The Unholy Alliance Between Academia and Government Regulators

Reason TV: The Green Regulation Machine - Saving the Planet or Killing Jobs?

Encouraging

This is at George Mason University, I gather. Where one of my other extremely progressive friends from way back in my college years works now.



This video would probably scare the crap out of her.

One of Bob's Better Efforts

This is one of Gagdad Bob's better efforts.  And that's sayin' something.

You've got to love the reference to your conscience as your "grumpass"... that grumpy-ass voice inside you that acts as your "compass", the "get off my lawn" voice that tells you to do or not to do what you were thinking about doing... when obeying it would not be the "fun" thing to do.

Here is something that I actually figured out by the 10th grade, out of the mouth of Godwin:

Note that the free market has a way of converting man's faults into virtues. Conversely, leftism has a way of turning our virtues into faults. 

And this I have discovered  much more recently:

Note that one of the most dreadful characteristics of the left is to externalize the conscience in the form of their endless proliferation of law. A fool or knave imagines that if he obeys "the law," this makes him a good citizen. But We can never count on a man who does not look upon himself with the look of an entomologist (Don Colacho). 

He then goes on to clarify:

I would say Adamologist. For if one doesn't get the gist of Adam, one's moral philosophy will be a jest.

Brilliant wordplay.

And this really applies to the "greedy" meme of the left:

 [...] to suggest that a man is "greedy" should be a banality of the first rank. The question is, what are you going to do about yourgreed? Make it go away by confiscating from those who have more than you? Envy, like evil, cannot be appeased. Rather, appeasing it fuels it. 

Anyway, it's a terrific read.

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

Ah, it's that facebook friend I have agreed to stop booing when all he wants is applause again.

This time, he posts a link to this story

This is just funny. How can we have an atheist country dominated by religion? Oh well, at least his child bride is hot.

My urge is to post a comment: is that a rhetorical question, or did you really want it answered?  I realize you don't like to have your statements challenged, but that does look suspiciously like a question.

Of course, the answer is --- well first, this is not what Gingrich said.  He said a secular, atheist country dominated by radical Islamists. Which are people, not a religion.  They also happen to be a particularly dangerous strain of people because they have a ~1,300 year history of imposing their religion on others at the tip of a sword.  If you don't share that religion, you convert, accept dihimitude, or die. 

The real answer, then, to the question "How can we have an atheist country dominated by religion?" is -- rather like a body that looses its immune system can be dominated by disease.

Nature abhors a vacuum.  When we, as a nation, lose the ability to discern good from evil by supposing that one man's evil is another man's good and vice versa - we stand for nothing.  

If we stand for nothing -- if we are not willing to defend our ideals -- remember that ideology itself is demonized in our new society -- a group with strong ideals and a willingness to impose them by force will come in and impose away.

That is what Gingrich is talking about, irrelevant comments about his  45-year-old "child" bride aside.

The person making this statement is 47.

For someone who is in favor of letting people use the government to re-define marriage as being between any two people, I find it rather odd that he would imply there is something wrong with a man marrying a woman 23 years younger than he is, but nonetheless two consenting adults.  And I take it as an insult, as my wife is 14 years older than I am.   See, it's apparently ok to take snarky jabs at people, as long as those people are ideologically opposed to yours and aren't members of a progressively-sanctioned Victim™ group.   Otherwise, you're ... oh what's that word?  Oh yeah.  Intolerant.

The Lines are Drawn

So former Missouri State congresswoman Vicki Hartzler (apparently running for U.S. Congress) now US Congressman from Missouri, as Jeffmon points out --  held a townhall meeting, pointing out that we're borrowing 42 cents for every dollar we spend in Washington.

Translation: We're in a heap of trouble and we'd better change our ways.

Our local state Congresswoman Mary Still's response:

"We need to make investments to move our state forward."

Translation:  Damn the torpedoes, the government needs to spend, spend, spend, we don't care where the money comes from -- until enough people are so dependent on the government that they demand Socialism.

New Excellent Shirts

A nice variation on "Undo!"

An astute observation:

and my personal favorite:

All available at Those Shirts . Com.

And there was much rejoicing (yaaaay)

In this article about blacks leaving blue states in droves (which could be a good sign if they realize why it is the blue states they are leaving are the way they are) ... there's another little silver lining

Bob Herbert, for many years the only regular Black columnist on the New York Times‘ op-ed page (and hey, what's up with that, progressives??? - ed.), has written his last column before stepping down.

I don't really care what color he is -- to wit, my very favorite columnist is Thomas Sowell -- but Bob Herbert's column space was always worse than a waste.  It would have been better had it just been however many column spaces of blank space.  Hey Paul & Maureen ... wouldn't you like to golf for the rest of your lives?  Think about it.  Bob's already got the tee times lined up.

If the NYT wants a real, thoughtful black columnist, it should consider picking up Sowell.

Effective

Kinda dramatic. But effective. From Citizens Against Government Waste.

Tolerance ≠ Diversity

You know, while we're clearing things up and getting down to the facts on which to base our discussions:

Senator Durbin has said anti-Islamic sentiment in America is on the rise and that, "It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter's commitment to religious diversity ...

Our founders were not "comitted to religious diversity".   That is a politically correct distortion.  What our founders were committed to was religious tolerance.

If anything, most of them tried to encourage Christianity. But it was religious tolerance that they encoded in our Constitution and laws. Not some sort of prime directive to have as many religions as possible under our shingle.

But that'll never happen!

Some people support their opposition to same-sex marriages by saying that polygamy will be next. 

They get laughed out of the room.  That'll never happen.  The ole "I laugh, so it is defacto untrue" argument.

Update: (and bump)

You know, I've been thinking more about this.  My wife was just asking why "Sister Wives" is on TV?  It's illegal.  Why are they not being prosecuted?

Answer?  Nobody's going to press charges.  Because it's going to go down to religious prefrence, probably.  And if you can say polygamy is wrong, then you can say gay marriage is wrong.  Which goes against the progressive activist narrative (judicial and otherwise).  There is no right or wrong.  Just personal preferences.  Right?

So... again, what's next? 

[waynesworlddreamsequence]

Why can't I marry my sister?   We love each other, and man, she's hot!  Inbreeding?  Don't worry.  Ok, we won't have kids.  Any time she gets pregnant, we'll just have an abortion.  Or maybe we will.  We'll adopt kids.  And so what if we do have kids?  Birth defect?  Who are you to judge?  They wouldn't be handicapped... they'd be handicapable.

