Thursday, November 6. 2008
“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.
Wednesday, November 5. 2008
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
Tuesday, November 4. 2008
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:
in Philly. No doubt they promised to "deliver" PA and will do anything to keep the promise.
Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of ‘emergency’. Herbert Hoover, a fine, if highly unlucky, president
No wonder people are confused by Obama's positions on things. Obama attacks himself on every issue of significance:
Monday, November 3. 2008
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...
Your Editor here at Maggie's will vote tomorrow (even though there is no point in ever voting) out of duty and citizenship. We promise no blame or recriminations towards anybody (except the press) if our preferred candidates lose in these elections which entail much more than just presidential elections, and we promise not to go hysterical, infantile, and paranoid like the Left tends to do if we don't get our way. (Well, but we may all move into Habu's cabin in Montana.)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.
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.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
. Benjamin Franklin (paraphrasing Aristotle) from Tell Them They Can, at Wiz. The Founders feared the tyranny of democracy almost as much as they feared the tyranny of leaders, which is why they created a Republic instead of an Athenian democracy. But you already knew that.
Sunday, November 2. 2008
Send this speech around. I cannot imagine women not wanting to vote for her after listening to this, unless they are the hopelessly "gimme" sorts:
Just 9 words from Mrs. Obama: That is via Wizbang, who quotes VDH: I don't think in my lifetime I have ever witnessed quite a campaign in which the wife of the Presidential candidate has been sequestered lest she voice yet another sweeping generalization that can be rightfully interpreted as denigrating both the American system at large or the values of other Americans; or in which the Vice Presidential candidate has been sequestered from press questioning lest he once again in an interview or an impromptu says something that either is so bizarre that it makes no sense at all or serves as a good argument not to vote for his running mate; or in which the Presidential nominee himself knows that if he stays on the teleprompter he has a good chance of winning, but if he wades in to banter with the crowd there is equally a good chance that he may say something so disturbing that the entire facade that he has so carefully constructed simply collapses.
 Matthew 23: 1-12
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. Image: Fra Angelico's fresco Sermon on the Mount, Florence, approx 1440.
Eternal Father, the hymn associated with both the Royal Navy and the US Navy, and sailors and boatmen everywhere. The Brits might not be believers anymore, but they sure know how to do choirs. Words here. (Thanks, Theo):
Saturday, November 1. 2008
Our Californian guest poster Bruce Kesler sends us the following, in response to our post on How Redistributionist is America?  Barack Obama’s bluntly answered Joe the Plumber that we should have more redistribution from the well-off to “spread the wealth around.”
Yet, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States has the most progressive income tax and employee Social Security taxes in the developed world. Progressive means that the top 10% give more. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) figures show that the top 10% of adjusted gross income tax filers pay over 70% of income taxes. That’s after allowable deductions, which supposedly favor the better-off. The top 50% pays over 97% of income taxes. Over 30% of tax-filers pay no income tax, a percentage nearing 50% of those potentially subject to income tax if non-filers are included. Top-earners receive less than 2% return, and many a negative return, on their Social Security tax while low earners receive over 8%, and the lowest almost an infinite return for having paid very little or no Social Security tax. Retirees with earnings from savings, or pensions, can be charged double for participation in Medicare hospital and Rx coverage. We’re approaching each Social Security recipient being supported by only 2 or 3 workers, a major wealth transfer from the younger to the older and the well-to-do to the less fortunate or careful in gaining education, working hard or saving. Most current workers eligible for defined benefit pensions, guaranteed payouts, are employed by governments. Regardless of economic conditions, the stock market, or other expenses, these payouts are locked-in. The audited deficit in ability to meet these payouts are several trillion dollars. Essential public services to Americans are being cut by state and local governments, and public colleges are raising tuition, while increasing portions of public budgets are funneled into government-worker pensions. The Bible enjoins us to contribute at least 10% of our earnings to the poor, but scriptural commentary says we should be careful of going past 20% as we must not sacrifice our family’s needs. The best charity is that which provides skills to earn for oneself.
John McCain’s tax returns show him consistently donating over 20% to charity. Barack Obama’s shows him giving about 2%. McCain’s wealthy wife pays for a La Jolla condo for her aunt, contributes heavily to poor children around the world, and they’ve adopted one. Obama’s aunt in Chicago collects welfare and lives in public housing, though here illegally, and his brother in Kenya lives in a tiny shack.
Imagine if all these redistributions, “spreading the wealth around”, didn’t occur. How much more would you have? How much are you and your family now being denied or sacrificing for? How many more jobs would be created if business and entrepreneurs were taxed less? One might raise one’s finger and tell Obama to “Redistribute this!”
|
