s Environmentality Challenge asked students to design and carry out a classroom project that would spur environmental stewardship.

Accepting a plaque, Rodriguez said, “I’m all choked up.”

Well, hey. Maybe I should just simmer down. It’s not so much indoctrination, it’s creating a new generation of people who are going to think twice before chucking that cigarette butt out the window of whatever they’re going to be driving twenty years from now. Right?

“After we did all this work, we learned how Native Americans cared for (the river),” she said. “No way is it ours. No way do we have the right to pollute it and change it. It belongs to the earth, Mother Earth and to itself.”

Eww, that doesn’t sound ideologically-neutral at all. Mother Earth? In a public school? I’ve half a mind to sue for separation of church and state. And a healthy anti-capitalist rant tossed in, for no good reason, on top of it. From an adorable crumb-cruncher on her way to DISNEYLAND!!! Yay!

I wonder what she learned about Native Americans. Was it the overly-simplistic, red-always-good white-always-bad crap I was taught when I was in the fifth grade?

Or was it something a little better researched and more thoughtful, something that might take a little longer to wrap a young head around?

The impression that American Indians were guided by a unique environmental ethic often can be traced to the speech widely attributed to Chief Seattle in 1854. But Chief Seattle never said those oft-quoted words: They were written by Ted Perry, a scriptwriter, who acknowledged paraphrasing a translation of the speech for a movie about pollution. According to historian Paul Wilson, Perry’s version added “a good deal more, particularly modern ecological imagery.” For example, Perry, not Chief Seattle, wrote that “every part of the Earth is sacred to my people.” (Perry, by the way, has tried unsuccessfully to get the truth out.)

The speech reflects what many environmentalists want to hear, not what Chief Seattle said. The poignant and romantic image created by the speech obscures the fact, fully acknowledged by historians, that American Indians transformed the North American landscape. Sometimes these changes were beneficial, at other times harmful. But they were almost always a rational response to abundance or scarcity.
:
Generally the demand for meat, hides, and furs by relatively small, dispersed populations of Indians put little pressure on wildlife. But in some cases game populations were overharvested or even driven to extinction. Anthropologist Paul Martin believes that the extinction of the mammoth, mastodon, ground sloth, and the saber-toothed cat directly or indirectly resulted from the “prehistoric overkill” by exceptionally competent hunters.

Historian Louis S. Warren drives the final nail in the coffin of the “living in harmony with nature” myth: “[T]o claim that Indians lived without affecting nature is akin to saying that they lived without touching anything, that they were a people without history. Indians often manipulated their local environments, and while they usually had far less impact on their environments than European colonists would, the idea of ‘preserving’ land in some kind of wilderness state would have struck them as impractical and absurd. More often than not, Indians profoundly shaped the ecosystems around them.”

Of course, shaping doesn’t have to mean despoiling. Whether this shaping encouraged conservation depended, for Indians as for humans everywhere, on the incentives created by the extant system of property rights. The historical American Indians did not practice a sort of environmental communism in tune with the Earth; yesterday, as today, they recognized property rights.

Today we refer to “Indian nations,” but this term mostly reflects the U.S. government’s desire to have another government with which to negotiate. In fact, Indian tribes were mainly language groups made up of relatively independent bands with little centralized control except at specific times when they might gather for ceremonies, hunts, or wars. And after the horse allowed small bands to efficiently hunt buffalo, even that level of centralization diminished.

The anchor reported on the insipid morning koffee-klatch “news” program a few minutes ago, that the excited fifth graders will be taking a bus to Southern California to go to Disneyland. Heh…diesel buses, I wonder? How long will they sit idling while our newest generation of environmentalists climb aboard?

Now, I really hesitate to badmouth a good thing. But how many things could be done to lower my red flags here. They could stick a microphone in the face of an excited fifth-grader who does not sound like a typical goth new-age hippie. Mother Earth…feh. They could couple this drive to learn about and protect the environment with…a companion drive to learn about and protect the Boy Scouts. I mean hey, let’s face it. After the giant diesel bus comes lumbering back from Disneyland and drops these kids off at home, they’re going to be going back to playing with the PlayStation 3…probably producing mountains of empty soda bottles and candy wrappers to fill up some landfill somewhere for the next ten centuries. By sixth or seventh grade, of course, they’ll all stop being cute, and the spotlight will shift to the next generation of fourth- and fifth-graders. But the Boy Scouts will learn about and protect the environment this year, next year, and the year after…whether they’re being watched or not.

How come so few friends of the “environment,” are friends of the Boy Scouts? Are we talking about the same environment here?

But the trip to Disneyland is the real hitch in the giddy-up. I know that’s how the checks got signed, I understand that…I just can’t get behind this. They could go on a trip to Yosemite instead, you know. Nowadays when you go camping you can be quite pampered, they tell me. My pup-tent sleeping-bag arrangement is supposed to be going out of style. They have wood cabins…bunks…running water inside…even cable TV, some of ’em. Not only could that be a whole lot of fun to the pre-teen class, but it could inspire a whole lifetime of enthusiasm for living in, and therefore caring about, the outdoors.