[/waynesworddreamsequence]

Crazy, right? Really?  Is it?

Earth Hour: A Dissent

This echoes my thoughts, only much better.  (Couple more here for good measure)

Feel-good, mambsy-pambsy tokens of penance for perceived crimes against "The Earth" that confer moral justification for lecturing others who behave no differently (and often perhaps "better") than they outside of this one hour of bell-tolling, self-flogging, moral preening.

Hat tip to Morgan, via Gerard, ultimately from Watts With That?

Earth Hour: A Dissent.

Welcome To the Hotel California

The Kinetic Military Action in The Land of No Good Guys.

I've been a tad indifferent about what it is we're doing in Libya ... and perhaps that is because I simply don't know what it is we're trying to accomplish.   I've never had any love for Khadaffi, and I never bought the "changed man" theory.  The Lockerbie bombing has a lot to do with this.  Yeah, I'd like to see him not there (or anywhere) anymore.

But of course, there's the whole "what moves in to fill the vacuum"  question -- which is the big hole in the well-meaning neo-conservative doctrine (and who knew Obama was a "neo-con", eh?)  It just doesn't work in a population that's not ready for it ("it" being anything like a Jeffersonian Democracy).  Imperialism, would in fact, be better if you're going to do anything at all (militarily) to advance the cause.   Which I am specifically not endorsing here.  Just putting weights on the options.

So leave it to Mark Steyn to finally put it in terms that make some sense.   I've been saying over the past five years or so that I could be an isolationist once we tie up our overseas obligations.   I'd be all for systematically drawing down all over the world ... and yeah, I mean Germany and the rest of Europe.   Beef up our defenses here, get serious about killing enemies when they attack, and pre-emptively strike if they threaten to attack.   I could get behind that if we had the right attitude about it.

Apparently "Peace" Is Not The Answer, Either

On my way in to work this morning, I again saw one of the myriad of "War Is Not the Answer" bumperstickers looking me self-righteously in the face.

Of course, now that the President they elected who got a Nobel Peace Prize before he got his desk arranged in the Oval Office has lobbed a barrage of tomahawk missiles into Libya "for humanitarian purposes" (I guess leaving Saddam in power would have been "humanitarian"?) ... can we at least agree that before we decide what is and isn't the answer that we should define the question and pair them up first?

I mean, "10" is not the answer either.  Except when it is.

What if Liberals Needed Water to Be Dry?

Timely reading from Morgan from a year ago that is still frighteningly fresh today (and hilarious, too, in that way that you wish it wasn't).   So fresh I thought he'd just written it.  Only I commented on it a year ago.  So ...

I was just thinking about other things that can be absolutely, positively, indisputably proven — easily. Liberals never seem to want to take those on with their condescending, bullying tactics.

I was just wondering what we’d see if that were to happen. So I made a little list. What if it was about…something immediately recognizable. Water being wet?

1. The clear and indisputable fact that water is wet, is found to have an obstructive effect — don’t ask me how, let’s just go with this, okay? — on some highly energized left-wing agenda item.

comedy ensues.... do click on the link above and rtwt

Cloward and Piven Live

To those of you who thought Glenn Beck's scrutiny of Cloward and Piven and their infamous strategy was overblown, or that their ideas have since been watered down and "mainstreamified" -- check out the SEIU tape Glenn just got.

Oh yes.  The strategy is alive and well.

"Justice for Janitors" indeed.  Here's the complete audio (also embedded in The Blaze article).

Believe It Or Not

Back in late Feb, Joey Scarbury Joe Scarborough comes out and says

"Italian news sources reported that 1000 people have been gunned down by Khadaffi, yet this president has yet to give a really strong statement. What's stunning to me is that this White House had no problems condemning our Ally, Mubarak in Egypt ... and yet this sort of resembles the way he reacted to the crackdown in Iran. Do we actually hold our enemies to lower standards than we hold our friends? I don't understand this."

And that, my friends, is a very good question. You know there are those who have suggested that Obama is interested in weakening America's position in the world, what with him snubbing the Brits and Israel while cozying up to the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinijihad (until Dinner Jacket told him what to do with his Hope).

But those people have been declared crazy by the MSM. But Joe's a part of the MSM. Maybe Joe should read Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage". Might give him a frame of reference to help his understanding.

If your president treats your enemies with deference and your friends with contempt ... maybe you should take a closer look at him.  But no.  Glenn Beck is crazy!  And Chris Matthews will call you RACIST!   And Bill Maher will tell you you're too stupid to deserve such an awesome president.

Of course, now it's "bombs away", after the U.N. demanded it (and Congress wasn't consulted). Yeah. That's the way it's supposed to work.

"Transition"

"There is going to be a transition taking place in which were are one of the partners among many." - President Obama, at a press conference in Chile.

Huh.  You know one could've said the same thing about Iraq.

The stories are coming out today, now that the liberal media has had a couple of days to digest what just happened and they realize they have some 'splainin' to do.

The 'splainin' appears to amount to, "we wanted to, and we buy our own reasons while we won't buy anyone else's."

We have:

The Liberal Way of War - Ross Douthat, New York Times

We're like Keystone Cops when we fight, but our intentions are pure - because we're "us". What's gon-na work? Teeeeeeeeeeaaaam Work!"

Why Liberals Wanted War With Libya - Peter Beinart, The Daily Beast

as long as we aren't putting ourselves out too much, we can level the playing field so the bad guys have as good a chance of winning as the good guys. Plus we get a front-row seat.

Humanitarian Intervention A "Core Principle" - President Barack Obama

Saddam was really a nice guy, and it had nothing to do with UN Oil for Food kickbacks.  Really. Kurds?  Everyone knows it was global warming that killed them.  I hear the rape and chipper victims were masochists anyway.  Ghadafi, on the other hand ... pure evil.  He's got to stay.  Go. Stay.  Go!

Libya a Huge Test for Atrocity Prevention - Mark Goldberg, UN Dispatch

"all necessary measures" means what it says when it's our guy, and it's awesome!

Me, I'm not at all sure this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just lookin' for a little consistency on the part of the Left.

Moore and Farrakhan Come Out Against Obama

Ok, we have A.N.S.W.E.R., Michael Moore, and Louis Farrakhan on the Left criticizing the president over Libya.  So there's at least some consistency on the radical fringes.

Libya Did Not Attack Us

Where are the cries of "Libya Did Not Attack Us"?

Where are the ant-war protests?

I was going to post on this, but David Warren already did at least as good a job as I would have.

