Maggie's Farm

Now the hedge fund and predatory lender Cerberus wants a bail-out?

Gimme a break. I want a bail-out too, to pay my dental bills. And my mortgage and gas, please.

Change? This is loony.

When volunteering becomes compulsory, it's not volunteering any more, is it? Same difference between charity and taxes. Same as the draft.

Plus, where I live, there are more volunteers than there are things to do. The chance to teach English to Hispanics has a long waiting list, and the Red Cross says "We'll call you if we need you." They have to form committees to try to "identify unmet needs." In other words, well-intentioned housewives and retired guys have to make up things to do because everybody who wants "help" already gets more than they can handle, and most New England folks seem too proud to accept help anyway. The old culture dies hard.

Are people really so helpless in America that they need pimply high-schoolers or condescending do-gooder college kids - who know nothing at all about life - to "help" them?

I very much doubt it. But I don't know anybody who isn't happy to cash a check or to take a freebie from the gummint to buy a new iPod. People are always happy to accept cash from "the gummint," because it doesn't feel so much like you're ripping off your neighbor.

A Comment from our News Junkie:

 I have soured on do-gooderism. I have been to Katrina, to Appalachia, to NYC (where I now live), to Haiti and to Africa over the years with church groups, and every time I went the locals drank wine or moonshine or some kind of African hootch, and smoked in lawn chairs or lounging in the grass while telling jokes while we "helped." In Africa, the guys took occasional drinking breaks to visit the local whorehouse while we supposedly did stuff "for them." It's humiliating to all concerned, as if people were children; embarassing to the recipients and to the doers. Never saw anybody local ever offer to do so much as to pick up a hammer, a shovel, or a mop. I'm done with that approach to virtuousness. People have to want to help themselves, or there is not a damn thing you can do. "Wanting to help" is pure social imperialism of the most soft-headed sort. I once helped build a church building in Africa, and now feel foolish about it because a church is not a building - it's people. The building was insignificant except when it rained. They could have built a better one, better suited to their area, with poles and thatch (and much more cheaply) in a few days if they felt like it. What we built will no doubt be attacked by termites and fall down. 

Live and learn. What people want is cash to spend the way they want to.

Liberals want to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" as their plan to put talk radio out of business. How would it do that? Because every subject has 30 different views on it. I doubt that the Dems would wish to extend it to The Daily Kos or to Maggie's, but who knows?

It always amuses me how Liberals cannot tolerate dissent. Let's all rely on NPR and become one beautiful, happy family of group-thinking "sensitive, caring" parasites.

Anyway, in honor of the Dems' and especially Chuckie Shumer's desire to reinstate the Fairness Doctine, and out of consideration for our lady readers who feel that our Cheesecake/Beefcake ratio is way off target, we offer these:

Navy SEAL in training emerges from the ocean:

 In training, but not a Navy SEAL:

Political scientists love to discuss this topic. The short answer is simple, though: If they vote for my guy, they're rational - and vice-versa. Political scientists seem to think that voters should be more rational.

Of course, neither voting nor politics are entirely rational, nor should they be. Life is too complex for logic, and non-rational doesn't mean stupid.

The subject is discussed in Irrational Electorate by Larry Bartels, in Wilson Quarterly.

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

Patrick Henry, May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses

An old Stanley Brothers song. Lyrics here.  This sweet and soulful performance was at Irving Plaza, NYC, in 1997:

From May of this year. h/t, Ed Driscoll:

I grew up in the 1950s, supposedly the heyday of conformity, but there was much more freedom of opinion back then. And as a result, you knew that your neighbors might hold different views from you on politics or religion. Today, the notion that men of good will can disagree has disappeared. Can you imagine! Today, if I disagree with you, you conclude there is something wrong with me. This is a childish, parochial view. And of course stupefyingly intolerant. It's truly anti-American. Much of it can be laid at the feet of the environmental movement, which has unfortunately frequently been led by ill-educated and intolerant spokespersons--often with no more than a high-school education, sometimes not even that. Or they are lawyers trained to win at any cost and to say anything about their opponents to win. But you find the same intolerant tone around considerations of defense, taxation, free markets, universal medical care, and so on. There's plenty of zealotry to go around. And it's hardly new in human history.

