Maggie's Farm

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence represented the absolute opposite of "interest group politics" so slavishly worshipped in political science departments.  They pledged their lives, their wealth, their liberty, and their honor -- everything -- on a toss of the dice.  Often, even if the revolution won, these men personally lost.  The game was not about them, their economic interest, or their political ambition.  They won if America became a new order of liberty in the world.  Interest politics would have led them all to make peace with the Crown.  Moral principles led them to what Churchill would later call "blood, toil, sweat, and tears."

The brave men in Philadelphia were engaging in unconstitutional action.  Britain had a constitution, albeit a largely unwritten one, and Jefferson knew that he was defying our equivalent of the Supreme Court.  He and his colleagues defied the moral power of a system which no longer treasured liberty above advantage or caprice.  Rulers making decisions which did not really affect them, living thousands of miles from their subjects, lacked the moral authority to wield law.

Moral authority was the heart of the Declaration as well.  It lacked a separation of church and state and instead there was a unity of God and government.  All men were created equal by God.  That is the foundational point of the Declaration from which all else flows like the spring of liberty.   If all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, politics is clear and simple.  If that is true, then -- of course! -- protecting these inalienable rights is the only reason that governments are instituted among men.  These were truths which, in the magical pen of Jefferson, the brave authors and signers held to be "self-evident."  There is a Creator.  He made us.  He made us, specifically, free in body and in conscience.   We are not sheep or some sort of oddly self-domesticated animals.  We are creatures in the image of a Creator, unique in reality, and given the power to choose. 

From Barone on the Ricci case:

I think we ought to reserve some of our sympathy for the purported beneficiaries of this wretched discrimination, the black firefighters. Their champions -- Kimber and DeStefano, Bazelon and Sotomayor -- are telling them that their way up in life should not be determined by the content of their character or by mastery of their worthy craft, but by the color of their skin. Not by a fair and unbiased test, but by dishonest wire-pulling and threats of political retaliation.

Thanks to Justice Alito, for pulling back the curtain and showing the ugly reality of racial discrimination in America today.

Related: Broder asks Do we still need race-conscious remedies? Of course not. Categorizing people by skin tone, eye shape, etc. is despicable - always was and always will be.

More on how the EPA hid its own study for political reasons. It's all about Science Abuse for political power. But you already know that. (h/t, Moonbattery).

It's just one more scandalous lie and deception to promote government control of everything.

I saw this morning how our wise and attentive-to-detail Administration wants to control our lightbulbs and lamps. I guess this is what substitutes for a serious energy policy. (I want nuclear. Why waste it all on bombs?)

I have a better idea: Make air conditioning illegal. Can you imagine how much reduction of coal- and natural gas-burning that would accomplish? Lights are just a teeny bit of energy use: a/c is huge. Plus the gummint could really stick it to all those Southerners and those evil businessmen in tall buildings who do not vote correctly. (Come to think of it, why not make elevators illegal too?)

Get rid of a/c, and everybody can go around cool and mostly nekked, like this Theo gal:

Related: The Admin's "Energy Czar" never read the cap & trade bill. What does an "energy czar" do, then? Fly around and give speeches and tell people to overinflate their tires?

VDH wonders. We are both of the above, as were the Victorians.

We also love to externalize our inner conflicts and confusions, and to see them played out on the stage of life.

The Supremes get it right on the Ricci case.

The incredible bit was Justice Ginsburg's statements on "disparate impact." How can you design qualitifications so that "impact" is identical for every imaginable grievance group based on their great, great, grandparent's ethnic or national background?

The whole purpose of qualifying exams was to eliminate biased selections and cronyism.

Furthermore, after reading some comments around the intertubes, I have two questions:

1. If you even wanted to, how would you design a firefighter test to make black folks do poorly? How?

2. New Haven is a black-controlled Dem machine. The last thing in the world they want to do there is to discriminate against blacks. It's a ridiculous notion.

L E Ikenga explains, at Am Thinker. One quote:

The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories.  AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).

On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.

The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant.

Story at Mr. FM. Didn't Monty Python already do this?

via the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats narrowly won a key test vote Friday on sweeping legislation to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy. Republicans said the bill included "the largest tax increase in American history."

It doesn't "include" a tax increase - this entire wacky thing is a household and business energy tax, pure and simple. The lie that anyone other than households and businesses will end up paying it is ridiculous. It simply will be passed through to you in your utility bill. The O did promise during the campaign to make energy far more costly, and this is the beginning.

My own cynical view is that the "greeny" pose is just being used as a mask to suck more money out of the private economy into Washington. This bill does nothing for the environment - and Congress knows it.