And I won’t even get started on the delta between camping, and Disneyland, vis a vis carbon emissions.

A trip to Disneyland as a reward for environmental accomplishment. My my…what’ll they think of next. That’s kind of like a meat-lover’s pizza as a reward for vegetarianism.

Anti-Danger, Anti-Achievement, Anti-Defense, Anti-Life

Thursday, March 20th, 2008

This morning I was rubbing my hands together in giddy glee over the finding that the Nintendo Wii is not environmentally friendly, or at least, is not perceived to be that (Nintendo’s crime against the environment seems to be mostly related to a failure to divulge information about being clean, which is different from a substantiation of evidence about being dirty). My comment was,

The anti-corporate pro-enviro hippies, are hopefully going to be locked in a huge fracas with the video-gamers and therefore with the kid-dumbing-down people. I hope. It’s always fun to watch the anti-achievement types feast on their own.

Hundreds of thousands of e-mails have poured in and called my attention to…

…alright, nobody’s uttered a peep about it. But it nevertheless occurs to me, even though this is The Blog That Nobody Reads, that I should expound.

Surely you’ve noticed, haven’t you. The people here stateside as well as across the pond in Europe, who are so quick to rap us across the knuckles for taking out Saddam Hussein — offer little or no alternatives for us to defend ourselves in any other way from the threat of worldwide terror. Oh yes, I know, many among them will say we were “distracted” from the “hunt for Osama bin Laden” when he was “in Afghanistan.” They imply in a bullying way, but usually do not come out and say word-for-word in any true sense of commitment, that had we focused on Afghanistan they’d be behind our defensive efforts a hundred percent.

These are the very same folks who are all gung-ho about going after the globular-wormening ManBearPig, insisting that the climate of the earth is changing, we homo sapiens are the cause, it’s a done deal, the “science is settled,” and hey even if this turns out not to be the case it’s just as well that we act as if it is.

You can see where I’m going with this now. They insist that the benefit of the doubt be awarded to the course-of-action that involves doing…on this issue over here…and the option that involves not doing on that issue over there.

People like me, on the other hand, are “inconsistent” in the opposite way; I think we should not do, here, and do, there.

Who is more properly inconsistent? Well, the most jarring empirical evidence, which is people-gettin’-killed, it seems to me is on my side. This thing over here hasn’t killed anyone. That issue over there has killed thousands…oh yeah, oh yeah, I know, no solid evidence connecting Saddam to the terrorist attacks, but that’s kind of my point. These people, in addition to being inconsistent, are nuts. The “no evidence” is just as good as “close my eyes and yell la-la-la-la I can’t hear you.” The people who say we should act even though we don’t know anything, about ManBearPig, are the same ones who say we should not act because we don’t know anything on a different threat that really has killed people.

Chicks with GunsSo my point is this: Since there are so many of these people, and they all agree with each other in near-lock-step about both Iraq and globular-wormening ManBearPig…two issues on which their mindsets conform to completely opposite philosophies about how we should behave on important issues when certainty is not forthcoming and doubt is rampant. In fact, we can toss in a third issue without upsetting this solidarity one bit, I notice: Guns and self-defense. People who are pro-global-warming-curtailing, are anti-Iraq, and pro-gun-control. The consistency from one pair of ears to the next, is just amazing. It’s north of 99 percent. So I say, let us look for consistencies in the arguments. Let us look for common threads that are sustained among these three issues, in the way all these people perceive them and grapple with them. Are there some?

I see one.

Before I get to that, though, let’s inject a fourth issue in a round-about way…and let us do this, by exploring one of my favorite web sites: TrafficCalming.org, where you can learn how to thwart, obstruct, derail and generally bollux-up the efforts of your neighboring human beings to…well…to move their asses from one place to the next. Which means, now, just about anything else anyone would be able to do once they get there.

This deepens, but does not broaden, our chore of looking for common threads. If you think it’s settled RIGHT NOW that we should do something about globular wormening, but we need to shut down the War on Terror, but we need to grab everybody’s guns and lock ’em up — you probably think traffic calming is a wonderful thing. If you roll your eyes at it like I do, you probably think ManBearPig is a big ol’ scam, you probably think Saddam Hussein was just as much a dangerous spoiler jackass in 2003 as he was in 1993 & it’s a good thing he’s gone, and you think the Second Amendment actually means what it says: Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So traffic calming, you see, fits right into the mold.

Traffic calming consists of operational measures such as enhanced police enforcement, speed displays, and a community speed watch program, as well as such physical measures as edgelines, chokers, chicanes, traffic circles, and (for the past four years) speed humps and raised crosswalks.

Edglines.

Chokers.

Chicanes, traffic circles, speed bumps and raised crosswalks.

What are these things? Well, they are devices that make traffic safe by making assumptions about you, the driver, which in turn cannot be borne out as legitimate or truthful unless they are analyzed in a purely statistical venue. If you go faster than X speed, you must be dangerous. If you can be bullied and cudgeled and coerced into going slower than X speed, you must be safe. If it’s three thirty in the morning and nobody’s around, why, that don’ matter none. You have to go slower than twenty-five miles per hour, and once we make you drive that slowly, surely some lives will be saved.