In a way almost touching, the Bush administration tried to meet all the criteria of a just war, when invading Afghanistan, then Iraq. They tried to meet the Powell maxims, too. They went to elaborate and exhausting lengths to leave "democratic" and constitutional regimes, in a most unfavourable region. For this, especially, they endured the contempt of the world's most aggressively self-righteous people.

Who, in turn, seem to be rallying behind the Security Council resolution of Thursday night, which "authorizes" the enforcement not only of no-fly zones over Libya, but any other uses to which military forces may be put, short of a decisive ground invasion.

Even if it is "just a no-fly zone" ... the last one worked out so well, didn't it?  During this period, Saddam doubled down, genocidally gassed the Kurds, threw people feet first into chippers ... shot at our planes, and left us with a long-term military presence on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia.

Which, if you'll recall, was at the top of the list of reasons Bin Laden gave for justification for 9/11.

Which led to the 2003 Iraq invasion.  You know, the one that didn't have anything to do with 9/11, the one where Iraq didn't attack us, so we shouldn't attack it.  Yes, this sounds like a great idea.

Bloods vs Crips

This weekend's assignment, for lack of a worthwhile post from moi -- is to go read this Bob Godwin post.

Very interesting and useful perspective.  I suppose that makes "us" the "Crips".

Oooh, I like this Don Colacho amorphism he references:

"Liberty is the right to be different; equality is a ban on being different"

Krauthammer on the Social Security "Trust Fund"

Apparently Obama's budget cheif too issue with Krauthammer's assertion that the lockbox is empty.

So he had to go back to the bat boy and get another Clue Bat out to wield at the plate of truth.

Ecclesiastes 10:2

While we're off on this Biblical quote tangent...

Ecclesiates 10:2 -- A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left.

Incidentally, Ecclesiastes 10:2 would make an excellent name for a blog. :-)

You Lie Down With Dogs, You Get Up With Fleas

I was pumping gas yesterday.  It was a pleasant day, in the 60's.

Over by the building iteself was a woman sitting in a car. She had a sour look on her face. Windows down.  Stereo blaring.  About all I could make out was

"F*ck that b*tch"  "Kill that b*tch" "n*gga"  ...

Over and over and over .... The foul word to normal language ratio was probably approaching 50/50. It was an ugly sound with ugly words, and there she is, just steeping in it. Probably wondering why her life sucks.

You live day in and day out listening to that garbage, steeping in it like fabric in a dye bath ... it's gonna have an effect on you.

Yes, But ...

A friend of a friend posted a story over on facebook about the Bible not being the source of defining marriage as one man, one woman.

The article provides a list of supposed examples of how it "defines" it as other things.  But this is going down the wrong road.  

First, let me say that I don't know that the Bible "defines" marriage at all (and a lot of this post is a digression into the tactic taken here.)   The Bible does talk about all kinds of things.   There's murder.  There's adultery (which suggests some recognition of marital obligations), there's betrayal -- there is all kinds of "sin" in the Bible.  But these aren't examples of standards to be lived up to.  They are generally lessons in what is wrong, or at the very most, examples of the way things simply are.  Or were, as the case may be.  Much of what is referenced by the guy turns out to be the relation of facts by the Biblical text, not instructions as to what should be, and much liberty was taken (in the items listed farther below) in the interpreted conclusions.

I never was, and especially now am not, a Biblical literalist.  Or even a practicing religious person at all in the way that "practice" would commonly be understood.

But I do find it amusing that non-Christians (especially those of the anti-Christian persuasion) will go digging into the Bible and turn these things up as if, because there is a story about an adulteress, then adultery is condoned by the Bible.  Cain murdered Abel, and it's in the Bible, so ... the Bible and therefore Christianity condones it?

One should at least gain an understanding of the big picture the Bible presents before commenting on what a particular passage shows, whether you're a believer or not.

The article the guy linked gives a bunch of examples from the Old Testament ...

• Marriage consists of one man and one or more women.
• Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have.
• The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the biblical mindset.
• If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned

All things reflecting cultural realities at the time, many of which even according to the story Jesus came to change -- and the guy basically admits this when he goes on to say:

For those who claim these are all Old Testament laws and that the New Testament supersedes them, consider in the New Testament that:

• Women are allowed to marry the man of their father's choosing ... because women are the property of their father until married and their husband afterwards.
• Interfaith marriages are prohibited.
• If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow
• Divorce is forbidden, and finally ...
• It's better, according to St. Paul, to not get married at all.

Well yes, as a matter of fact most Christians do believe that the old laws were superseded by the new, so it was kind of them to bring this up.  And you have to note that none of the stuff they found in the New Testament have anything to do with polygamy or same-sex couples.  So the subject has apparently been changed when we get to what Christians actually believe(d).

Especially when they outright ignore passages such as this:

1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

But again, these last few passages are on divorce, not on defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  It's a digression used to embarrass the literalists, not to show that the New Testament doesn't say One Man, One Woman.  It is clear here that the singular is consistently used when referring to man or wife, and that the two, (not the three, four, eight) become one.

8 appears to say that even before Moses, divorce was frowned upon by God. And it should be clear that the "better not to marry" claim is taken entirely out of context, as the "if" clause was completely ignored.  Plus it was the disciples saying it, not Christ.  It appears to me that they may have been saying, in effect, "Harsh, dude!"

All this being said, the argument I've made all along has nothing to do with the Bible or science, but culture and religion as it is practiced -- and the cultural forcing that is being attempted through the use of the Government by the same-sex "marriage" activists.

You have the right, in America, to do as you please and to call it what you please as long as no coercion is involved on others and it doesn't break their leg or pick their pocket.  And others have the right to react to it within those confines as they see fit.  When you use government to define cultural things, especially ancient and deeply ingrained cultural things -- you are overstepping the bounds of limited government.

Fat Movie Producer in a Baseball Cap

Heh.  Just too good to pass up.

HT: Morgan (from what he calls the "Hello Kitty" of bloggin')

Hope

May this passion for defense of our own culture manifest itself here.

HT: Joan of Arrrgh!!!

N"O" Shame

Does "O" really have no shame?

I saw this Obama letter linked, and in it I read the following:

And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

Really?  That's an awfully bold statement to make.

Oh yeah, he signed it.  Grudgingly.  After halting the midnight provision Bush put in before leaving office.  He signed it to get something else he wanted.  Republicans attatched it to a Credit Card regulation bill the Dems wanted badly. 

Fear Our Diversity

There are apparently too many white males in the U.S. Military.

