Shaving Leviathan

G.K. Chesterton On The Current Congress

2009-12-20T10:44:00.000-08:00

No, G.K. Chesterton never met Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska). Chesterton died in 1936. But he clearly had someone very much like him in mind when he said,

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." - The Cleveland Press, 3/1/21

I can't think of any time in America's past, except possibly when the New Deal legislation was passed, when this was more true.

Clever Quip of the Day

2009-12-17T18:59:00.000-08:00

"I would give the Copehangen Conference a good, solid B+."

(A paraphrase of a commenter on HotAir.)

Now that's witty. Someone should tell Oprah.

McConnell Tells It Like It Is on Health Care Debate

2009-12-17T14:52:00.000-08:00

Sen. Mitch McConnell has a few words to say about the debate over the health care bill.

Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we're considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

So it stands to reason that we'd devote significant time and attention to it.

Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most -- if not every -- previous bill we've considered.

The Majority disagrees.

Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.

They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.

Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.

Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.

Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.

And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas -- one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.

And here's the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader's conference room has even seen.

That's right. The final bill we'll vote on isn't even the one we've had on the floor. It's the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.

That's what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.

So this entire process is essentially a charade.

He may be trying just to score points, or he may be completely sincere. Either way, my respect for Senator McConnell just rose by several points.

The Left Provides Cover for the 2010 Campaign

2009-12-17T14:40:00.000-08:00

Howard Dean is upset over the current form of the Senate health insurance bill — the contents of which only a handful even knows. Call me a conspiracy nut, but I'm not buyin' it.

Dean is the former head of the Democratic National Committee and former governor of the socialist state of Vermont. This is cover for vulnerable Democrats who are up for re-election in a campaign that will begin in a few short weeks. This way, all can say "See, the hard Left didn't like it. The hard Right liked it even less. So, it must be centrist! I'm a centrist. Vote for me."

And, for those who believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell.

On the other hand. Progressives — Dean in particular — have always been disconnected from reality, so who really knows for sure?

Basically, his complaint is that - absent a 'public option' - it still allows insurance companies to make money, rather than the Feds offering health care to anyone for free. This is merely a socialist complaining about fascism. When Dean says,

"Progressives understood that a public plan would give Americans real choices about what kind of system they wanted to be in and how they wanted to spend their money. Yet Washington has decided, once again, that the American people cannot be trusted to choose for themselves."

the irony is so thick you couldn't cut it with my chainsaw.

Since when have Progressives ever been in favor of individuals choosing for themselves when, where, and how to spend their money? Even more absurd, how is the inclusion of an individual mandate - an aspect about which Dean is entirely silent - allowing the American people to choose?

I'll say one thing for Howard Dean. In the midst of any serious issue, he's always a sure bet for some comic relief.

[Hat Tip: PowerLine.]

Sanity Quote of the Day

2009-12-16T15:59:00.000-08:00

I don't consider myself a cynic — though some do — since I believe that none of the vicious nonsense going on today is inevitable, or "human nature," or the result of some ineradicable or inborn tendency toward evil, etc. Still, it's hard for me not to sympathize with the sentiment expressed in the following quote:

No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up. — Lily Tomlin

Progressivism Infects Mathematics Instruction

2009-12-14T13:49:00.000-08:00

"The social life gives the unconscious unity and the background of all [the child's] efforts and of all his attainments. ... I believe, therefore, that the true centre of correlation of the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's own social activities.
...
I believe that the study of science is educational in so far as it brings out the materials and processes which make social life what it is."
...
I believe, finally, that the teacher is engaged, not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life. John Dewey, My Pedagogic Creed (1897)

From a recent column by Michelle Malkin, we glean more of Dewey's Progressive education legacy.

[from a review by James V. Rauff of Millikin University] Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers "is divided into four parts.

The first part is devoted to a broad view of mathematics that includes historical and cultural implications.

Part Two includes nine classroom narratives in which teachers describe lessons they have used that infuse social justice issues into their mathematics curriculum. Included here … an AP calculus lesson on income distribution.

The third part contains three detailed classroom experiences/lessons. These include a physical depiction of the inequitable distribution of the world's wealth, the results of a student investigation into how many U.S. presidents owned slaves, and a wonderful classroom game called 'Transnational Capital Auction' in which students take on the role of leaders of Third World countries bidding competitively for new factories from a multinational corporation. ...

Short lessons, provocative cartoons and snippets of statistics are scattered throughout 'Rethinking Mathematics.'

A partial list of topics includes racial profiling, unemployment rate calculation, the war in Iraq, environmental racism, globalization, wealth distribution and poverty, wheelchair ramps, urban density, HIV/AIDS, deconstructing Barbie, junk food advertising to children and lotteries."