It sounds like it came from…from…could it be? Why, yes it is!

European traffic calming began as a grassroots movement in the late 1960s. Angry residents of the Dutch City of Delft fought cut-through traffic by turning their streets into woonerven, or “living yards.” This was followed by the development of European slow streets (designed for 30 kph or 20 mph) in the late 1970s; the application of traffic calming principles to intercity highways through small Danish and German towns in the 1980s; and the treatment of urban arterials in areawide schemes, principally in Germany and France, also in the 1980s. [emphasis mine]

Gotta hand it to those Europeans. The European ego isn’t one bit bruised by the fact that we yankees came up with the telephone…the car…the airplane…the innernets. They’ve got their claim to fame East of Greenwich. When you’re a busy guy trying to get things done, relying on all this American technology to beat the deadline so that that other guy can beat his deadline so that the people depending on him can meet their deadlines…here come the Europeans to mess everything up for you!

Thought you were getting to Point B by two-thirty this afternoon did you? Not after our roundabouts and raised crosswalks get done. Now feel the wrath of the residents of Delft!

The really interesting thing about traffic calming, is its effectiveness is measured in traffic retardation on a miles/kilometers-per-hour basis, and a percentage basis — not on the basis of lives saved. I have to look at that a little bit funny. I have no choice but to do so.

I live in Folsom. We have our own “traffic calming” in terms of poorly-designed controlled intersections. Traffic lights that turn red just as you get to them, should you fail to exceed the speed limit by less than twenty miles an hour, and all that. You think that “calms” traffic, everybody in their shiny BMW’s having to stop constantly when they shouldn’t have to? Hell no. It turns them all into raging jackasses.

Sorry, fellow Folsom residents. You know it’s true. You know it damn good and well.

So on the notion that this makes traffic safer…I have to call bull poo. Even if you can pump out hundreds of studies showing the rate of speed has slowed. That’s a point in my favor, isn’t it? All the jackasses are spending more time inside city limits, after having been offered increased motivation for going all jackass?

There is a lesson here about human psychology. It is what ties together all these “let’s go ahead and stop global warming even though there’s no solid evidence we have to” types…in with the “naughty naughty naughty shame on you for taking out Saddam Hussein” types. It is what makes these two camps come together, even though their respective doctrines are 180 degrees opposed from each other. It is what makes them all such loud, bossy sunzabiches.

It is this:

Poor Widdle BabumsWhen you’ve made the decision that the stuff you do in your life doesn’t matter and shouldn’t be given much priority, you rankle at the idea of the stuff anybody else does with their lives being given any more priority than your stuff. The traffic-calming measures, with all the phony egghead studies “proving” that things must be safer because the traffic moves slower — they are metaphorical, of something much deeper and much more meaningful. When you’re in this boat, you want everybody to stop whatever it is they’re doing. To slow way down…until they stop. And sit. There’s really nothing rational about it. It’s a primal urge.

You don’t want anybody to make it anywhere on time to be able to do anything. Because you know you aren’t doing anything.

You don’t want anybody’s kids to grow up with a feeling of self worth, since your own kids aren’t growing up that way.

You don’t want anybody to consume anything, because you can’t justify consuming anything yourself. You can pretend you’re disturbed about the prospect of the whatever-it-is being depleted…but the truth of the matter is, you just want all motion around you to stop. Because you yourself aren’t moving.

That’s why the people who want to take your guns away are the same ones waggling their fingers at you about “emitting carbon” and those are the same people who prattle on about an “illegal and unjust war” — we should presume action is warranted in the face of doubt on one issue, and not on another issue. And those are the same people who think traffic is automatically safer if the drivers are frustrated in the efforts to get where they want to go. And those people, in turn, are the same ones getting all peevish if you buy your nephew a toy gun for his birthday. And those are the same people insisting that if said nephew is acting a little bit weird, he should be doped up on drugs and put in a special program.

And that once you’ve eventually triumphed over the round-abouts and traffic circles and gotten where you wanted to go, and made some money from doing it…you should be taxed up the ass. It’s human potential. It offends them.

This is easily substantiated. Because once you open your mind to the evidence involved — it’s really a little bit silly to try to argue Saddam Hussein was harmless. So people aren’t angry about the fact that Hussein was taken down, because he was a harmless guy. They’re angry Hussein was taken down because taking him down was a worthwhile thing that some brave, but ordinary, people did. That really gets in the craw of some among us. And that’s the truth.

Now, if you’re one among those “googooders” as Mike Royko used to call them, here, via Boortz, are some places where you can raise your kid. Notice how eager these googooders are to share notes on this stuff. Again: When you aren’t doing anything with your life, you don’t want anybody else to do anything with theirs, and when you aren’t raising your kid to grow up to be someone with guts and courage and resourcefulness, you don’t want anybody else’s kid growing up that way either.