Damn white males volunteering to putting themselves in harm's way for the defense of the country.  Of course, as Roger Hedgecock suggested, tongue firmly in cheek, if the military set up heavy recruitment programs in inner-city school districts, they'd be accused of taking advantage of poor minorities, using them as fodder for the Hegemonic Corporate-Industrial-Military Complex.  But since the military has relatively few minority volunteers, it's clearly RAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST.   (And sexist and homophobic.)

Never mind the fact that, since the 1940's when FDR turned up the dial to 11 on identity politics (and we've had to expand the scale since then) that the majority of "protected" minorities (ever noticed that Asians don't tend to suffer like the "protected" ones do?) align themselves with the party that champions entitlements over defense.

And on that "phobic" bit.  That's another bit of newspeak we have neglected to fight.   The left cleverly takes these phrases and weaves the narrative in the media (TV, comedy, movies, newspapers, magazines, 24 hour news channels) until it becomes the language everybody uses, and they do this on purpose.  But like newspeak, it prevents meaningful dialogue on  the subject at hand.

I saw a comedian last night launch into a bit of a NASCAR fan bashing routine where he referred to them sweepingly as "homophobic".   And I got to thinking.  While indeed I imagine a large chunk of the NASCAR crowd is less accepting of homosexuals, "phobic" is a way to belittle and make fun of those who believe the behavior is wrong.   I know a guy I work with, for instance, is a big NASCAR fan.  He is not only tolerant of gayness, he's accepting of it, and as a matter of fact, is totally cool with it.  He used to work with a state agency fighting AIDS, and spent a lot of time in gay bars talking to patrons and disseminating helpful information.   I have other good friends that are devout Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong -- but they're not scared of them. And many of them are NASCAR fans.  But the language we are basically forced into when talking about these issues dictates that if you don't approve, you are afraid.  Which is nuts.

I would also be willing to bet there are gay NASCAR fans.

While that was a bit of a digression, I use it to illustrate how completely crippled we are as a country in talking about issues of diversity.   While our American philosophy rightly dismisses race as a dividing trait, it does not dismiss culture.  And it should not.  But that is exactly what forces on the Left do when they promote "diversity" as something to strive for rather than something to just let happen.

With that as a guiding principle, people are apparently able, with a straight face, to formulate sentences that start out (as someone did in the MLDC report) .... "Leveraging diversity as a vital strategic military resource..."

Yeah, buddy.  You may have chemical weapons, but we'll overwhelm you with our massive "diversity".

"Tightening the Noose?"

Obama says we're "tightening the noose" on Ghadaffi?

How ... violent.  I mean really.  We need to use a more civil tone.

In the words of most of our leftist friends .... "Libya didn't attack us."   What are we doing talking about no-fly zones and tightening nooses? 

:-)

Jeffmon Knows Some Things, Too.

And we're adding this one to "Things I Know"

#33: If it's got a politician's name in front of it, it's pork.

He Who Lives By The Loop Hole ...

Dies by the loophole.

So the Dems who camped out out of state to hold the state legislature hostage on voting to restrict Public Union power in Wisconsin were taking advantage of a loophole that said there needed to be a quorum present to vote on any measures that spend money, and the bill restricting Public Union power had spending measures in it.

So the Republicans took them out and passed the remainder of the bill.

Brilliant!

"You are cowards!" spectators in the Senate gallery screamed as lawmakers voted.

Oh yeah? What were they cowering from? The rude people screaming at them as they defied their will right in front of them?  The crowds of the "community organized" who chased and harassed Senators around the capitol last week?  The hundreds which swelled into thousands when they found out the vote was going on?  Cowards?

I think I would call them courageous.

The cowards were hiding over the state line avoiding the consequences of last November's election.

"In 30 minutes, 18 state senators undid 50 years of civil rights in Wisconsin."

Really? I guess they're back to separate drinking fountains for blacks now, and all workplace safety rules are out the window. Why I figure employers will just stop paying their employees at all now. And benefits? Pshaw! Fuggeddaboudit.   Hyperbole much?

"Their disrespect for the people of Wisconsin and their rights is an outrage that will never be forgotten"

Um ... what about the people of Wisconsin who elected that same Senate Majority?

"Tonight, 18 Senate Republicans conspired to take government away from the people."

Funny, I see it as a step in giving it back to the people.

Public unions use taxpayer money to help elect the people they will be negotiating their contracts with, and in turn those elected want to stay in office so they keep those same public unions happy.  This cozy relationship keeps the rest of the taxpayers out of the loop as they continue to fleece the state for their own sweet deals.

The Dems are freaking because they see a loss of steady, guaranteed campaign funds.

Bushism of the Day

I was out reading a story on the WSJ site this morning, and I saw this in a series of "Brickbat" (as reason magazine calls them) links.

Bushism of the Day

"The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist."--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, quoted by Politico.com

I was a little confused about why we were having daily Bushisms, still, and a bit surprised to see it in the WSJ. I completely missed who the quote was actually attributed to, since I thought it was established that it was a Bushism.

Then I ran across Malkin's (actually Doug Powers') link on facebook to the Politico article. 

Harry Reid’s love of all-things-cowboy dates back to his great great grandfather Bucky Ried, who, as legend has it, once taxed a man to death just for snorin’ too loud.

That trait has stayed with the family, and now the Senate Majority Leader is leading the fight to maintain taxpayer support for those paying artistic homage to rugged individualism and self-reliance.

Too much fun.

Juan is a little upset

I would be, too.  Dude looks like he's about read to explode.

They only get 1 or 2% of their budget from the government?  And now this guy says they'd be better off without it?

Ok, done!

De-Federally-Fund NPR.  I ended my donations.

I Generically Ridicule, Therefore It Is Wrong

I was hunting around on the web for a Document some Glenn Beck listener had found, I think in her attic, entitled "Progress and Democracy in Rhode Island" and had sent it in to him, and he had read from it in his 2010 CPAC speech.

And in that search I ran across this New Yorker article written by one George Packer who, of Glenn's speech said at the outset, "I watched so you don’t have to."  (Well whatever you do, don't go look for yourself.  You might make up your own mind before I make it up for you!)

The first thing he did in the article was introduce us, in the end not to a person, but to the name (of a real person) whom at first he subtly disparages by referring to her as part of a group of "aging" people who are turning to "radical" "anti-government" politics for answers.  He brings up the President of Sandpoint Idaho's Tea Party, Pam Stout.

Apparently he tells us all about her so we don't have to go look, but look I did, and it turns out she was the lady David Letterman had on one night.  You can watch the whole thing here.