The Progressive virus has now infected even mathematics instruction and the patient is suffering from a high fever. If not reversed, and soon, permanent brain damage will inevitably result.

Obama and Grade Inflation

2009-12-14T10:58:00.000-08:00

When asked by America's most successful con-artist, Oprah Winfrey, to grade his performance for the first year, Barack Obama gives himself a "good, solid B+."

How about a “J” for jail? That’s where he and the rest of his gang belong.

America the Bankrupt, In More Ways Than Money

2009-12-14T09:23:00.000-08:00

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." Gideon J. Tucker in Final Accounting in the Estate of A. B. (1866)

That pithy quotation borrowed by Mark Twain has been proved with real force once again, courtesy of the recent $1.1 trillion dollar spending bill from Congress. Here are a few horrific highlights:

"The 1,000-plus-page bill brings together six of the 12 annual spending bills that Congress had been unable to pass separately because of partisan roadblocks even though the current budget year began Oct. 1. [emphasis added]
...
"The bill increases spending by an average of about 10 percent to programs under immediate control of Congress, blending increases for veterans' programs, NASA and the FBI with a pay raise for federal workers and help for car dealers." [emphasis added]

The legislation also:

Includes an improved binding arbitration process to challenge the decision by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC to close more than 2,000 dealerships.

Renews a federal loan guarantee program for steel companies. [And,]

Calls for federal worker pay increases averaging 2 percent."Equally disturbing,

"First, while most people have focused on health care and cap-and-trade, discretionary spending has leaped by 25 percent since the Democrats took the Congressional majority three years ago — plus $311 billion in additional 'stimulus' discretionary spending.

This comes to $561 billion more in discretionary spending over these three years than if they had limited growth to the baseline inflation rate.

Worse, this new spending has pushed the 2011–2020 discretionary spending baseline $1.7 trillion higher than three years ago."

And all this while the spotlight is on so-called health care reform that is carried out behind doors closed even to all but a handful in Congress.

A Congress that ignores the will of its constituents while spending them into ruin, an Executive who cheers them on and calls for ever more spending more than a year into a severe economic downturn, and a Supreme Court that does literally nothing about any of it.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is dictatorship 21st century America-style, about a generation away from becoming it 1920s Italian style.

The Enemy Has His Own Problems

2009-12-13T17:06:00.000-08:00

On the brighter side, not all is gloom and doom this fine snowy Sunday. Borrowing a phrase from Robert Tracinski, who used it in relation to the jihadists in the Middle East, the enemy has his own problems. Progressives like Matthew Ygelesias are whining that "the progressive agenda has ground to a halt."

Oh, if only it were so!

Careful not to get too cheered by this. What they mean, of course, is that the headlong rush into all-out fascism has slowed by a measurable amount. Personally, I don't have a speedometer that precise, but the fact that Reid is still wrangling with Democrats over the precise form of the health care insurance takeover is some reason for hope, I suppose.

Conservatives are equally worrisome in the form of their response, however. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit approvingly quotes,

"If you hadn’t become seduced by the delusion that Obama is a ‘progressive’ and that last year’s election represented some kind of historic realignment in favor of ‘progressive’ policies you might have seen this coming."

Unfortunately, Obama is absolutely a Progressive and last year's election was absolutely an historic realignment of the electorate. Twenty years ago, perhaps even as little as ten, a man like Obama could never have been elected, and by a comfortable margin, even running against a nothing like McCain.

That the office, events, and the pale counter-currents of the opposition have caused Obama or Congress to delay Cap and Kill, struggle on "health care reform," send a few troops to Afghanistan, and so forth doesn't change that. That these things are the leading topics of debate and legislation in the first place is proof that the Progressive agenda is doing just fine, thank you very much.

Just because the enemy has to reload, and occasionally regroup, doesn't mean the battle — much less the war — for freedom is going well. I'm sure people like Glenn Reynolds know that, so this little bit of bravado seems very out of place. Optimism is one thing. Declaring the tide is running in your favor is quite another.

What would make me share Mr. Reynolds optimism? Well, there are many possibilities, but here are a few:

If SCOTUS actually showed any life and started threatening to strike down just about everything Congress has done the past year, or even a part of it (such as the "individual mandate"),

If Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Barney Frank all lose their jobs in 2010 [Admittedly, Reid is a definite possibility],

If, instead of 100,000 Tea Party protestors in D.C. on one day there were five million that camped for a month until Congressional leaders surrendered their agenda of the past year, and last, but far from least,

If the Progressives ruling the House and Senate actually had some principled, effective opposition [though I give Rep. Michelle Bachmann and a few others big points for trying].Anyway, it is a fine snowy Sunday and it's time to listen to some Harry James and then watch John Wayne in The Fighting Kentuckian. I hope and trust you all have similar delights to keep you sane.