To give you a quick idea of how much location matters, consider this: Kids are six times more likely to die from a violence-related injury in Alaska than they are in Massachusetts. In California, public playgrounds must meet all federal government safety recommendations, but 34 states offer no standards for where your kids climb, jump and swing. Connecticut and 20 other states have made big improvements in school-bus crossings, while 13, including Nebraska and Arizona, are way behind.

Location, location
1. Connecticut
2. Rhode Island
3. New Jersey
4. New York
5. California
6. Maine
7. Pennsylvania
8. Mass.
9. Maryland
10. Oregon

Oh, joy! Enough rules to crumple into a big ball and choke a horse to death! Or at least you could…if it wasn’t a federal crime to choke horses to death on things. And my Golden State is number five!

Of course, as any knuckle-dragging red-state real-man daddy like me knows, there’s a lot more to raising a boy into a man than just making sure he reaches Age Eighteen healthy and alive and whole. Us guys know that…but unfortunately, some eighty-eight years ago we went and gave them womyns the right to vote, and wouldn’t you know it the uppity females done gone out and started doing it. Now we have taxes up the ass…and rules rules rules, you can’t drive anywhere over thirty miles an hour because of those damn roundabouts, and in a few years you won’t be able to buy a car that can go that fast because we’ll have used the “carbon emissions” excuse to yank real cars off the road.

But our pwecious babums is going to be all safe. Won’t know how to do a God damn thing, but they’ll be safe.

Now you know the common thread. The common thread is — that people are cattle, and really aren’t worth anything. They shouldn’t be taught anything, they shouldn’t be raised to deal with danger, they aren’t worth defending, they can’t achieve anything and if they can, they should never be given the opportunity to do it. Might as well seal the damn things up in a great big jar and poke some holes in the lid.

This explains why when you face off against someone who insists we never should have taken down Saddam Hussein, and you ask well what should we have done instead — you don’t get anything. Just a deer in the headlights look, maybe a few stammering statements about George Bush being a really bad guy and his grandfather was connected to Nazis. Nothing about what to do. These people don’t come from the Land Of Do. They’re all about being, not doing…being…uh…well, happy. There’s nothing more in their lives than just that. So they don’t want anything more in your life than just that.

Funny thing is, though, when it comes to the anti-defense plank — they do think some folks are worth defending. Just the bosses. The kingpins of society. And you probably thought they were egalitarians, didn’t you?

I beg to differ. They’re aristocrats through and through. Earls Lords and Dukes are worth defending…Vicounts, Barons and anyone lower than that, are not.

Mr. Heller, the good guy in DC v. Heller, delivered one of the best slapdowns we’ve ever read when asked about the “safe streets” of DC:

At that point, a reporter interjected: “The Mayor (DC Mayor Adrian M. Fenty) says the handgun ban and his initiatives have significantly lowered violent crime in the District. How do you answer that, Mr. Heller?”

The initial answer certainly wasn’t expected – Dick Heller laughed. Ruefully.

Pointing at the Mayor who was making his way across the plaza, surrounded by at least six DC police officers, Heller said, “The Mayor doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He doesn’t walk on the street like an average citizen. Look at him; he travels with an army of police officers as bodyguards—to keep him safe. But he says that I don’t have the right to be a force of one to protect myself. Does he look like he thinks the streets are safe?”

There was no follow-up question.

We bet there weren’t.

The anti-achievement anti-defense subjects have that in common too. The Wizened Elders who run our Bottle City are worthy of protection…we low-life scum, are not. They don’t think they’re worth it, and so they don’t think anybody else is worth it either.

Not unless you have six bodyguards or more guarding your pampered ass.

So you see, opposing the right to defend oneself and one’s family, opposing the privilege of driving to get somewhere in time, opposing the natural exigencies of life…ends up being, quicker than anyone imagines, opposing life.

These are the same blue-state numb-nuts who want good-lookin’ women to wear short hair and be fully clothed all the time. Like wearing a bunch of damned burqas. Hey, nuts to you. Here, choke on this:

Self-reliance. Achievement. Self-defense. Supporting what makes life possible, and makes life worth living. And, good-lookin’ girls with long hair in skimpy clothes. Stuff that real men like. That’s what America is all about. It is the American way.

This ultra-pasteurized version of lowercase-l “life”…this continent called “Europe” seems to be cultivating a rich culture in supporting that. Seems to be something like growing sea monkeys in bleach, but if that’s what toots the horn of my fellow lowercase-a “americans,” I suggest they move the hell there. Stop trying to turn this place into that place.

And take your stinking round-abouts with you.

Thing I Know #168. People with limited attention spans get peevish when they see other people doing a better job of paying attention; people who consistently champion peace over justice, get downright pernicious when they see someone else uphold justice.

Best Sentence XXVI

Sunday, February 24th, 2008

There is a round-about way we stumbled across the winner of the latest BSIHORL (Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately) award. Follow along…

Michelle Malkin linked to a curious item in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, which was crying crocodile tears for the illegal aliens who couldn’t find any work leaving any parallel dilemma faced by the people who actually belong here, mostly uncommented-upon.

