Maggie's Farm

This is what it's all about, from the admirable Rasmussen in the WSJ: A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP.

Voters don't want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves.

A quote from the article:

Central to the Democrats' electoral woes was the debate on health-care reform. From the moment in May 2009 when the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's plan would cost a trillion dollars, most voters opposed it. Today 53% want to repeal it. Opposition was always more intense than support, and opposition was especially high among senior citizens, who vote in high numbers in midterm elections.

Repubs need to read the message carefully. Voters are rightly on guard and suspicious these days.

Most of the time, anyway. I did vote for Lieberman running as an Independent, rightly or wrongly, because the Repub did not have a chance and I did not care for the Dem.

For national elections, I vote Party most all the time. Why? Because when they get to Washington they cease to be individuals, and become captive of their party caucuses. That's the way it works.

Whether smart or dumb, free-thinking or robots, they have to play the game if they want to get anywhere. The leaders call the plays. 

Thus, in the end, you are voting for a vote in Congress, not for a person. In primaries, I vote for my preferred candidate, but in national elections I vote Repub only because their caucus is more Conservative than any alternatives.

Voting for "who you like better" is childishly naive and foolish in the extreme. You aren't voting for who you want as a social acquaintance. 

If you vote for a Dem, no matter how much you may personally prefer the guy or gal as a social companion, all you are really doing is to put another vote in the Left's pocket. Parties vote as herds, in Congress. That's why they have people called "Whips."

A vote for a Dem is a vote for the current Obama agenda. If you like the Dem approach to life, by all means vote for whomever they are running.

Otherwise, don't.

From an interview with an attendee at the Sanity Rally in DC yesterday:

"Socialism is cool, dude. Look at France, everything is free. Free doctors, great unemployment benefits, free housing, great food. You can retire early. It works, man. The government pays, and the people have the good life."

There are people in this world with no moxie, no grit. Very sad, for them. They want me to be their "brother's keeper," but I am not this guy's brother. I have my own brothers.

Furthermore, the fratricidal Cain's "brother's keeper" rebuke to God was a complex and subtle statement.

Cognitive Dissonance and Historically Black Colleges

The attack-dog presidency: two liberal Democrats denounce Obama for "pitting group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country"

Also related: US midterm elections: Barack Obama's world turned upside down as Democrats face electoral disaster

The man is not behaving well, and his behavior does not reflect well on the office he holds. He should know, at least, that if there needs to be any nasty and dirty lashing out, it ought to be done by somebody other than the president.

Americans do not want to make an idol of a president, or of the office, but I think they like to feel that the prez aspires to be the president of all the people, even those who hold policy differences.

Is the mask slipping, revealing an inner anger, a coldness, a disrespect for the American people, and an indifference to truth?

Or is it just Chicago gutter politics, brought to a national stage?

Whatever it is, it is not seemly - and I think it is disturbing to the country. It certainly is disturbing to me to learn that "our" Prez regards me as more of an enemy than he does Ahmadinejad.

And, if he views me that way, how can I be expected to view him as my President?

With gerrymandering - especially racial gerrymandering to insure black congressional districts - the Dems become increasing reliant on their safe seats in uban areas, the coasts, and small, isolated Dem islands in the rest of the country.

Thus, except for unusual election years (like this one seems to be), few seats are ever really contested. Congressional seats, like state legislative seats, tend to be sinecures.

The irony is that those "safe seats" and guaranteed black seats that the Dems wanted ended up creating Conservative seats also, by concentrating their voters in specific areas. Dem plantations, as it were - regardless of skin color.

Only in major "wave" elections are very many national seats contested. It's too rare. Every election should be contested or contestable. Safe seats cause us to end up with elderly lunatics like Barney Frank and John Conyers in charge of things - people who wouldn't be voted out even if caught running gay prostitution rings out of their houses.

This is one reason the national Dems become an increasingly Lefty party. It's a shame, because it would be the best for the country for no congressional seat to be taken for granted. I am a believer in the big tent approach for both parties. Debate and disagreement is good for all.