The Party is Over, says Pelosi

2009-12-13T16:23:00.000-08:00

I'll have much more to say about the recent House Bill to cripple the financial services industry of the entire country in coming weeks. For now, I couldn't let pass unremarked this quote from Nancy Pelosi:

"We are sending a clear message to Wall Street," said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). "The party is over. Never again."

Exactly so. By which she means, of course, that the freedom to make your own financial decisions is over. If she has her way, the Federal Government will be making them for you from now on. If so, let the funeral begin. I've no doubt that the vultures in Congress will be among the first to start picking over the corpse.

Progressives Take Over Education, A Late Warning

2009-12-13T15:12:00.001-08:00

Big Hollywood has been almost floor to ceiling complaints lately about Howard Zinn's Progressive history book and the recent documentary (The People Speak) based on it. Michelle Malkin gets into the act, too.

I'm glad they're highlighting the Marxist nature of Zinn's book, and the Progressive goals of his 'students', like Matt Damon. Unfortunately, they're about 110 (or 40) years behind the curve (the number depending on where you want to start), and bearing much less firepower than is needed.

John Dewey created the philosophy – and in some cases the practical implementation – of Progressive education 110 years ago with the publication of The School and Society in 1899. He wrote extensively on the subject in later works, both philosophical and popular. He was, in a sense, the anti-Rand before she published a word.

I'll save for later a full explication of Dewey's philosophy. For now, a simple quote or four will do to convey the flavor. First, his views on morality:

"Moral and social problems, for Dewey, are concerned with the guidance of human action to the achievement of socially defined ends that are productive of a satisfying life for individuals within the social context.

Regarding the nature of what constitutes a satisfying life, Dewey was intentionally vague, out of his conviction that specific ends or goods can be defined only in particular socio-historical contexts. In the Ethics (1932) he speaks of the ends simply as the cultivation of interests in goods that recommend themselves in the light of calm reflection."

In line with Pragmatism, his ethics is essentially contentless. It's whatever 'society' decides at any given time. But the basic approach is key here and that approach is unwaveringly collectivistic. That's even clearer in statements like these:

"I believe that all education proceeds by the participation of the individual in the social consciousness of the race.
...
I believe that the only true education comes through the stimulation of the child's powers by the demands of the social situations in which he finds himself. Through these demands he is stimulated to act as a member of a unity, to emerge from his original narrowness of action and feeling and to conceive of himself from the standpoint of the welfare of the group to which he belongs." [My Pedagogic Creed (1897)]

That translated easily into his view of the purpose of education, from a social or political standpoint:

"I believe it is the business of every one interested in education to insist upon the school as the primary and most effective instrument of social progress and reform in order that society may be awakened to realize what the school stands for, and aroused to the necessity of endowing the educator with sufficient equipment properly to perform his task." [ibid]

By the late 1960s, Progressive education (at least in public schools) was nearly the only kind there was. What we see today — with the near monopoly of the views of Greens, unionists, and other Progressive types in education — is the inevitable result.

Compared to Dewey — as measured by the standard of radical transforming destructiveness — Zinn and his followers are pikers.

So, while once again, I'm glad that BH and Malkin are exposing these clowns, I'll be much more impressed when they start attacking the root of the problem. Given the perpetual myopia of most conservatives — as well as their not-so-intellectual leaders' unfortunate tendency to populism — I'm not holding my breath.

Sarah Palin Visiting Sandpoint Today

2009-12-10T11:33:00.000-08:00

Ms. Palin continues her "Going Rogue" book tour with a stop tonight in Sandpoint, Idaho, the town near where I live. I was thinking of sashaying down to chat with her.

If I get the chance, any questions you want me to ask?

Joke of the Day, Regrettably

2009-12-09T15:17:00.000-08:00

My lovely Aunt sent me the following delightful Joke of the Day:

George Bush and Vladimir Putin die and go to hell.
They spy a red phone and ask what it's for. Beelzebub informs them it's for calling back to Earth.

Putin asks to call Russia and talks for five minutes. When he finishes the devil informs him the charge is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a check.

George Bush gets his turn and talks for an hour. When he's finished the devil tells him there's no charge.

Putin hears this and goes ballistic. "Why does he get to call America for free?"

Satan replies, "Well, ever since Obama walked into the Oval Office it's become a local call."

Humor often relies a grain of truth to succeed. Brother, don't you wish that was the most unfunny joke ever?

Update to Natl Bureau of Prostitution Plan

2009-12-08T15:10:00.000-08:00

Art may imitate life, but there are times when reality goes beyond any parody I could devise. I recently proposed establishing a National Bureau of Prostitution to provide 'increased access' for the lonely guys (and gals!) who couldn't afford 'acceptable quality' nookie. Courtesy of the fine fellow at Gods of the Copybook Headings, it turns out that — not too surprising, I suppose — the Dutch are ahead of me here.