And the story contained this curious undertone. Like trout in a plentiful pond, it would break the surface when you least expected it, and elude capture by vanishing almost instantly. And then do it again. And again.

The bad times are trickling down to the lowest rung of the work force: the illegal labor pool, which has long been tapped by both contractors and homeowners for convenience and low cost.
:
“Everybody is going to suffer in a recession — from the top on down,” says Patti Decker, a branch manager with Labor Ready in Soquel, whose number of Spanish-speaking customers, she added, has been on the rise in the last few months, in part due to the poor economy.

This recurring reference to verticality. I think it’s relevant, because if you accept that the illegal aliens are the lowest among us — rather than the children who are brutalized by some of them, more often than we’d be led to believe — this would mean every time a politician makes reference to our goodness being defined by how we treat the least among us, that politician is saying our goodness is defined by how we treat our illegal aliens.

Which would be groundbreaking, because I’m hearing it from them every goddamned day. Society is to be regarded according to how it treats the weakest…the least…the lowest…the poorest. Many saying this is so. Few saying why.

Not sure if this comes from The Gospels or any other part of the Bible. This seems to be a misattribution based on Luke 9:48, “…the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”

But thankfully, I don’t see this attributed to the Bible too much. Most of the time people are claiming to come up with it themselves, which is funny because there are so many original authors of this one bromide.

Including one Helen, cited by Don Quixote while guest-blogging at fellow Webloggin contributor Bookworm Room.

A nation is only as powerful as its weakest citizen, as prosperous as its poorest, and as decent and moral as its empty jails.

Whereupon commenter Lissa wins the BSIHORL award with this apropos rejoinder:

Why should we judge a society by its poorest and weakest? Why not judge it by its best, and the opportunity for the poorest and weakest to become neither poor nor weak?

A question for the era, Lissa. WELL done.

Update: In another example of wonderful/wretched irony, I see the overall liberal mantra is a short dialog of sorts, in which an interested outsider applies for assimilation into the liberal collective union, inseparable from adoration and adulation from those already therein — and is granted it.

It can be distilled into the following brief exchange:

APPLICANT: I believe we are all equally worthwhile in every conceivable way, without regard to gender, race, creed, credo, sexual preference, income, net worth, or place of birth.

COLLECTIVE: That clearly makes you far superior to those who don’t believe the same. Enter when ready, New Member.

The theoretical egalitarianism is an indispensible component. So is the practical non-equal stratification of “We’re Better Than You.” Neither one of these are tangential or optional. They are BOTH core, even though they are opposites.

Self-mockery, thy name is liberalism.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Economic Stimulus

Saturday, February 23rd, 2008

Phil says “for the sake of showing a pulse, I’ll go ahead and post,” and then sets himself ablaze with five great pieces:

Economic Stimulus
Beliefs and Religion Politics
Meet the New Boss
McCain Hit Piece
PhobiaPhobia

An excerpt from the economic stimulus, and then a few words from myself about it…

Why is not taking money from us so we have more to spend in the first place not going to help the economy, but “giving” us a “gift” of our own tax dollars so we have more money to spend … will? Riddle me this, mmmmm?

Well, I agree with the progressives about this election: Conservatism has been found not to work, and will therefore be sidelined for a time. I disagree with the progressives on the “for whom” part of it. I maintain that conservatism has been found not to work for those who want cheap and easy political power. And so on that foreign planet inside the beltway, people with R and D after their names have pledged together to promote liberalism because they’ve found it is more conducive to their own ambitions.

For the rest of us out here on earth, conservatism is the better choice. Too bad we won’t see anything of it for a time. Our “leaders” don’t like it.

And Phil touches on something that proves this point nicely — the war may be controversial at this time, but supply-side economics are definitely not. They are factual. The notion that a lower tax rate can bring in increased revenues, has been proven time and time again.

If the conservative plank was communicated this way, advertised this way, I maintain everything would be different. Imagine a few recitations of Winston Churchill’s quote about a man sitting in a bucket trying to pull himself up by the handle. Imagine hearing that as many times as you’ve heard that phony Jefferson quote about dissent.

Just imagine it. It would change everything.

But it isn’t going to happen, because in 2008, phony feel-good-ism is in vogue.

We cut taxes. We experienced economic growth. We applied what we learned from this lesson by electing a left-winger who’s going to sell us some nonsense about the globular-wormening boogeyman, and certainly, definitely, absolutely, fer sure, will raise taxes.

Just try to explain that one to your grandchildren.

Hillary to Garnish Wages

Monday, February 4th, 2008

Via Rick, we find not only is Hillary out to take money away — earned money, before it even lands in the wallet of the person to whom it rightfully belongs — but she’s criticizing her competition for not doing the same.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC’s “This Week,” she said: “I think there are a number of mechanisms” that are possible, including “going after people’s wages, automatic enrollment.”

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, “it will be affordable for everyone.”

Ladies — how does it feel, knowing future social scientists and historians, laboring to trace the death throes of America back to a starting point of decline, will land on the day we gave you the right to vote?