He then goes on this long rambling tirade typecasting her as someone who would have been a Shay's Rebel (maybe¹), a follower of  Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina in the 1850's (I assume because he used "states rights" to defend slavery - which I'm certain Mrs. Stout would not - but that doesn't mean arguing "states rights" is defacto a defense of slavery), a fan of William Jennings Bryan (who was all over the map with political positions -- Packer mentions "free silver".  I doubt you could get Mrs. Stout to argue for free anything from the government.)  Then he went on to pinning her to Huey Long, then Father Caughlin (whom Packer identifies as "right wing".  George, you might want to go read a little more about Caughlin before you go there²) -- but the general gist of it is that Pam Stout is unprincipled and scared and easily lead by demagoguery-peddling populists.  Which of course, by strong inference, he says Glenn Beck is.  There are no facts presented to back this up.  I'm sure he did the research "so you don't have to".

Do go watch the video of Pam if you haven't seen it.  She comes across as a well-informed, reasonable, very calm, nice lady.  I think she represented the movement well.

So really, the first part of the article was Packer assigning a 1950's intellectual's opinions on the paranoid fringe, afraid of change -- to Pam.  With absolutely no evidence.  It's just so.  Don't look it up.  He's writing this for you so you don't have to.

Then he goes on to talk about how, while he watched the speech he could see how this fictional version of Mrs. Stout would be attracted to Glenn Beck.  He basically observes that Beck comes across as a nice guy who has overcome personal demons, and he's self depricating and openly emotional, and that if he can get back up on his feet -- so can America.

Well God forbid!

He then goes on to paraphrase and quote Beck -- mostly accurately -- on the history of Progressism mostly with respect to Progressivism in America.  There is an underlying tone of ridicule, but he directly challenges none of what Beck says.

So the gist of the article seems to be that Beck is a demogogue because the easily led, uneducated old people fearful of any change are attracted to him.   Only the person he dragged out as an example upon any inspection at all seems to fit perhaps only one of those qualifiers -- if you consider 62 "old" (ageist!!!!).   And while Glenn Beck was shown to be emotional and appealing -- one thing he was not shown to be was ... wrong.


1. "The financial situation leading to the rebellion included the problem that European war investors (among others) demanded payment in gold and silver; there was not enough specie in the states, including Massachusetts, to pay the debts; and through the state, wealthy urban businessmen were trying to squeeze whatever assets they could get out of rural smallholders. Since the smallholders did not have the gold that the creditors demanded, everything they had was confiscated, including their houses."

2. Caughlin turned against the New Deal he initially supported because it wasn't left wing enough for him. His newspaper was called "Social Justice" -- hardly right-wing terminology, and he formed his own group, The National Union for Social Justice -- when he grew impatient with the New Deal. Though all of this can be found independently of Glenn Beck, if George Parker actually listened to Glenn Beck, he would have been aware of this.  And as anyone who listens to Glenn Beck knows, he encourages and expects his audience to go verify things for themselves.  Unlike George - who watches speeches so you don't have to.

Quotes from One Cosmos

Caught up on One Cosmos last night.   I was over a week behind.  While going through it, several quotes stuck out at me.  And I made note of them.  Here.

• These selfless protesters are not protesting in the name of their rights, but of your obligations. 
• Remove the valuing subjects from the equation, and there is no way to know what anything is worth. An economy degenerates into chaos when prices are not allowed to spontaneously emerge in this way.
•  if you don't even care about yourself, what can you possibly be relied upon to care about?
• multiculturalism is another suicidal doctrine, or rather, the same doctrine applied to the collective -- self-hatred disguised as the love of others.
• instead of taking an absurd leap of faith into faithlessness, or believing in disbelief, one might as well illuminate the muddleman and just be a believer, period. 
•  Certain ideas are only clear when formulated, but others are only clear when alluded to (Don Colacho).
• you can never get enough of what you don't really need. 
• The confidence man -- from the tenured on up -- recoils at clarity, and always tries to muddy the water. As Upton explains, these are people who "absolutize the relative," which begins and ends in the destruction of wisdom. And once wisdom is out of the picture, everything is at once conceivable and permissible. 
• shame has a proper function in the harmoniously balanced and integrated soul, whereas the shameless are capable of anything.
•  for all the honey-coated seduction of the left -- the beautiful lies of Sugar Candy Mountain and free stuff for everyone -- it all ultimately redounds to coercion.
• in the words of Don Colacho, there is no faster way to corrupt an individual than to teach him to call his personal desires rights and the rights of others abuses.
• Did I just hear the distant bleating of a rump trumpet? Then we must be in hell or among the tenured, where the two ends of the digestive tract are routinely reversed -- where pompous gasbags talk trash and pull facts from their behind. The technical term is zonal confusion. The colloquial term is bullshit.
• Suffice it to say that someone who is drunk on God is infinitely closer to reality than someone who is sober on matter.
• For the deconstructionist, there is no stable reality, only the interpretation they give it.
• Hell is a place of "false infinity," again analogous to the auto-cannibalistic deconstructionist who must eventually dine on himself, the only thing left standing after everything else has been deconstructed.
• Phrases are pebbles that the writer tosses into the reader’s soul. The diameter of the concentric waves they displace depends on the dimensions of the pond.  
• cynicism masquerades as a kind of humility when it is really a form of omniscience, an absolute faith in oneself to determine what is real and worthy of assent. The cynic bows before no one, and therefore bows before himself.

Then there was this:

As Walter Williams writes (HT American Digest),

"How about what car you drive, where you live, whom you marry, whether you have turkey or ham for Thanksgiving dinner? If those decisions were made through a democratic process, the average person would see it as tyranny and not personal liberty. Is it no less tyranny for the democratic process to determine whether you purchase health insurance or set aside money for retirement? Both for ourselves, and our fellow man around the globe, we should be advocating liberty, not the democracy that we've become where a roguish Congress does anything upon which they can muster a majority vote."

Which is why communism is hell on earth. And leftism is in the attractor of communism, which is why it always tends in that direction. Its first principles are not America's first principles, no matter how they try to spin it and obscure those principles. When the state does something for you, it always does something to you (excluding, of course, those things individuals cannot do for themselves).

And I particularly enjoyed this:

I've been typing this post -- like all my recent posts -- in the darkness of the dawn. They say that dawn is the friend of the muses. I suppose this is because at dawn we still have one foot in the mouth of the waters of our night-sea journey into the multidmensional dream world. Perhaps my posts only make sense at dawn and cannot withstand the brightly intense beam of darkness of trolltime logic.