[T]he government's top advisory agency - the Raad van State - has indicated that physically handicapped people are also entitled to sexual relations, and at the government's expense, if necessary.

File this one under: "Just when you thought the world couldn't possibly get more absurd..."

Badgers Unite!

2009-12-08T14:41:00.000-08:00

I bought a new Canon EOS not long ago and I've been having a great time getting to know it. Here's a self-portrait of me confronting a Progressive.

Kidding aside, the Badger is a superb symbol for the struggle for freedom. This little guy is pound for pound the fiercest fighter in the animal republic. Peaceful until threatened, he prefers pursuing the satisfaction of his wants but will fight to the death if blocked. He's particularly intolerant of those who would use their larger size or numbers to dominate him. And, by the way, the Badger is related to the Skunk with whom he tries to get along but, well, you know, that isn't easy.

Badgers unite! You have nothing to lose but your change.

Emperor Pelosi Declares CongressCare Constitutional

2009-12-07T16:28:00.000-08:00

Noted legal scholar, Speaker of the House of RipoffandResentYourConstituents Nancy Pelosi has declared that the Congressional bills to enslave doctors, insurance companies, and patients are, in fact, constitutional. True. They're constitutional in the same way that a very deep enema is.

Here's her ~~rationalization~~ justification. Please try to suppress tear-inducing laughter long enough to finish reading the quote. There will be a quiz afterward.

MYTH:"Health insurance reform could be unconstitutional…or violate the 10th amendment."

FACT: As with Medicare and Medicaid, the federal government has the Constitutional power to reform our health care system.

The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people.

But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life [note: Boy, is she ever right about that!], from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.

We'll set aside for later discussion that Emperor Pelosi chooses to ignore the 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments in her answer. (Not to mention two and half centuries of law protecting property rights and the right of voluntary trade. So do most so-called representatives these days; we'll pass by that for now.) Instead, let's just take her argument on its own terms.

On this basis, there is absolutely no limitation whatever on anything Congress chooses to legislate, and Pelosi admits as much in the end. Yes, I know, I know. But while this totalitarianism is a sad fact of contemporary political practice, it doesn't make her argument sound. Madison wrote about this on many occasions, saying for example:

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own...

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest...

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property so called...

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward other species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor...

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just government, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments." -James Madison, "Property", National Gazette

Further, Jefferson wrote, on Constitutional limits: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

With respect to the Commerce Clause on which so much of Congressional mischief* has relied for a century, Madison explains in Federalist No. 42 this:

A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter.

Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out, to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former.

We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.

In short, the meaning of the clause as used in the Constitution is the very opposite of what Pelosi and her ilk want to believe (and want even more for you to believe). It's purpose was to prevent the States from interfering with free trade or rigging the game by passing State-specific, State-advantageous import/export duties. It was not to allow the Federal government, Mafia-like, to simply takeover the whole racket.

Pelosi does admit that the Constitution limits the omnipotence of our Federal masters in at least one way:

The 10th amendment does place one significant limit on Congress and the federal government: Congress cannot “commandeer” state officials to administer programs. It must get the consent of state officials who are asked, e.g., to run health programs for the poor or to help build highways. Typically, Congress obtains that consent by providing financial support to the state...

In other words, they can't outright enslave State officials, but they can bribe them into doing the Feds' dirty work for them. Whew, how's that for safeguarding your liberty? Feel better, now?

So far, it will surprise no one who has been paying attention the past two generations, the Supreme Court has said nary a peep about the proposed rape of the health-care-related business owners and those who trade with them. Don't expect that discussion, much less a ruling, anytime soon. Most of them are taking their cues these days from the Pelosi(s) of the world.

*"In 1942's Wickard v. Filburn, the court held that the Commerce Power was broad enough to penalize a farmer growing wheat for his own consumption on his own farm." [ibid, Healy at the Washington Examiner.]

The Gambit

2009-11-28T01:00:00.000-08:00

Suppose you find yourself debating a Progressive over the moral (in)validity of welfare legislation — because you're a masochist or you just have a penchant for wasting your time. Try the following gambit. (It won't work, but the results will be instructive, or at least amusing.)

You: "So, you think that it's justifiable to mandate paying taxes to support [the elderly/the poor/the sick/the (insert your favorite 'downtrodden' or 'powerless' group here)]?"

Progressive: "Yes. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, 'Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.'"

You: "And it's moral to force [derivatives traders/doctors/health insurance companies/[pick your favorite 'selfish, evil rich bastard'] to supply the money or the good or service in question."