Please understand, myself and others are in favor of you keeping it. But toss us some ammunition once in awhile…a reason we should be glad you got it, why it shouldn’t be taken away again. So far all we got is Hillary and her so-called husband…maybe Jackie Kennedy and her pink pillbox hats…and Prohibition. And that’s before the bill is to be paid — looks like it’s going to cost us dearly.

You know what the real tragedy here is? Most folks, among the ones who consider themselves independent and open-minded but need to have it explained to them why this is a bad thing, will launch into a discussion about whether people should have healthcare coverage or not. The idjits — it doesn’t matter how the money will be spent, it matters that whether the state can take control over it, and what trifling gripe the state has against the rightful owner just before they take it.

Ya oughtta be covered…sheesh. The issue might as well be what kind of music you listen to on your car radio. This is exactly what Swift was parodying in Gulliver’s Travels with those kings arguing about how to open an egg.

P-R-I-V-A-T-E – P-R-O-P-E-R-T-Y. That means you decide…and Hillary’s against it. Yes, Hillary, Obama’s not as radical as you are on this issue. Know why? Because he’s a man…men can’t get away with transforming the United States into a communist regime overnight. But you’ve got your gender card, and all sorts of brainless dolts you’ve bamboozled into thinking it’s all about fallopian tubes, and not about issues.

And our current President, I’m told, is a threat to our “civil liberties” because when we catch terrorists, they don’t get frosting on their cinnamon rolls…and the Patriot Act is being used to bust drug dealers. Here’s a major candidate, widely considered to be a front-runner, talking about taking our paychecks away if we don’t live our lives the way she wants us to.

And she expects by her saying this, that her chances will improve. And who’s to doubt her? She probably knows what she’s doing, and imagine the implications of that.

Just amazing.

Update: Boortz is predictably just as incredulous as I am…

So let’s quickly review what would happen to you, the loyal taxpayer, if you choose to purchase your own healthcare, rather than relying on the government to provide it for you.

Scenario #1: The government takes you to court in order to pay. Hillary says that “garnishing wages of people who don’t comply” is an option. That means that there is a court-ordered process to take property from you in order to satisfy your debt to the government. The government takes your property in order to use your money for the service of others (in this case it would be healthcare). Sounds fair, right?

What we have here is a clear indication that Hillary considers you and everything you possess to be the property of the U.S. Government.

Scenario #2: Using the tax system as enforcement. I could think of a really easy way to eliminate this option. Wouldn’t it be great to take away that power from Hillary? If she no longer had the IRS and our convoluted tax system to satisfy her socialist agenda, imagine the power you, the people, would have.

Scenario #3: And the last scenario would not give you any option of whether or not you would like to have government healthcare. It would be mandated. Where did your freedom of choice or individual responsibility go? If Hillary has it her way, you wouldn’t have any, would you? That’s just the way the single women – I’m sorry, unmarried women – want it.

I Made a New Word XII

Friday, January 25th, 2008

Bot Market

A market that exists in transaction movement only, producing no wealth.

In a stricter definition, a wealth-neutral market created from government regulation, which the players in that market, then take an active role in creating and refining. A market built around a vicious cycle of lobbying and legislating. A market that exists in a parasitic relationship to the rest of us, as opposed to a symbiotic one.

Human Bot FlyNamed after the most horrifying of the beasties on Cracked’s list of the five most horrifying bugs in the world, the Bot Fly, which feeds itself by tunneling through animal flesh. It fits very well…

There are dozens of varieties of Bot Fly, they’re each highly adapted to target a specific animal, they have delightfully descriptive names like Horse Stomach Bot Fly, Sheep Nose Bot Fly and, hey, guess what. One of them is called Human Bot Fly.

And this is inspired, in turn, by a story (about which we learn courtesy of Rick) putting us on notice of a brand new legal specialty: Environmentalism. Try on $700 an hour for size.

Lawyers are becoming some of the best-paid environmentalists. Twenty of the 100 highest-grossing U.S. law firms have started practices advising Companies on climate change, according to a Bloomberg survey of the firms’ Web sites. The attorneys help clients finance clean-energy projects and lobby Congress, typically billing $500 to $700 an hour.

Firms including Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Heller Ehrman and Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton joined the global warming cause as real-estate and structured-finance attorneys lost jobs to the worst U.S. housing slump in 27 years. The move into climate-change law is gaining traction as Congress considers a mandatory carbon market to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Yeah, George Bush gets blame for the rapidly weakening U.S. dollar. He deserves a great deal of this. You spend money like it’s going out of style…you confront the enemy, at enormous financial cost, as we have been needing to do for a long time, but to buttress your “political capital” you refuse to veto any NEW spending…lemme repeat that, any NEW spending…yes, the dollar will tank.

Yes, a lot of it is Bush’s fault.

But how strong will a market ever become, when it feeds on itself? These lawyers are making money by killing business. No, wait, it’s worse than that — lawyers have been doing that for generations.

These lawyers, though, make the money by talking the businesses into committing suicide.