The media might stand as a corrective, cool and a bit detached, showing by example how to approach information and controversy. Instead, the media has clearly caught the fever of our intolerant times. Formerly, news people would never openly state their allegiance; young reporters understood it was poor form, and a senior person would carry the caution born of the experience that at least some of what one believes in the course of one's life turns out to be wrong. But it's a new era. Now, media reporters are proud to pound the table and declare their advocacy. Since so few of them have any training in science, they don't really know what they are pounding about, when it comes to global warming. They couldn't tell you even in general terms how the global mean temperature is calculated, for example. But it doesn't matter anyway. They just want to declare they believe what "everyone" believes. Who values such a news source?

What's new with brain-computer interfacing?

Psychologists study the minds and brains of psychopaths. The New Yorker. It's important to be able to identify psychopaths, so you can stay away from them.

Very useful new office stamp. Every desk needs one of these.

Tagging Bluefin Tuna. Very cool. I did not know that they were essentially a warm-blooded fish.

Ran a mile with a rabid fox clamped to her arm. Sounds like something from Carl Hiassen.

Red really is the color of love. h/t, Flares. Hmmm. I think most women look best in black.

China's Space industry is taking off

Dr. William Gray on The Over-Hyping of Green. We view "green" as simply a fashionable marketing tool, but we are big on land and marine conservation.

Women have more germs than men.

A nice post on Crichton at Reference Frame

Oldest Hebrew text found

Thinking about how T.S. Eliot found God. I sorta wish Gaghdad would resist the temptation to spill into politics.

Crusading for the Everglades, behind the scenes. Good for her, and good for Paul Tudor Jones too. Rich folks have their purposes.

"Poverty and disadvantage are a better preparation for success than wealth and capitalizing on advantage.” Malcolm Gladwell. Adversity helps. But what is "success"?

Markets in everything: "gold-farming" in China

"A successful market-timing Man will typically have a portfolio composed of 60% High-end Hookers, 30% High-end GFs and 10% value High-end Wives when the market is bottoming. As the cycle comes around..." read the rest.

Dead of cancer at 65. Obit here. An MD, a storyteller, a TV producer, and a scientist, he's been one of our favorite folks. I repost this well-known talk by Crichton on the complexity of nature from 2005 for the benefit of readers who might have missed it. Damn interesting, especially with respect to the effects of human intervention. (The text of his talk, with images, is here.)

Election season has brought us a wealth of new readers, visitors, and commenters.

Pull up a tractor and stick around for a while. We aren't just about politics.

Don't be a stranger.

Which of the following items on the immediate Dem domestic agenda do you support?

• Employee Free Choice Act
• Fairness Doctrine
• Freedom of Choice Act
• Nationalization of health care
• Estate tax increases
• "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" (driver's licenses for illegals)
• Capital gains tax increases
• Defense cuts
• Liberal judicial appointments
• Racial and ethnic preferences
• Income tax increases
• Bans on oil drilling
• Global poverty tax/Kyoto

Dems will silence talk radio. They mean, mainly, Rush and Sean. No plans to silence Keith Olberman. No word yet about silencing Maggie's Farm. I'd like to see them try.

Dem Leader announces- "Keeping Your Own Money a 'Simplistic Notion.' " I guess I lack the requisite nuance. Somebody told me today about quiet Dem plans for federal "asset taxes" in addition to income taxes. They already get half when I die. They want it before I die?

Vote fraud update, as of last night. Am I a chump for only voting once? What's going on in my country?

Voting guards in Philly. Sheesh. Like Jules, I thought the Black Panthers would be using walkers these days, but these are the New Black Panthers, fresh out of the woodwork:

Life is short.

Sunspots correlate with the Dow. Who knew?

Related, see one of our Fallacies and Logic posts on Data Mining and Junk Science

Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of ‘emergency’.