And on that subject of Church and State

Today's David Warren column ... I find thought provoking.

RealClearReligion, huh?  New one on me.

I go only slightly beyond Brague in observing that what makes our own society unique, is not its freedom from religion but rather the peculiar nature of the religion upon which our theocracy rests. That is to say, we have an upside-down religion, in which there is no God, but that "Not God" commands an obedience more absolute than God ever required, stipulating everything from the sanctity of antinomian sexual behaviour, down to how we should sort our garbage.

Why Are We Still In Germany?

Steyn.  Go readz him.

But relax, this fellow in Frankfurt was most likely a "lone wolf" (as Sen. Chuck Schumer described the Times Square Bomber) or an "isolated extremist" (as the president described the Christmas Day Pantybomber).

There are so many of these "lone wolves" and "isolated extremists" you may occasionally wonder whether they've all gotten together and joined Local 473 of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves and Isolated Extremists, but don't worry about it: As any Homeland Security official can tell you, "Allahu akbar" is Arabic for "Nothing to see here."

U L B glad U didz.

About That Word

Well, maybe I can't comment on that guy's wall anymore, but I can comment on things I see on it on my blog :-)

And I can comment on things I see other friends commenting on on their friends walls over here, to. Take Morgan for example.  A friend of his posted this story:

Boehner launches effort to defend gay marriage ban House Speaker John Boehner says he's launching a legal defense of the federal law against gay marriage. The Ohio Republican announced Friday that he was convening a bipartisan legal advisory group to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Mr. Freeberg pointed out that Boehner's argument: 'The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts -- not by the president unilaterally,'  is pretty sound.

But the poster responded:

My point is why is this an issue? we have much bigger problems than if people want to get married or not. i HATE the christian Right

Wait, your point is a question?  Oh, I see now.  Your point is actually at the end of your response.  Let people talk long enough and they will eventually make their point.   And of course, that's what the Gay Marriagers want.  They want you to hate, shame, and silence their opposition.  And you want applause for helping out.

Another poster piped up:

How can you be bipartisan and object to everyone having equal rights. Kind of seems a little two-faced.

Couple of points here first. One, Obama himself (a Democrat ... and lots of other Democrats say it too) said during his campaign that he thought marriage should be defined as one man, one woman.  So I can't see where Republicans saying the same thing is somehow not "bi-partisan".   The second point is -- most conservatives in office suck at framing arguments.  Here's the right argument.

If this were really about "rights" this conversation would've been over years ago. It's not about rights. It's about the word. It's about culture. Most even on the Christian right would be ok with "Civil Union" and the "rights" battle would be over.

But as I've said many, many times... this is not about rights, no matter how many times they insist that it is.  If they'd pushed for "civil union" laws, they'd have the rights they seek.  The "Christian Right" would not be pushing legislation like this if it weren't for the gay activist left pushing for a legislated re-definition of the word "marriage" as it applies to human relationships.

One might argue, as many do, that the unions are the same thing -- just two consenting adults who love each other and want to be family, so why use different words?  But they are not the same thing in much the same way that a raft is not considered a boat, but they are both watercraft.  They have different designs and they function differently.   They have some basic similarities, but they are not the same thing at all.  And if you don't think the word is important, just ask the far left's own George Lakoff (and others in his field) why it is important.  I'm sure he would be only too happy to explain.

And as I've said many times before, I do not care one whit what they want to call it.  They can call it whatever they want to call it.   But when they force it to be officially, legally referred to as "marriage",  they are using government to force their language on a population that clearly doesn't want it as they've demonstrated time and time again at the polls. Even in flippin' California - where over half the voters in a very dark blue state (so a lot of them had to be Democrats) said "no"!

So if you want to talk about rights, let's talk about rights.  If you want to talk about bipartisanship, by all means, write up a bill that people in both parties can agree on.

The Changing Story

Two articles in RCP yesterday should give pause to those who bash the conservative side for wrong-headedness.

One has to do with the Global Warming Alarmists.   The other, with the hated "Bush Doctrine" that Charles Gibson coined and sprang on Palin in that famous interview.  They both have a lot to do with "that was then, this is now".  And everything's the same, and these differences only prove it.

I've been pondering an aspect of Academiitis Intellectualus lately, and I think I've come to a new insight -- for me anyway.  And that is the role of abstract thought in the life of the infected.

In a normal, healthy human being, one balances the capacity for abstract thought with experiencial moorings in reality.  In other words, while our enormous capacity for abstract thought is what sets us apart from other animals, it really is another world and it is only related to what Godwin calls the horizontal plane of reality.  Language is a basic layer of abstract thought that helps us communicate ideas to each other.   There are other layers as well, but we tend to combine language with them.  We think in words more often than not once we learn language.

We build these often useful models of reality - abstractions of experience ... and ... abstractions of abstractions.  And thus we can build layer upon layer of abstraction.  The ability to do this is useful, it's interesting, and like I said demonstrates an agile and flexible intellect.

Some people get too proud of this ability.   One should understand that the more layers of abstraction one constructs over reality, the farther from reality it becomes.  But many people do not understand this.  They are  proud of their ability to abstract -- not that the ability itself isn't desirable or indeed something to be proud of -- but when it becomes the dominant mode of thought and source of pride, it can quickly build a house of cards.   As such people engage in this activity they begin to confuse rationalization with reason.

And they become Progressives.  ;-)

Thus they can tell us with certainty that "the science is settled" and we're seeing our last snow storms and the earth's temperatures are going to rise dramatically unless we all use flourescent light bulbs and eat tofu.  Or that Man's CO2 emissions have caused the snowline on Kilamanjaro to recede.  And when it gets colder and snows more, they rationalize as to how the warming could be causing the cooling and the snow which are the opposite of what they predicticted and deforestation is actually the cause of the receding Kilamanjaro snowline ... never mind that, the important thing is that whatever the data may be, the theory is right regardless.  Which is the antithesis of both "science" and of "settled".

The only thing that is settled is the conclusion that they feel must be drawn from any set of facts, and so they fit the facts into their conclusion no matter what they are.  This is easy to do when one spends all one's time constructing layer upon layer of abstraction and pretending that the result is real.

In the other article we learn that the same "world opinion" that condemned us for going in and ousting Saddam Hussein is calling for America to go into Libya and oust Ghadafi --

Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gaddafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the United States has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance and imperialism.