Progressive: "Yes, of course. We are our brother's keeper, after all."

You: "Fine. Tell you what. Since quality sex is as vital to human well being as money or medical care, let's establish a National Bureau of Prostitution, with a branch in every town in America."

Progressive: "What? That's ridiculous. Get serious."

You: "I am serious. There are a lot of lonely, ugly, poor guys (and gals — let's not be sexist) out there who aren't getting any. Or, what they do get is below acceptable quality. [If pressed on the standard of 'acceptable' be very vague.] We need to improve their 'access' to quality quim.

"So, I propose we establish a tax to pay for prostitutes for them. Better still, since there aren't enough good looking hookers to go around, let's require some Hollywood babes to participate. 'Voluntarily', of course, unless they want to pay a fine or go to jail.

"Now, this being a government program, the time required will be minimal when the bill is passed, say only once per month. It will rise in a few years to once per week, then once per day. Sooner or later, half their time will be spent in the brothel. But that's only fair, after all. They happen to be blessed with gifts that nature hasn't granted everyone. So, they should do this, and if they won't they should be legally forced."

Progressive: "But, but, that would be pretty much the same as kidnapping and rape." [Granted, I'm really exaggerating here, because no Progressive would ever make the connection. If government does it, on his/her view, it can't be equivalent to the crime performed by a private individual. Thus, for example, taxation can never be theft.]

What do you suppose would be the response?

Now, this may seem like a fantasy debate, but I actually tried this once with a dyed-in-the-wool 'liberal' female, an extremely smart mathematician. (She also happened to be very unattractive and would never have been required personally to contribute her services.) She was, not surprisingly, outraged. She was, however, unable to find a single flaw in the argument.

Naturally, I'm a little worried about giving Rahm Emmanuel any ideas here. But, hey, if we're going to have a government program, it might at least be one I could, so to speak, get behind.

Health Care Bill: Fraud At Its Finest

2009-11-27T13:42:00.000-08:00

You have to give the Democrats in Congress credit. They're nothing if not risk takers. According to a recent IBD editorial discussing the projected bill for the proposed Health Care bill:

The $848 billion figure is based on a 10-year run beginning in 2010 when there will be little, if any, spending — even though the taxes that fund the new welfare state program will begin the next year. In fact, only 1% of the spending will come in the first four years of the 10 years the Democrats are counting, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Now, that's criminal masterminding at its finest.

I'm sure the Dems are betting the American electorate won't notice the sleight of hand, or if they do they won't pressure Congress enough to kill the scam (or pressure any future one to repeal it). And the Dems might well be right.

What IDB doesn't add is that if the Feds spent only a few thousand dollars it would still be a moral crime. If, by some impossible miracle the Feds' health care plan actually did lower costs and improve quality, they would still have imposed it by force. In the process they'll have violated the rights to life, property, and voluntary trade, making it an actual crime according to the now-defunct U.S. Constitution.

If the Progressives had any courage — yes, I know, don't laugh — they would agree to the following deal...

Want to bitch about the cost of national defense (a Constitutional activity), and argue that it justifies massive welfare spending (an unconstitutional one)? Fine. Make you a deal, Lefties. Let's make contributing to both completely voluntary. Then, after three years, let's sum up how much funding has been provided to each category.

Betcha a trillion dollars the highly trusted military* gets a million times more money from voluntary donations than Social Security and Medicare combined. So, going by the progressives' Rousseauian "its the will of the people" justification for all coercive social legislation, we should pretty much end welfare.

That's a gamble I'm betting the thugs in Washington will never take.

[*Note: According to several Gallup polls, the military is trusted "a great deal" more than organized religion by about 45% to 29%, with Congress down at 6%.]

Happy Thanksgiving, and A Word of Thanks to Producers Everywhere

2009-11-26T10:09:00.000-08:00

My sincere and deep gratitude to all the productive people in the world, and to those who protect their efforts.

I thank you for making the effort to stir a brain cell and a muscle fiber to create all the goods and services I use and enjoy.

I regret that I can do so little to keep the parasites from your wallet, your body, and your soul, as well as those you cherish. But, for what it's worth, I'm extremely grateful and vow to continue doing what I can for as long as possible.

Once again, thanks.

Respectfully,
Jeff Perren

The Progressive's Handbook of Argument

2009-11-25T14:02:00.000-08:00

[Here's a little something I've been toying with in my spare time, a not entirely satirical review of my experiences in debating Progressives the past year. Feel free to add to the list.]

1. Lie. All the time.

[One morning, for example, I commented on Powerline about the health care issue, advocating deregulation. Not long after, one came back with:

"Sure, more deregulation, that always works, worked well with Wall Street and the banking industry.... United Healthcare reports record profits and revenue, based on charging more in premiums and delivering less care. Great system, need more like UH to squeeze more out of the middle class....."