Herbert Hoover, a fine, if highly unlucky, president

Jerry Nadler notes that Obama has no political courage. Let's hope that Obama is the pantywaist he seems to be. I am not so sure about Reid and Pelosi...

Related to that, our guest poster Bruce Kesler has some thoughts in anticipation of vox populi:

What McCain did right and conservatives wrong

 By Bruce Kesler

Over the past four years, conservatives have debated whether the Republican Party is serving them and the country.  This discussion was stirred by several  proposals by the Bush administration -- particularly not vetoing some budget-busters, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and the immigration reforms that didn’t prioritize border controls – and the failure to fire back at the gross distortions and language by opponents.

Bush earned respect for his stalwart stance in Iraq, but even there lost points for his failure to act earlier to change a troubled strategy and command.  Seeming backpeddling and soft-shoeing on the threats from Iran and North Korea, though following closer to the liberals’ playbook, didn’t earn him support from liberals or conservatives.

The debate among conservatives and libertarians after this election is likely to grow much more heated, whether McCain wins or loses.

Although conservatives have stood most strongly behind McCain, conservatives do not expect much thanks or loyalty from McCain if he wins, and do expect McCain to continue his practice of alliance with many liberal proposals, as he has in the past.  That alone will add heat the pot.  On the other hand, conservatives will welcome his Trumanesque temper and bluntness replying to the likely continuation of intemperate Democrats in the Congress.

If McCain loses, conservatives will likely place most of the blame on him and his campaign for failing to take more advantage of Obama’s coterie of radical mentors, to alert more voters of their dangers.

At the same time, in defense of McCain’s campaign approach, those most likely to hold these associations as important are aware of them.  Meanwhile, in a campaign during which the overwhelming portion of the major media have utterly failed to research or expose Obama’s lack of record and record of shady allies, McCain would likely not have gotten much further in educating the wider public.

So, McCain has concentrated on trying to woo marginal voters.  Those non-partisans react more to appearances and mood.

McCain earned none of the points he should have for trying to tackle the credit-economic meltdown, even by comparison to Obama’s passivity.  Neither did McCain draw attention to the Congress’ tainted hands in creating it, but there are many Republican members who sat by and prospered from the false sense of well-being that preceded the deluge.  McCain did not throw the Congressional Republicans under the bus, as Obama repeatedly did every time a mentor was exposed.  And, McCain did exhibit a bully optimism in reacting to the meltdown and focused on quick actions.

It is that indefatigable optimism and sense of fair play that has been highlighted and redounded to his credit.  This is in line with his military and political record of bravely meeting challenges.  Despite every odd, McCain has fought the election to a near thing.

Conservatives must recognize that, for any of McCain or his campaign’s failings, it is among conservatives that reform must come.  Much of our NY-DC commentariat are corrupted by overlong proximity to comfortable power and cocktail circuits, exhibiting callowness, lethargy or outright capitulation.  Their lack of principle and intestinal fortitude must be replaced.  Much of our bloggers have been consumed by editorializing and not organizing.  The think-tanks we built and many major donors have been cringing or avoiding confrontation.  Rank and file conservatives mostly looked to this inadequate leadership instead of to ourselves to step forward and fight.

It will take a major overhaul to revive the conservative movement.  As in 1964, it will not come from the establishment, but must depend on openness to new participants and leaders.  Of course, that does not mean fringe elements or ideas.  The crucial role that National Review played post-1964 in guarding against that will require a new central forum of conservative sanity and principle.

No one can predict where they will come from.  But they must be encouraged, welcomed and supported when they appear.  Indeed, each of us must see in ourselves the willingness and determination to be those participants and leaders.    

h/t, AlphaPatriot:

George Orwell wrote his most famous short essay, Politics and the English Language, in 1946. I would encourage all of our readers to read, or re-read it, when you have a few minutes. One excerpt:

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find — this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify — that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought...

Here's the whole thing.

Obama: "I'll make energy prices skyrocket."

Obama: "I'll bankrupt the coal industry."

These seem like strange campaign promises.