A strange moral inversion, considering that Hussein's evil was an order of magnitude beyond Gaddafi's. Gaddafi is a capricious killer; Hussein was systematic. Gaddafi was too unstable and crazy to begin to match the Baathist apparatus: a comprehensive national system of terror, torture and mass murder, gassing entire villages to create what author Kanan Makiya called a "Republic of Fear."

Moreover, that systemized brutality made Hussein immovable in a way that Gaddafi is not. Barely armed Libyans have already seized half the country on their own. Yet in Iraq, there was no chance of putting an end to the regime without the terrible swift sword (it took all of three weeks) of the United States.

That EVIL "Bush Doctrine" where he subscribed to the theory that a democracy in the middle east would cause people in other middle eastern countries to agitate for their own was scoffed at and scorned and derided.  "Everybody" knew that it was really all about Bush helping his oil buddies (I mean, did you see what gas prices did "under Bush"?  Case closed, man!)  and Cheney's Halliburton buddies (I swear "liberals" had this tourrette's syndrome-type tic.  "Blood for Oil" alternating with "Halliburton!!!!!!!!!!".   It actually got hilarious in a really annoying way.)  Hey, Libya's got oil.

Where are the cries of Obama "helping out his oil buddies" today?  Gas shot up to $3.29 the other day (and we usually have about the cheapest gas in the country where I live).   Isn't he pals with Chavez or something?

And of course the Democrats who make their living promising to spend Other Peoples' Money want to have their cake and eat it, too as usual.   They didn't pass a 2010 budget because they didn't want their spending discussed on the airwaves for last November's election (for fear their a** kicking would be worse).   At least not anything "official" their opponents could point to.  And now to give the appearance of compromising on budget cuts, they point to $40 billion in a budget that was never passed -- money that was never in "the" budget and say they'll "cut" that and see?  We're fiscally responsible!   We just cut $40 billion!

Hey, I thought about buying a Jeep last year, but my wife and I never decided on it officially.  I'd've had to borrow the money.  Now she wants to save money for a trip.  Well look, how about I don't buy that Jeep?   I just cut $22,000 from our budget.  We can use that!

Stop Booing When All I Want is Applause

Well I guess it came to a head with that liberal friend over on Facebook.  I got a note from him yesterday basically saying why don't we just talk about the things we have in common.

We're not close, but we go way back.  I don't know why that makes a difference to me, but it does.   Part of it is that I know he's intelligent and I have hope that he'll snap out of it.  Which is one reason I challenged his constant dribble of links to articles telling everyone how stupid conservatives are.   He says he posts them because he finds them "interesting" or "amusing", and the gist of his message was, between the lines as my buddy in KC observed, "Stop Booing When All I Want is Applause".

I said I would respect his wishes and basically stop countering his posts on his wall with my opinions.  I'll stand by that.  I'm a man of my word.

But Morgan had a good point when I talked to him about it.  He said in situations like that he just politely tells in a world where  silence=consent and he does not consent -- if they want his silence they need to post it somewhere where he can't see or comment on it.  Force them into the shadows for a change.

So ... that dude's granfathered in.  Unless and until he breaks his own part of the bargain.

But ... it goes against my Stop An Echo campaign.  So  I'll need to watch my acquiescence in the future.

The People's Cube

Prog Fantasy: The Palin Issue

Oh, this is a fun site.

In response to the recent "Let's Play Sheen, Khadafi, or Beck" quiz -- another guy suggested we play Stalin,  Hitler, or Obama, I submit this for now.

The Nation: Tax Burden Shifts From Rich To Rest Of Us

No, seriously, I just got the email from them.  That's the subject line.

But ... but ... haven't I been hearing for at least the past 30 years that it's the rest of us that pay the taxes, and the rich get off scott free?  They haven't been paying their "fair share"?

So that wasn't true at all, and now it is?

I'm having a rough time keeping up.

Ok, George Lakoff is living in an alternate universe

I just went out and read the rest of that article I pointed to in my last post.  It's permeated with progressive self-puffery.  It's actually an instructive study on the fallacy of the progressive worldview.

He makes all kinds of whacky claims, like:

Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the President has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives.

Um... deficits can also be addressed by reducing spending.  And currently, we could close every tax loophole and raise the tax rate on "the rich" to 100% ... and even assuming that wouldn't throw the entire country into a massive depression (or even spark a revolution) -- it wouldn't balance the budget.   Because we spend too much.^*

And deficits absolutely matter to conservatives.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

See "projection" in your dictionary of psychology.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy

Funny, I thought it was Liberty.  Go figure.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you won't find the word "empathy" or any of its synonyms listed in any of our founding documents as a basic principle.  Now at least one of our founders did say that our form of government required a just and moral people, that is true.  Turns out they expected that the just and moral people would take care of any necessary empathy on their own.

Empathy — citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility—acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally.

Um when speaking of the role of government ... protect, yes.  Empower, no.  The role of people?  That's a private matter.   He goes on to say

Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure.

Nice bait-and-switch, but I'm not buying.  Protection can indeed include some of that, but the government is there only to provide limited protection against coercion from others.  And again, empowerment is not the role of the government.

No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one’s fellow citizens.

Are birds free?  They have none of these.  Freedom does not mean guarantees.  Freedom, in this case means freedom from coercive restraint.

And he repeats The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

The only part of that it rejects is that any of it, outside of national defense and defense and recourse against coercion ... is the role of the government.
As a matter of fact, as I mentioned in the previous post, Conservatives are more empathetic and helpful to their fellow citizens than their progressive counterparts.   They just give out of their own pockets instead of first stealing it from others.  As it should be.

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required.

Sounds like every oligarchic system that ever existed.   Substitute "government" for "father" and "citizens" for family, and you have a dead-on description of the progressive moral system and worldview.   The State is substituted for God, and Church and State are thus one.  In this case, the clique are the "experts" to whom we the ignorant people cede power "for our own good".  Progressives are closet oligarchists.

The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, “Let the market decide” assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values.

Since the market is the process of free people working out trade amongst themselves, it is indeed natural. And "let the market decide" is more of a directive than a slogan.  The market is the people.  "Ultimate" moral authority?  Most conservatives look elsewhere for that (a lot of them look "up").  On the other hand, it is a great representation  the aggregation of the individual free decisions of the people.  We have laws which discourage coercion -- that is, when people's decisions infringe on the natural rights of others.

In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word.

No, the reason for parental and spousal notification laws concerning abortion is due to the fact that in most conservative family households abortion is considered the taking of a human life, and they have a valid argument which progressives willfully ignore.  And in progressive religion, we are all gods and those gods who are in power in the government say what goes, regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual.