See this:

After midterms, House Democratic Caucus to become more liberal as House becomes more conservative

Via Legal Insurrection:

True � The statement is accurate and there�s nothing significant missing.
Mostly True � The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
Half True � The statement is accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
Barely True � The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
False � The statement is not accurate.
Pants on Fire � The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

In the political world, there are all sorts of truth. In the real world, only one sort. In the real world, a half-truth is a lie.

How does Garrison Keillor know me this well, without having ever met me? This describes me to a T:

[Republicans have] transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic fratboys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong�s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt�s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we�re deaf, dumb, and dangerous.

Truth is, I am a registered Repub but think of myself as a Conservative, despite my always testing out as "Centrist." Why is Gary so angry? Why are Lefties always angry? I am almost never angry, but often cranky and indignant.

Why does Gary hate me? I have enjoyed his humor very much over the years, but his politics are puerile and hyper-emotional.

I should add that I am a "know-noting flat earther" too. Yep, that's me: an Ivy Chem major and dumb as a post, clinging to my Bible and guns for dear life.

I cannot stand my confusion anymore.

The word is "cannot," not "can not." "Can't" always works informally, of course.

"Anymore" and "any more" are more confusing: "Any more (two words) means "no more"; anymore (one word) means "now," "currently," "at this time.""

I suppose people would classify me as a member of the American "elite."

Like several of us Maggie's Farmers, WASP New England roots, prep school and double-Ivy-educated, fairly well-bred with a good pedigree, decent table manners when sober, a semi-entertaining but pedantic dinner companion, and in a supposedly-respectable profession. I am a member of blue blood clubs (and clubs that used to be), and I try to watch my grammar. I wear tweed jackets and a bow tie in order to emphasize my existence - and my adherence to tradition. I avoid a flashy life style, and buy my work clothes at good old, fashionless Brooks Brothers like my Dad and Grandpa. I am not wealthy, but relatively comfortable for now, with my kids through with college.

Yes, I am in some elite category, for better or worse. But not an elitist, I think.

In my life, since my arrogant youth, I have dedicated myself to learning new things every day. We isolated and insulated elites can learn a heck of a lot of wisdom, and a lot about life, from getting away from the elites. America has no class system. Wise and savvy people are found everywhere, in equal proportions. Fools, also.

Most people are like me, just another human: Part fool, part smart, part insane, and a teeny bit wise. The latter came from life, not school.

The regular American fellow with his boots on the American ground and struggling on the American soil knows more about life than any elites in Washington. The "problem" is that most regular American folks do not seek power over others - and thus do not seek political careers unless they are personally insecure or failures (there are rare exceptions).

The tea party warns of a New Elite. They're right.

Elites are the people who overestimate themselves and underestimate  misunderestimate others.

Those so-superior French must have crappy lives, so retirement is all they have to look forward to.

From Foreign Policy's The Spectacle of the Society - France's half-century social-spending spree is coming to an end -- and Nicolas Sarkozy is stuck holding the bag.

The drama of rewriting the postwar social contract is taking place across Europe. Over the past generation, globalization has challenged Western economic dominance and forced wages downward throughout the industrialized world; the economic crisis that began in 2008 delivered the coup de grace.

Read the whole excellent cautionary tale.

The moral of the story, I feel, is this: when government becomes too dominant a part of life, people become more childlike and thus, instead of feeling gratitude towards their "leaders," they have entitlement tantrums when they feel deprived.

Is America unique in having many work settings in which managers feel the need to have "forced retirement" by age 70 or 75? And is America unique in having so many people who build second careers after retirement?

Anchoress linked this quick online test from 2008. Yes, I know online quizzes are dumb.

Some folks think we at Maggie's are being facetious when we term ourselves a Centrist website, but that's how I came out on the quiz: Socially Moderate, Economically Conservative - Centrist.

Most of my friends view me as a Conservative, but maybe Conservatives are Centrists nowadays.

Well, I hesitate to term these "professional" conferences, because by my definition unionized people cannot really be considered professionals. But, putting that aside, here's Academic Conferences: the Oppressed Versus the Oppressors. One quote:

A preliminary program for the National Council of Teachers of English conference (Nov. 18-21, Orlando) lists a session, "Leading Out Our Profession Through Advocacy," that blames Ronald Reagan (whatever happened to blaming Bush?) for scripted lessons and mandates handed down to classroom teachers in the cause of school reform: "During the Reagan years, systems and structures were set in place so that corporate giants and government would have more control over education," resulting in policies such as No Child Left Behind and now even the Obama Race to the Top. The NCTE workshop's answer to all that? "Critical reflection, dialogue, and action toward an educational reform and advocacy that enables teachers and learners to collaborate, explore, engage, and renew ourselves through positive, empowering, professional advocacy."

