We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
... the relationship the president wanted (with the American people) never really knitted together. Health care was like the birth-control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America. They know Chicago, the machine, the ethnic realities. They know Democratic Party politics. They know the books they've read, largely written by people like them—bright, credentialed, intellectually cloistered. But there always seems a lack of lived experience among them, which is why they were so surprised by the town hall uprisings of August 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections.
I can certainly understand when anyone spends more time or energy on defending his or her own ethnic group or race or affinity group from unfairness. I do, regarding Jews and Israel, and Marines.
But, at the same time, if one does so even when evidence points another way, ignores the rights or rightful claims of others, even adversaries, it – at least – indicates a narrowness of perspective and inadequate interest in justice for all, which reduces credibility. It clearly spills over into racism when attacks or defense use racial or ethnic stereotypes, jumps to conclusions based on race or ethnicity, especially in the absence of facts or connection. When one tolerates such, even defends such, even encourages such, then one is choosing to affiliate with racists and is properly grouped with them. I think that is where President Obama falls. By dint of his repeated one-sided and unsupported words and gestures, and his inadequate attention to the facts or rights of others, President Obama is a racist. By dint of his high public position and influence, those repeated words and gestures make him a hatemonger, as well.
Why Do So Many Americans Drop Out of College? Unprepared students sign up for school because they think a degree is their passport to the middle class. They should have other options.
" If this last desperate effort of the power-mongers of leftism fails, then their whip may become a wet noodle, and the whole corrupt syndicate of leftism may completely unravel. Watch Wisconsin."
The SG talks about liberty: "millions of people with chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease, and as a result of the health care... they will be unshackled from the disabilities that those diseases put on them and have the opportunity to enjoy the blessings of liberty." There's freedom inside all this compulsion and coercion, because when the government supplies your needs, then you can enjoy life. That's the argument!
Even the fact that the welfare state has grown relentlessly does not, in itself, mean that the growth has been excessive. What does begin to suggest that conclusion is the lack of candor with which the growth has been promoted. For years, the Democratic Party’s raison d’être has been to establish, defend, and expand the welfare state. The Democrats could have told us all along—forthrightly, scrupulously, and unambiguously—that their project would cost a lot of money and that, should economic growth be insufficient to pay for it, big tax increases would be necessary. Had they done so, they would be in a strong position to argue that the terms of the deal they struck with yesterday’s voters oblige today’s Americans to pay higher taxes.
The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.
A friend who is aware of my interest in art and art history mentioned to me the other day that he has always regretted not having taken at least an intro art history course in college. (Where I went to college, intro Art History and Intro Music History were required courses. Good, but very demanding and well beyond cocktail party art conversation.)
I told him that this regret was easily remedied, at the cost of some time but for very little money. Here's what I suggested:
For starters, these two from Great Courses (the old Teaching Company)
The only possible good thing that could come out of this case would be to set a limit on the Commerce Clause. As far as medical care goes, the government could easily offer Medicare for all (if Congress could pass it and pay for it) and avoid any consitutional issues.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, then your question is whether or not there are any limits on the Commerce Clause. Can you identify for us some limits on the Commerce Clause?
Busybodies of the World, Unite! - it's increasingly hard to escape those who want to deny simple pleasures to you—for your own good:
New York Times' food columnist Mark Bittman praises Storms for raising the important question: "How do we regulate the consumption of dangerous foods?...The government isn't doing its job," he argues.
Bittman quotes Storms approvingly, "It's just bad public policy to allow unfettered access to all kinds of food."
Peter Beinart’s False Prophecy - The Crisis of Zionism, his book arguing that the Israeli occupation alienates young American Jews, is sloppy with facts and emotionally contrived
The main reason Maggie's Farm exists as a 25-30% political site instead of as a 0% political site is to assert what we consider our Yankee views of freedom. We assume that governments, having nothing better to do, will seek to accumulate power and money. That's what organizations tend to do.
For each smidgen of accumulated government power, a smidgen is lost to the citizen. Power, unlike wealth, is a zero-sum game. It only seems to ratchet in one direction with the State as the beneficiary. We had a revolution about that sort of thing against our (then) democratic Parliament.
Variously attributed to Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson, and Tom Hank Thoreau: “That government is best which governs least.” Indeed, We The People are not retarded, and many of us do not have the submissive genes which the benevolent welfare state welcomes or requires.
The Obamacare argument is, or will be, that medical insurance is a uniquely "necessary and proper one." However, I could make the same argument for legal care, or housing-repair care, or auto insurance, or anything else that seems important at a given moment.
The argument that government power grabs are well-intentioned, or "good," or "for the greater good" is a non-argument to me as an American. We were designed to be a nation of sturdy and proud people, unlike our European ancestors. They think we're rubes: we think they are lame.
As we often remark here, the Libs, the Progressives, and the Left never introduce freedom arguments into debates (unless it involves sex). We put freedom factors into policy equations, and they do not. That's the basic difference.
An interesting young fellow. In New York Magazine, The Paul Clement Court - Seven cases. One lawyer. The GOP’s great hope for this Supreme Court season is an unassuming attorney who just happens to be lead counsel on the most polarizing arguments in America.
Instead of 2000-page Obamacare, with its vast new omnipotent and costly bureaucracies, they should have simply gone for Medicare for all. Eliminate Medicaid, Chip, etc. and put everybody on Medicare.
While I detest any expansions of government power, I think that, politically, it would have been more popular. Wrong, but more popular.
My preference would be to have the federal government out of medical care, and education, entirely. And out of a few other industries and enterprises too.
The Democrat Who Took on the Unions - Rhode Island's treasurer Gina Raimondo talks about how she persuaded the voting public, labor rank-and-file and a liberal legislature to pass the most far-reaching pension reform in decades.