The usual lies. I linked to Reisman's Myth that Laissez-Faire is to Blame... but I doubt the creature read it.]

2. Make broad claims and make no effort to substantiate them. That forces the opponent to argue against a case that has not been made, tying up his time and resources.

Case in point: [name redacted] who frequently comments on Pajamas Media articles and HotAir posts, the very prototype of a Progressive.

"AGW deniers generally share a common financial interest in promoting their views. That’s why I was not surprised that the first “reference” in the article is to a commercial outlet for Plimer’s book. Ian Plimer is a Professor of Mining Geology with a background in the mining industry. His expertise in climate science is questionable, to be generous – his financial and career interests are transparent.

Although his book has proven popular with a certain segment of the public, it has been widely panned in the scientific community, simply because the “science” content is nothing but a series of cherry-picked primary sources, selected without regard for accuracy or veracity.

The “technological revolution” that is needed to halt global warming is not “unimaginable” except to those whose imaginations have ceased to function. Without engaging in the work to bring about this revolution, we are doomed to a future of dwindling fossil fuel resources, ongoing climate disruption, and eventually a very nasty and rapid rise in sea level worldwide due to continued carbon emissions.

There is no downside in moving to a sustainable, carbon-neutral economy – it is in the end a cleaner and more cost effective way to power an economy once the investment in infrastructure is in place. Wholesale rejection of mainstream scientific thought (”I will never believe the British Medical Journal again, and I have real doubts about the Lancet. The journals Nature and Science have become shockingly corrupt and dishonest on global warming.”) is one of the sure signs of late-stage global warming denial.

If the GOP continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence of AGW, and relies on the pseudo-scientists of the world for support, it truly is one of the worst times for science. Peer-review and broad consensus are the basis of scientific knowledge, and AGW deniers fail miserably on both counts. There is no peer-reviewed evidence that refutes the well-documented long-term warming that has been observed since the beginning of scientific measurements, and the broad consensus supports theories that recognize the impact of human activity on the global environment.

It is the best of times, in the sense that science can identify and propose remedies for the damage that humans do to their environment, and technology provides the tools to made these changes. It is only the political mechanism that is paralyzed by oligarchy. But even the biggest players in the fossil fuel game can see the their future will be very different. It is not possible to deny the science forever, as the consequences of warming are becoming more obvious every year."

[Note the sly character assassination in the form of insinuating that all "AGW deniers" are motivated by commercial gain, unlike Progressives who are "pure." The usual slander. Notice, too, the number of points made with no supporting links. Take particular note of the casual dismissal of any scientist who disagrees, characterized here as a pseudo scientist. Viz. Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Sallie Baliunus, Dr. William Gray, Dr. Patrick Michaels, and many more.]

3. When the opposition makes an unassailable point, simply ignore it, and switch the argument to another point.

4. When your arguments are shown several ways from Sunday to be flawed, wait a little while, then repeat the argument as if nothing had ever been said to demonstrate its flaws.

5. When an argument is made with six different supporting facts or sub-arguments, pick the weakest and focus exclusively on this.

[I call this technique "crawling through the cracks," a specialty of Progressives, but widely used today.]

6. NEVER acknowledge any fact or argument that in the least weakens your case, much less admit you were wrong. Winning, truth be damned, is the goal no matter the costs.

[The sure sign not only of a dogmatist, but one of the Pragmatist variety, which encompasses most Progressives.]

7. When you cite statistics, it doesn't matter if the source never supports your case, even when the numbers are from a Progressive-friendly site.

[The stats either bear another plausible explanation or are simply a non sequitur. (Popular in discussions of both economics and climate.)]

8. When caught advocating something blatantly injurious to freedom, the pocketbook, or an individual's well-being, affect a wide-eyed "Who me?" tone and pretend that the plain meaning of your words wasn't what you meant.

9. As needed, assert that "Republicans/conservatives/Mr. X" did evil, therefore, Y is good. In short, use the fallacy of false alternative liberally (pun intended).

10. To sound authoritative, generally display a completely unearned nose-in-the-air attitude that suggests anyone who disagrees is a flyover-country moron.

11. When cornered, play the victim card and whenever possible whine about ad hominem, while issuing plenty of them at the same time.

12. When needed, pull the sympathy card. Cry about how allowing freedom in this or that issue will lead to old women dying in the streets as capitalists look on and laugh. Ignore that this is historically untrue and morally irrelevant.

13. When someone makes a statement such as "Rand was insightful at times" with which you disagree, spend no time whatever considering whether it's true and what might show it or contradict it. Instead, seek out instances where it was not so and then act as if these constitute proof of a universal premise.

14. Substitute snark for argument and evidence. This is something of a restatement of the above, but bears repeating in this different form.