The world carbon-trading market tripled to about $30 billion between 2005 and 2006, according to the World Bank. Such a market in the U.S. may reach as much as $300 billion by 2020, Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said in U.S. House testimony last year.

The model proposed by Warner, a Virginia Republican, and Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, is similar to the European Union’s emissions program. Heavy polluters must buy credits to comply, while cleaner Companies can profit by selling them.

How many millions of people do we have in the United States who are “into environmentalism”?

How many of them are purely useful-idiots — making no money from it? People who see it as nothing more than a fashion statement?

How many of them drive big, big cars so they can sit way up high? Even when commuting to work? By themselves? With a lunch box, a badge with which to get in the front door, and nothing else? No kids, no soccer gear, no camping equipment…just a sandwich and an apple and their own ass? Eleven miles a gallon?

How many of them bitch about the gas prices?

How does an oil company pay for carbon credits? Built into the system, right? The system…which is funded by a gas company…which makes money from gas…which is sold to the useful-idiot environmentalist guy in his big ol’ Navigator driving his own ass and nothing else to work.

Waiting for the day George W. Bush leaves office. Just like the lawyer making $700 an hour producing nothing. Except the useful-idiot environmentalist, is looking forward to Bush’s exit because he’s counting on gas prices going down

We are being SO had.

Update: Went back and checked my notes to figure out how I learned about the dreaded Bot Fly. It was linked in an unusually verbose and action-packed post from Duffy…which has lots and lots of other good stuff.

The Amazing Dennis Kucinich

Wednesday, January 9th, 2008

I’ll post it, most of it, in total because sometimes even one mouse-click is too much to ask of people.

Read it today on Neal’s Nuze page, if you don’t read another thing. Because some of the “class envy” politicians, unlike Kucee, actually have a shot…and I don’t think they know any more than he does…

Kucinich has a long history in congress of trying to shift the tax burden away from low and middle income Americans onto the backs of the high-achievers. In 2003 he sponsored a law that would give a “refundable” tax credit to protect low and middle income people from having to pay Social Security or Payroll taxes. Kucinich, who is chairman of the “Progressive” (that means liberal) Caucus also proposed something he called a “tax dividend” for every man, woman and child. Well, almost every man, woman and child. He wanted to limit the dividends paid to the top 1% of income earners to only 1% of the total tax cut.

Well, there’s our clue. Kucinich doesn’t have any idea in the world how much of the total taxes are paid by the top one percent of income earners … so I asked him two questions:

1. What percentage of total income is earned by the top 1% of income earners?
2. What percentage of total federal income taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners.

The answers were astounding. Congressman Dennis Kucinich thinks that the top 1% of income earners earns about 60% of all income, and he thinks that they pay about 15% of all income taxes. The fact is that the top 1% of all income earners pull in about 18% of all income and pay 38.8% of all income taxes.

This is an astounding level of ignorance on such an important statistic. You can excuse a mother of three loading up on Happy Meals for her porky little kids at a McDonalds for not knowing this .. .but a member of the Congress?

The Latest Assault on Capitalism

Monday, December 31st, 2007

…involves replacing an iPod, right out of its box, with a note.

If you thought the war on capitalism died with the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, you’d be wrong. Agitators are still hard at work at bringing down capitalism, but now they have a new weapon, the Apple iPod.

When a little girl in Maryland recently opened her Christmas presents, she thought she’d received exactly what she’d been hoping for, an iPod. Unfortunately, when she actually opened the box, instead of an iPod, she received a very strange note instead:

RECLAIM YOUR MIND FROM THE MEDIA SHACKLES. READ A BOOK AND RESURRECT YOURSELF.

TO CLAIM YOUR CAPITALISTIC GARBAGE GO TO YOUR NEAREST APPLE STORE.

The girl’s father, Joe Ellis, returned the box and note to the Walmart store where he had originally purchased it. According to Fox 5, he was not the only customer to have had his iPod switched for anti-capitalist propaganda.

I really wasn’t aware until now there was some kind of inimical relationship going on between our free-market way of life, and PEOPLE WHO USE CAPITAL LETTERS ALL THE DAMN TIME. I’m going to update my “reasons to support capitalism” file accordingly.

Being Anti-Human

Friday, November 23rd, 2007

The Christmas season has begun. Christmas is all about Christ, and Christ is all about being pro-human. Tragically, this has come to be the time of year when the arguing really ramps up…which makes absolutely no sense at all, until you stop to consider that Christmas is a pro-human holiday.

Some folks don’t like that…

The video above is linked to VHEMT, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement with the catchy tag-line, “May We Live Long and Die Out.” They promote zero, and negative if possible, population growth. Their philosophy is that humans are harmful to the ecosystem and therefore must go away. In other words, environmentalists that are more straight-talking than most of the others. VHEMT literature seems to like to talk about those among their membership who are parents, and therefore apparently hypocritical. Their explanation is that these people became parents before they became “aware,” and since then have pledged to not have any more.