If I can peer clearly through the edubabble, I think this is a union training session. Not certain, though. By the way, what's a "learner"?

Mr. Surber supplied the toon. The video here.

Somebody asked me this weekend what is meant my the common legal term "in the state's interest."

When you think about it, it does sound like a term from feudal times; an odd turn of phrase for a democratic republic. On the other hand, in socialist or communist countries, they use the term "the peoples' interest" as a euphemism for the same thing.

There is a good brief definition and discussion here, as the term applies in the US.

My problem with this basic legal concept, when I think about it a little with my small brain, is this: What happens when The State becomes a special interest of its own, looming over all other interests? Well, James Madison et al anticipated all of that, didn't they? Very shrewd and wise old dead guys with unfashionable ethnicities.

Finally, the soft sciences are willing to take another look at culture: The NYT, the Soft Sciences, and the Slow, Stupid Return to Reason. Steinberg begins:

A rather astonishing piece appeared in the New York Times this week, offering some degree of hope that the pursuit of scientific truth has a chance of once again becoming the dominant theme in university science.

Maybe human fate is a teensy bit more complicated than "Who is oppressing who?" Indeed, studying cultures and subcultures is a fascinating task which calls on depth of knowledge from all fields.

Stupid Christine O'Donnell. She claimed there was no rule in the Constitution requiring "separation of church and state."

Her opponent and the law students mocked her and laughed at her.

Of course, she was right (but all of our readers know what is said in the Constitution because it is our nation's secular bible).

Philip Brand and his brother visited schools in every state in America. What Johnny Learned. A quote:

 The contrast between New Heights (a charter school funded publicly but operated independently from the local school district) and New York City public school C.S. 211, two schools which Brand visited back-to-back, is stunning. At New Heights kids rhapsodize about the safety of their hallways; at C.S. 211 Brand witnesses a student screaming to her teacher that she had just been groped. At New Heights an enthusiastic young teacher is instructing her students in the basics of respectful adult interaction, how to shake hands while looking someone in the eye, how to listen with “eyes and ears”; at C.S. 211 a disengaged teacher assigns busy work to a bored class for an entire period. 

We are a fickle nation, are we not?

Buyer's remorse. We bought a pig in a poke, and now people are wising up. Well, every generation needs to get conned by a few pols before they understand the game. That's why nobody under 40 should be allowed to vote unless they are in the Armed Services.

Poll: Many Obama 2008 supporters defecting to GOP

Vodkaman: Handicapping the House — Weekend Brief

Obama didn't sell me - or reassure me.

Destroying Schools to Achieve Racial Justice. Weissberg begins:

I've long suspected that the federal government is consciously subverting American education. Deep inside the Department of Education, there must exist a top-secret Bureau of Educational Disasters (BED) whose mission is to concoct alluring but guaranteed-to-fail, academic achievement-killing policies whose sole benefits are more jobs and mindless paperwork. These would be the folks who recently bribed states to retain academically troublesome students whose behavior hindered decent students so as to make America "better educated," i.e., a nation of high school "graduates" barely able to read their diplomas.   

At American Thinker, America's Food Stamp Culture. One quote:

Nationwide, 6 percent of food stamp benefits are spent on sugary beverages, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, which administers the food stamp program.

...despite food stamps and myriad other social programs created by big-spending liberals, poor Americans are more unhealthy than ever -- overweight and even obese, and suffering high levels of diabetes. Contrary to what Harrington argued, poor Americans are unhealthy because of their personal choices and lifestyles. It's likely that many are poor for the same reasons.

h/t to SDA for reminding me of this old Milton Friedman talk Lesson of the Pencil. Basic economics.

"Nobody knows how to make a pencil."

It's not paranoid on my part. The Dems really do. (h/t, Western Rifle Shooters)

If they own your medical care and own your savings, they own you entirely. But what's in it for them?