I have read estimates that this will cost anywhere from $120-over $2000 per household per year, with plenty of geographical variation. I haven't seen any estimates about what it will cost businesses, but clearly that depends on your businesses' energy usage. If you have 1000 Costco stores to air condition, watch out.

If you wanted to design something to put the brakes on an economic recovery, this would be a fine plan.

Ace has an excellent analysis.

Update: The dang thing passed in the House. I never thought it would. Note to self: never underestimate the Dems when they have a chance for a new tax. They are tricking the public: digging deeper into your pocket while making it look like greenie-virtue.

1. An ad on WABC radio: "Call 1-877-TOE FUNGUS." If the place didn't happen to be in NJ, I just might have given them a call, for grins.

2. Our garbagemen are now tossing our paper recycling bin into the garbage truck with the rest of the garbage.

Mrs. Barrister has given up her interest in politics. She says the Repubs blew their chance when they had Bush, the Senate and the House, and will get no more chances for the forseeable future. When the Repubs stand for freedom, it comes out sounding like a mean parent saying "No" - unless you have a talented communicator who believes in what he is saying.

Here's a summary of her gloomy thoughts:

- The Dems gave $4-8 billion of tax dollars to ACORN two months ago as part of the "stimulus." How can Repubs compete with that kind of money?

- The Dems will make 6-10 million illegal immigrants citizens. How are you going to compete with those numbers?

- Immigration at the turn of the century brought in millions lacking in the individualistic traditions and in the Protestant ethic that founded the country (including some of her relatives). They never really "got it." Since then, it's been about money and security - not freedom - and FDR made that idea permanent.

- As Newt warned years ago, once you have government medicine it's all over. It will all be arguments about "gimme more," and your very life will be in the hands of the State.

 - The family was the foundational cultural institution of America and the foundational transmitter of culture. It's dying rapidly now, statistically. 70% of black kids born outside marriage, 23% of white kids. TV shows make jokes about how only gays and Republicans get married any more. This leaves women hoping that the State will be their reliable husband to protect them and to help raise their kids.

Related at Time: Does The Ice Age Cometh for Repubs and Conservatives?

From my perspective, the Dem national agenda is as follows:

1. Pay off supporters (done, in part, via the "Stimulus")
2. Raise middle-class taxes big-time via "Climate" excuse for tax on energy
3. Socialize medicine
4. Amnesty for all illegals
5. Tax the "rich" so they stop feeling so independent
6. Nationalize K-12 education

And then what?

It is what is called overreach, and it is nuts.

If passed, it would be the biggest tax in US history. Which is why the Dems are so intent on it. Climate has zip to do with it.

They want your money. They always do. They should have it, because they are so much smarter, wiser, more altruistic, and more deeply caring than I am, clinging here as I do in abject, helpless ignorance to my guns and Bible and my land and my (now paltry) life savings, and trusting in God, my own and my wife's resourcefulness, and trusting in the American spirit instead of in Pelosi, Rangel, Reid, Waxman, Obama, and all of the other buffoons and sleazes in DC.

It must be because I am stupid. Perhaps I am, because when I commented to the supermarket check-out girl yesterday about all of the cold and rain, she authoritatively informed me that it was due to climate change. At first, I thought she was kidding.

N. Korea threatens to wipe the US off the earth. I wonder whether the O is one of those kind of guys who can be tough on the basketball court (eg basketball, the Brits, the Repubs, etc), but who wimps out with genuine danger.

I guess we need to try being nicer to the North Koreans. Have we tried sending flowers, or inviting them over for hot dogs on the 4th?

Have we tried destroying our economy, or castrating our military? Have we tried bending way over yet?

Semi-related re our hot dog party friends: Iran is erupting. Shucks, let's invite them all over to our house. Maybe if we are nice, they will be nice.

Let's all play nice, boys and girls. OK?

Via Riehl:

GOT THOUGHTS ON THE HEALTHCARE PROPOSAL? Call your Senators and Congressperson. (202) 224-3121, or — better — call the local office in your town. Complaining on the Internet isn’t enough . . . .

Email this

The main reason Americans spend more on medical care is not about life expectancy - it's about two simple things: quality of life, and the trial lawyers.

(American life expectancy stats are also pulled down by the numbers of premies and babies with terrible abnormalities we attempt to save.)

First, in how many countries can you get a shoulder repair or a new knee or hip in a week? Annual screening colonoscopies and mammographies? Guys with advanced ALS on home ventilators? And how many countries generate the new treatments that the US does? (We do 90% of them. For a recent dramatic example, see this via Insty.) We all wear out and die, but there aren't many countries where my 83 year-old Mom would be playing tennis with her new shoulder, hips and knee, her synthetic mitral heart valve, her pacemaker, her cataract surgeries and her hormone replacement. She calls herself The Bionic Mom. She is willing to die, but while she is alive she wants to live: play tennis, work in her gardens, go to the ballet, sit on her volunteer boards, cook for my Dad, and go to Europe every August. What is that worth in $ terms? Of course they are on Medicare, but they would gladly buy private insurance instead.