15. Like the old-time Communists from whom you evolved (to become new-style Fascists), always promote government power at the expense of individual freedom. Trot out any facts that might be useful for your purpose, as needed, regardless of their relevance.

16. Like Fascists everywhere, pretend to be in favor of freedom, while assiduously working to undermine it at all times.

[Take the view, for example, that you don't want to nationalize industry, just regulate it... until there's nothing but the smallest difference of degree between the two. Ditto every aspect of individual freedom of action. Never tolerate the idea that anyone could be allowed to make a free choice that isn't in line with your pusillanimous ethical posturing.]

[It's particularly this last that makes Progressives so disgusting. They know they can't win openly by touting their beliefs in undisguised form. In this respect, the Soviets and Italian Fascists of the 1920s were more honest.]

Progressives, like Puritans, simply can not tolerate individuals living as they please, without these noble saints directing them. They invent all sorts of rationalizations, pretending bad things inevitably follow from freedom, in order to justify their fear and hatred of choice. No amount of evidence showing how unfounded are their beliefs will dissuade them, as it never does for the truly zealous.

I'm compelled to conclude that it's time for a Reformation.

Veronique de Rugy Discusses 2nd Stimulus Talk

2009-11-24T12:07:00.000-08:00

The insanity to which I alluded in the previous post is nowhere more evident than in recent talk in Congress to foist a second 'stimulus' on the American people. Ms. de Rugy is well worth reading on this subject because she's one of the few prominent voices that not only knows the 'stimulus' didn't work, but that none ever could. She writes:

Everyday Brings a New Bad Idea
[by Veronique de Rugy at NRO]

And sometimes it even brings several terrible ones. Today is one of these days.

First, the Democrats are once again talking about a second stimulus, except this time they won't call it a stimulus (because the first one gave the word stimulus a bad name) but a "jobs legislation." I doubt it would make any difference to remind them that government spending can't create jobs; that with government spending comes waste, fraud, and abuse; and that most of the money from the first stimulus still hasn't been spent.

Also, the Democrats want to use $200 billion of unused Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, not to reduce the deficit, but to spend on job creation. Interestingly, because the brilliant lawmakers behind the idea don't read newspapers, and haven't kept up with the broken promises made by the administration in February about how the $789 billion would create 3.5 million jobs, they are claiming that this move would create 6 million jobs.

House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson (D-Conn.) said momentum is building among his party to take unused Troubled Asset Relief Program money and put it toward job creation, and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he’s trying to figure out a way to get a jobs bill on the House calendar before the chamber adjourns in mid December. The Larson bill, called the Transparent Markets Act, could create six million jobs, Larson said.

The silver lining: Americans understand that this administration and Congress have no clue what they are talking about. According to a CBS News Poll, "While the White House insists about a million jobs have been created by the stimulus package, Americans simply don't believe it. A mere 7% say the stimulus has already created jobs, 46% say jobs will be created eventually, 42% say it will never create jobs."

Sadly, I can't entirely share Ms. de Rugy's optimism here, much as — believe it or not — I would like to. The American people may not believe it has worked, but they're not yet convinced it couldn't, and I dare say that's true even of most in that 42%. If 42% of the electorate believed that Keynesian economics was inherently impractical — not to say immoral — there would be a peaceful revolution that would cast all but a sliver of the Federal Government out of work.

After all, nearly all of their vicious activity is related in one way or another to 'improving on' or 'compensating for' the alleged ill-effects of freedom and capitalism (which is the idea underlying Keynesianism). That threadbare excuse has been working since the Sherman Antitrust Act, long before Keynes ever published a word, and it's still working today.

When 42% of American adults believe that freedom is both moral and practical, the major problems we currently face — not just economic or political, but cultural and social — will have been long solved. Let's continue to strive for that golden day.

Barrias' Nature Unveiling Before Science

2009-11-24T11:36:00.000-08:00

Amid the daily waves of pointless and unnecessary insanity that characterize life in America today, it's good to remind oneself there are still enormous values in existence. This sculpture by Barrias, Nature Unveiling Herself Before Science (in the Musee d'Orsay), is one such.

[Image from Musee d'Orsay]

As the museum's website describes it:

The statue was commissioned in 1889 decorate the new medical school in Bordeaux. A young woman, the allegory of nature, is slowly lifting the veils she is wrapped in. When he had finished the first version in white marble for the school, Barrias designed a second statue in polychrome, for the ceremonial staircase of the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, in Paris. He used marble and onyx from the newly reopened quarries in Algeria.

Carefully carved to enhance the decorative qualities of the materials, the various parts of the statue play on the veins in the ribboned onyx for the veil, the mottled effect of the red marble for the robe, the preciousness of lapis lazuli for the eyes and malachite for the scarab and coral for the mouth and lips.