Freedom is defined as being your own strict father — with individual not social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of course need a gun.

No, freedom is defined as freedom from coercion, freedom to reproduce and raise your family according to your values without the government telling you what those values will be.   Progressives want to replace the parents with a progressive oligarchy so that everyone will be raised as good little progressive sheep.

And of course, as the founders rightly reasoned, we absolutely need a gun to defend that freedom.  Which is why progressives are so keen on taking them away.

Eighty percent of the talking heads on tv are conservatives.

Really?  Examples, please?  Because the Pew Research Center (not exactly a bastion of conservative thought) found pretty much precisely the opposite to be true of journalists in general.   Maybe it's flipped when we just focus on anchors, but somehow I doubt it.

Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like “entitlements” instead of “earnings” and speak of government as providing “services” instead of “necessities.”

In other words, Democrats help conservatives when they tell the truth.  Bravo!

I see it in Wisconsin, where tens of thousands citizens see through the conservative frames and are willing to flood the streets of their capital to stand up for their rights. They understand that democracy is about citizens uniting to take care of each other, about social responsibility as well as individual responsibility, and about work — not just for your own profit, but to help create a civilized society. They appreciate their teachers, nurses, firemen, police, and other public servants. They are flooding the streets to demand real democracy — the democracy of caring, of social responsibility, and of excellence, where prosperity is to be shared by those who work and those who serve.

Marxist claptrap.

First of all, we don't want a "real" democracy.  "Real" democracies are doomed to failure.  We want a democratic republic.  The rules of the republic include rules that keep mob rule at bay.

And besides, we Tea Partiers have been doing a little street flooding of our own.  It gets largely ignored by all of those "conservative" talking heads on TV, because they don't like it.  It doesn't fit their narrative.

---

^* Update and clarification. Morgan points out that if we took our entire GDP for a year (which means 100% tax on EVERYBODY, not just the rich as I originally stated), it would about pay off our current debt. Of course, that would mean a 100% tax rate on everyone, meaning everyone with a mortgage would lose their homes, but that wouldn't matter because we'd all starve to death anyway because we'd have no money for food, and current government social programs do not have the capacity to feed everyone.  Or buy their heating fuel.  That would cost more money, meaning, of course, the 14 Trillion wouldn't cover it.  But the real problem is (as if that wasn't enough) is that it doesn't even begin to address our $130 Trillion in unfunded liabilities.

More on Evil Conservatives

Morgan stumbled across an article explaining what's so evil about conservatives.  We're apparently greedy and not emphathetic to our fellow man.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other.

Au contraire! . Right on the first count. We don’t believe “the government should help its citizens”. But the next part not only does not follow, it is 180 degrees from the truth. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other.

This is just the liberal narrative to justify putting themselves in charge of who gets helped and how and how much.

Conservatives believe that the people doing the actual helping should be in charge of that.

House Floor

I went to the State Capitol yesterday to witness a proclamation my daughter-in-law has been working hard on --  Hemophilia Awareness Month.  (My grandson has it.)  Actually got to go into Gov. Nixon's office.   Neat office.   Cool painting of Mark Twain.  Nice wood paneling and furniture.  Wood carvings, etc.

The governor himself was out at the opening of trout season down at Bennett Springs.  So one of his assistants gave us the proclamation and a tour of the office.

While we were there, we went into the observation balcony over the House Floor, and the House was in session.   And I found it a bit bizarre.

Also, I had my camera out.  A balif type came over to "remind" me that there were no pictures allowed in there.  I suppose it's so there won't be any evidence of anyone having porn up on his screen, or worse -- The Huffington Post.

There were representatives on the floor.  Each of their desks had a laptop on it ... or at least a computer monitor and keyboard.  There was a woman from St. Louis testifying for an amendment to a bill they were discussing.  She wanted the Missouri minimum wage raised to $10 an hour.   She assured us that this would not chase any jobs out of the state or cost us any jobs in any way.

But that wasn't the bizarre part.  Typical progressive schlock.  Ho-hum.   No, it was the fact that most of the representatives were paying little or no attention ... which I find disrespectful - even derelict.   It was explained to me by some lobbyists we were with that only people who didn't already know how they were going to vote on the subject being discussed would be paying attention, or even there.  I don't think that's right. 

On top of that, on the area surrounding the floor there were lots of people just ... talking.  It was impossible not to notice the chaotic din.  I don't know who those people were, or why they were there.   If the lady testifying hadn't had a microphone and the sound system turned up, she would have just blended in with it.

If I were king for a day, I'd change the House Rules to say everybody had to be there unless they were seriously ill or there were some family emergency.  Everybody would shut up and listen to everyone's arguments, and there wouldn't be crowds of yappy people around the periphery.

Happily, the amendment was struck down.  I was glad the bit of business that happened to happen while I was there went the way I would have it to go. 

Afterwards some members exchanged words, and the lady (I THINK she was a representative) blathered on something about "how can we pay a CEO $24 million to ship jobs overseas while someone is making less than $15,000"?

And I thought to myself, "self?".  Ok my first reaction was "why do you think he's shipping jobs overseas, little Miss $10/hour?"  And my second was, "since when do 'WE' pay CEO's?"   Companies pay CEO's, and they pay them what they think they're worth.

This translated over to some of the discussions on Facebook that have been going on between some of our friends out there.  One of them is over Morgan's many defenses of Sarah Palin ... to which one of his supposedly centrist friends piped up with this snark:

‎"well i cant wait for sarah to singlehandedly provide jobs for everyone! "

And there's the difference betewen our worldview and the progressive worldview. One of the reasons we like Sarah is that she realizes that the president doesn't provide jobs for people. It's not the president's role, or the government's role. It would never occurr to her to TRY to make government provide jobs for people. The government's role is to make sure people play by the rules and let the market do its thing, and let people react to it as best they can.

I want someone in there who understands this. She also understands that when you take money away from the people who actually do provide jobs, they provide fewer jobs. If you make it more expensive for them to provide jobs, they provide fewer jobs. It's really not complicated.
But propeller beanie eggheads from the London School of Economics like to think it is, and only they have the magical voodoo know-how to make it all work, like they did in the 1930's.

Roosevelt's own Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morganthau figured out it doesn't work ... by 1937, he said:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

But either the eggheads are too hard boiled to get it, too proud to admit they're wrong, or too addicted to the power that being in charge of it all brings -- to admit it.

Morgan votes for the power explanation.  He's probably right.