Blogger friend Rick found out about a crazy woman who really took the initiative. I guess when we’ve multiplied just like those cancer cells and killed off the planet, at least everyone will know it wasn’t her fault! We can spend our dying moments thinking about what a good person she was.

Well, there are some trends going on that do make that look appealing. But this is exactly what people were thinking a hundred years ago with the “eugenics” movement. It was commonly thought that those among us who were the “lowest” were the ones who were breeding fastest, and something had to be done to proliferate the good strains of people and keep the bad ones in check. It hasn’t looked that appealing anymore since World War II and the purges of Stalinist Russia. You know, there’s a reason for that. This anti-human stuff has been tried before. You want to talk about metastasizing, well, it metastasized. Into something ugly. Many times.

It turns out, you can be pro-human or anti-human, there is really no in-between.

This blogger over here discovered this, and his essay is worth reading.

Beware of extremist green movements. Give them a wide, wide berth. They’re like the aliens in that “It’s A Cookbook” episode.

Update 11/25/07: A link to a profile of Toni Vernelli — living proof that some of our most hardcore environmentalists are, whether they admit it or not, simply opposed to people…being around. Living. Existing. Thanks to her big mouth, a great many more among the rest of us, are starting to wake up and see what it’s all about.

Bash in Bali

Wednesday, November 7th, 2007

Via Claudia Rosett, via Instapundit, via Rick, we discover that apparently you need a certain amount of global warming before you can talk seriously about global warming.

Really, now. If you wrote this up as fiction, no publisher would accept it. The villains in your story, he’d explain to you, are not nearly subtle enough. Look, you’ve got them as-much-as telling everyone “the world will end if we don’t get your global taxes raised.” You’ve got a scientific “documentary” produced, not by scientists, but by a failed politician and his Hollywood friends…all of whom constantly jet around the globe. You don’t even have them trying to hide this stuff, and you’re saying people are being taken in by it?

Make this into a work of fiction suitable for adults, he’d say. Make the plot a little more complicated…have the bad guys put some effort into hiding what they’re doing. As it is, it’s just too fantastic. The tales being told to people are far too tall, and you’ve got them falling for it too reliably. Anybody should see it would never happen in real life.

And yet here we are.

Energy Thermometer

Friday, November 2nd, 2007

Had this cool idea when I first rolled out of bed this morning. It makes more and more sense to me every time I think on it.

You know that “Doomsday Clock” the anti-nuclear egghead scientists rolled out during the cold war era to show how close to midnight we were getting, the “moment” when we’d supposedly use our amazing nuclear arsenal to blow up the planet? My son has been asking me here & there about the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius, and I was describing for him how both scales are based on 0 to 100 but use different definitions to define those two calibration points.

Well, Rick has been thinking some more about that Cristy article, as have I…

I’ve had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don’t think I will add “0.0001 Nobel Laureate” to my resume.
:
I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.
:
Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world’s energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 — roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It’s a dent.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit “global warming.”

So what’s the whole global warming movement about? If it was about keeping poor kids from starving, it wouldn’t be posing this threat to them…if it was about curtailing the carbon emissions into the atmosphere, people wouldn’t be flying around in private jets to promote it.

It’s not about stopping us from supplying people with energy. I think it would be far more accurate to say it’s about stopping us from providing that energy independently.

Which, already, we don’t do. You build a power plant, nuclear or otherwise, you have to get permits, file environmental impact statements, zone, design, approve, get blessings from Department of Labor, OSHA…

Just like any business. But someone has figured out, you can hamstring us by regulating businesses in general — or, you can hamstring us so much more effectively by regulating businesses that produce energy all other businesses use.

That’s what it’s all about. Greenhouse gases are just a distraction. A cow farts and burps greenhouse gases that are far more potent than anything you’ll produce by driving down the road. But cow doesn’t do anything to drive commerce. It just makes beef steaks and milk products, that’s all. So nobody even bats an eyelash at the cows. It’s our technology-related greenhouse gas output that has to be attacked.

As I said, we already don’t produce energy in the private sector with free-enterprise independence. We have the standard regulations. We have the Endangered Species Act. Our elected officials prohibit the production of energy, which is needed by poor people more than anybody else…or, they control the production of that energy. Their decisions determine, in whole or in part, who lives and who dies. Global warming is just a way to get some more of that going on.

I propose a thermometer. A thermometer, just like the Doomsday Clock. An “Energy Thermometer.”

Zero degrees means private industry produces the energy we need, with complete independence. A hundred degrees means the public sector determines all, and if private industry has any role to play whatsoever, it is simply to do what government says.

This would be a valuable thermometer. It would define the real purpose to all this fear-mongering and weird, other-worldly legislating. The above mentioned Endangered Species Act, for example — which has few defenders anymore, but pointedly nobody’s rushing to take off the books even at the dawn of our most long and drawn-out campaign season ever — probably boosted the “temperature” on such a scale by a good fifteen to twenty degrees.

Let’s build a thermometer like that. Then we could see the real point to these anti-technological, anti-capitalist movements we get from time to time…and we could measure their achieved effects, as well.