Re the trial lawyers, where else in the world do you get a $7000 work-up if you walk into the ER with a migraine headache? Where else in the world do obstetricians pay $350,000/year in malpractice insurance because the law permits suits for bad results, not just practice errors (like amputating the wrong leg)?

If something needs fixing, it's the latter, not the former.

George Will put it this way:

Stolen from Moonbattery. (Hope he doesn't mind all of the recent thefts):

From Moonbattery:

"Mr. Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business." — Ronald Reagan

"December seventh, nineteen forty-one. A date upon which we must ask ourselves, what could we have done to avoid this?" — FDR

"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you!" — JFK

"If America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy. Pretty sure that's gonna happen on my watch." — G. W. Bush

"Speak softly and eloquently." — Teddy Roosevelt

"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you really only need to fool the majority of people until the election is over." — Abraham Lincoln

"To be prepared for war is far too provocative." — George Washington

The language of the perpetually poor. h/t, Driscoll's Poor little rich hipsters.

Throwing money away (essential pleasures and rewards like smokes and wine not included) shows disrespect for one's own time and labor, and thus for oneself.

Economic development as a spontaneous and unpredictable result of economic freedom:

From WSJ:

Kimball discusses a topic on which I am often hammering here: the topic of wealth creation. Liberals and Lefties often talk about money as if it grew on trees, and talk about themselves as if they were being generous by taking it and spending it.

The Boris Johnson piece which prompted Kimball's post is here. One quote from it:

I want to hear politicians talk less about themselves and their priorities and more about the entrepreneurs, the people who get up at 5am to organise their business or cut deals with the other side of the world. Every time you hear politicians swanking about what they are going to do with public funds, remember that wealth was ultimately created by private enterprise; and, if they don't help the wealth creators, they won't have any money to spend.

And from Kimball's piece:

Mr. Johnson has tailored his comments to the situation in London. But they apply equally to the United States. One of the many blighting effects of socialism is the distorted view of economics it disseminates. Economics is not primarily about the distribution of wealth. Rather, it is about the creation of wealth. That is the conditio sine qua non of the whole game. That is why capitalism is superior to every other economic arrangement yet contrived: given its head, it is a far more efficient engine for the creation of wealth than all its competitors. Remember this the next time you hear "politicians swanking about what they are going to do with public funds": the money they are planning to distribute "was ultimately created by private enterprise; and, if they don't help the wealth creators, they won't have any money to spend."

I have never understood why Lefties and Liberals disparage business. Without business, they would be nowhere. Business is the engine that makes everything work, and entrepreneurs, inventors, businessmen, financiers and investors run the engine for us. We should be grateful to them because, without those guys, we'd all be out of work.

h/t, Blue Crab

A quote from a Ward Connerly essay:

About five years ago, shortly before my term ended as a Regent of the University of California (UC), I was having a casual conversation with a very high-ranking UC administrator about a proposal that he was developing to increase "diversity" at UC in a manner that would comply with the dictates of California's Constitution and the prohibition against race, gender and ethnic preferences.

As I listened to his proposal, I asked him why he considered it important to tinker with admissions instead of just letting the chips fall where they may. In an unguarded moment, he told me that unless the university took steps to "guide" admissions decisions, UC would be dominated by Asians. When I asked, "What would be wrong with that?" I got an answer that speaks volumes about the underlying philosophy at many universities with regard to Asian enrollment.

The UC administrator told me that Asians are "too dull - they study, study, study." He then said, "If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it." I won't betray the individual's anonymity because to do so would put him in a world of trouble - and he would, indeed, deny having said it. Yet, it is time to confront the not-so-subtle hand of discrimination against Asians that masquerades as "building diversity" at many elite college campuses.

From Dick Morris:

As it becomes clearer that the deficit caused by spending has landed us in a new economic crisis, entirely of Obama’s own making, his popularity and job performance are likely to drop as well.

The old recession — that the public says was caused by Bush — shows signs of winding down. But the new recession and/or inflation — triggered by Obama’s massive deficits — is just now coming upon us.

If Obama refuses to cut back on his spending/stimulus plans (despite convincing evidence that Americans are not spending the money), he has three options:

a) He can raise taxes, which will trigger a deeper recession;

b) He can print money, which will trigger huge inflation;

c) He can pay more interest to borrow money, which will send the economy diving down again.

The blame for these outcomes will fall squarely on Obama’s deficit and spending policies. The fact that Americans are aware of these issues, and already disapprove of Obama’s performance on them, indicates that they will be increasingly receptive to blaming him for the “new” recession.