Refresh your soul and remember, living well and being happy is the best way to drive Progressives insane. Better them than you.

Random Thoughts on Vampires Old and Young

2009-11-21T13:37:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or is the following some sort of cosmic alignment?

On the same weekend when a silly teenage vampire flick pulls in $72 million, the bloodsuckers in the Senate are moving forward to drain the life out of every taxpayer in America... and make us pay for the transfusion.

Think I'm exaggerating? Here are a few of the taxes proposed to pay for the so-called health care reform bill about to enter debate.

[This list includes taxes in the bill passed by the House of Representatives, the bill the Senate is currently debating, and other taxes mentioned as a possible way to pay for health care reform.]
An income surtax on taxpayers earning more than $500,000 a year,[1]
An excise tax on high-cost “Cadillac” health insurance plans that cost more than $8,500 a year for individuals or $21,000 for families,[2]
An excise tax on medical devices such as wheelchairs, breast pumps, and syringes used by diabetics for insulin injections,[3]
A cap on the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance without offsetting tax cuts,[4]
A limit on itemized deductions for taxpayers with a top income tax rate greater than 28 percent,[5]
A windfall profits tax on health insurance companies,[6]
A value-added tax, which would tax the value added to a product at each stage of production,[7]
An increase in the Medicare portion of the payroll tax to 3.4 percent for incomes great than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married filers),[8]
An excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages including non-diet soda and sports drinks,[9]
Higher taxes on alcoholic beverages including beer, wine, and spirits,[10]
A tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage of up to 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income,[11]
A limit on contributions to health savings accounts,[12]
An 8 percent tax on all wages paid by employers that do not provide their employees health insurance that satisfies the requirements defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,[13]
A limit on contributions to flexible spending arrangements,[14]
Elimination of the deduction for expenses associated with Medicare Part D subsidies,[15]
An increase in taxes on international businesses,[16]
Elimination of the tax credits paper companies take for biofuels they create in their production process–the so-called “Black Liquor credit,”[17]
Fees on insured and self-insured health plans,[18]
A limit or repeal of the itemized deduction for medical expenses,[19]
A limit on the Qualified Medical Expense definition,[20]
An increase in the payroll taxes on students,[21]
An extension of the Medicare payroll tax to all state and local government employees,[22]
An increase in taxes on hospitals,[23]
An increase in the estate tax,[24]
Increased efforts to close the mythical “tax gap,”[25]
A 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures such as Botox treatments, tummy tucks, and face lifts,[26]
A tax on drug companies,[27]
An increase in the corporate tax on providers of health insurance,[28] and
A $500,000 deduction limitation for the compensation paid by health insurance companies to their officers, employees, and directors.[29]

James Madison would simply not recognize his country now. But, then, given that there's more fantasy in Congress than Twilight today, who could blame him?

Wait 'til the fools in D.C. find out what kind of demons they're about to unleash. They'll be subsidizing garlic farmers to the tune of an ethanol-sized bill.

The Barnes & Noble nook, Kindle Killer

2009-11-20T12:19:00.000-08:00

Barnes and Noble has brought out a new eReader just in time for the holidays. They're already sold out. No wonder, once you see the specs on this unit.

About the size and weight of a trade paperback, it stores hundreds of books, and has a Micro-SD slot so you can store thousands. The battery is user-replaceable and rated to last 2-3 years. And, oh, it has an MP3 player built in. Love it.

I love gadgets to begin with, but I'm especially interested in the growth of the eBook market because the odds of my getting a novel published by a mainstream publisher are now between epsilon and delta. (For non-geeks, that's a calculus joke. It means my chances are zilch.)

I'm hoping an exploding eBook market will help compensate for the slump that has taken over the industry since the number of distributors collapsed some years back.

(It doesn't help that Progressives dominate all the mainstream houses, but they must go to sleep from time to time. That, or they get temporarily overcome by useful greed, since non post-modern novels do get published from time to time. Some of them do very well; in fact, they're practically the only ones that do, a Hollywood-film box-office bomb lesson that neither group has been willing to live by, to date.)

Anyway, check out this cool device.

Capitalism More Popular In Russia Than America

2009-11-10T09:54:00.000-08:00

When Russian and East German young people favor capitalism more than their American counterparts, you know your culture is in trouble.

[Image: American Enterprise Institute]

Of course, anyone over 30 living there has direct experience with the practical effects of those ideologies - which this American generation is only beginning to see. (Even those under 30 can still understand the effects via their their parents.) And, while it may not be the official ideology, Russia isn't far from communism even today. The fascist system that currently dominates that country isn't much different in practice.

Will the rising generation here open their eyes in time?