I don't think he would mind one bit if that happened, but he loves his job too much
Pity the Progressive. Progressive pundits are befuddled, time and again, by the resilience of Americans’ faith in free enterprise. Consider Thomas Frank.
The Great Rumor Mill of China -Something strange is going on in Beijing. Here are the five most virulent conspiracy theories making the rounds -- and a stab at the likelihood of them panning out.
Coincidentally, the ongoing trial of Shawn Tyson for the cold-blooded murder of two British tourists in Sarasota provides plenty of ground for outrage and “soul-searching,” but you probably haven’t heard much about it. The UK’s Daily Mail carried an excellent account earlier this week.
The case for why they will: Individual mandate is constitutional - Supreme Court should find that key aspect of Obama's signature law is a legitimate exercise of Commerce Clause power
I keep seeing this “failed administration” and “failed presidency” meme. I think this is inaccurate and we conservatives need to move away from it. Failure effectively means not achieving ones goals and objectives for a particular endeavor. Unfortunately this is not what he is doing. He has been quite effective in achieving his stated and unstated goals much too American’s dismay. Socialized medicine, failed wars, nationalized companies, subsidized industries, defanged military, shackled financial industry, crony capitalism, political patronage, stifling energy industry regulations, reducing religious liberty, funding unproven green technologies, NASA’s change of mission, increasing abortion access, the list goes on and on. The problem is not that he is a failure; the problem is that he is succeeding at the wrong things. This is the point that needs to be made and driven home.
As for Solyndra, this too was an Obama win. His goals were to promote Green energy, reward political allies and finance his next campaign. Once these goals were accomplished the company was shutdown. It is only us silly conservatives with our quaint belief in commerce as a noble pursuit that are appalled. The Left understands that all good things flow from the government.
Goldberg: The Federalist Solution - Making political decisions at the lowest democratic level is the best Left-Right compromise.
I completely agree. People can pee in their own lemonade if they want, just not in mine.
The Geography of Government Benefits - The share of Americans’ income that comes from government benefit programs, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, more than doubled over the last four decades, rising from 8 percent in 1969 to 18 percent in 2009.
...the Church of England has taken a decidedly leftward turn in the last century, prompting the Earl of Onslow’s immortal observation that “one hundred years ago, the Church was in favor of fox hunting and against buggery. Now it is in favor of buggery and against fox hunting.”
You want to redistribute wealth? Spend your endowment to provide free tuition. You want to fight inequality? Start admitting applicants at random, without regard to SAT scores or grades.
Apparently, the record high temperatures and wonderful weather we're having in most of the United States is just a 'good to have' moment. That is, if you're tired of winter and enjoy spring, a state of mind I'm currently in. The issue isn't 'Global Warming', though I'm sure this is something we'll hear about (because the Huffington Post and Daily Kos won't let us forget). The issue is simply the Jet Stream, which is following an odd path at the moment.
The freak October snowstorm, which caused many problems in the Northeast, didn't mean a long, difficult winter was approaching, so there is no reason to believe we are in for a hot summer.
Apparently, even though Al Gore and many others have assured us there is a guarantee of warming, there are none on offer:
"There's a tilt in the odds toward a warmer summer for the southern two-thirds of the country, but it's not a guarantee," Halpert told OurAmazingPlanet. "We don't give guarantees in the climate business."
Though agreement is not uniform, and our government not nearly as oppressive as the one in The Hunger Games, many Americans simply want to be left alone, to get their lives back. The Hunger Games seems to channel this natural, and very American, urge to be free.
Is My Union's Pension Fund Hypocritical? It's not uncommon for a pension plan's sponsoring organization to give the trustees general guidance on unacceptable investments
The main brief says: “The individual mandate rests on a claim of federal power that is both unprecedented and unbounded: the power to compel individuals to engage in commerce in order more effectively to regulate commerce. This asserted power does not exist.” If regulating inactivity were a “necessary and proper” means of regulating commerce, they argue, we would expect to see more of it, but in 220 years, Congress has never required individuals to purchase particular goods or services as a condition of being alive. The government, of course, denies that it is trying to regulate inactivity; rather, they repeat the argument they sold to several lower courts, that the mandate regulates “economic decisions.”
The states also argue against the mandate on the basis of federalism...
The American population, as a whole, is a bit adolescent, isn't it? Welcomes freebies, but doesn't want to be controlled. "Dad, can I borrow your car tonight?" "OK honey, just be back by 11:30." "Dad, stop trying to control me."
That darn commerce clause has already been abused to death. It's time somebody finally closed the door.
Will the left side of the Supremes decide that the Feds are all-powerful over every aspect of our lives, including the most personal? The voters are overwhelmingly opposed to such power.
Corrupt methods end up corrupting everything they touch. The institutions, the ideas and the people. And the more corrupt those methods are, the more swiftly they corrupt. Alinsky dedicated his book to the devil, but failed to draw the appropriate lessons from the futility of satanic ambition for accomplishing anything except putting the devil in charge.
Milton's devil chose to rule in hell, rather than serve in heaven. Alinskyism turns viable nations into hells where the majority of people are on the bottom and a small number of devils rule over them at the top
ObamaCare's Flawed Economic Foundations - The insurance mandate has almost nothing to do with remedying costs imposed on the system by those without coverage.
This is a
The main reason Maggie's Farm exists as a 25-30% political site instead of as a 0% political site is to assert what we consider our Yankee views of freedom. We assume that governments, having nothing better to do, will seek to accumulate power and money. That's what organizations tend to do.
How the Left Can Shut Down Rush Limbaug
Image stolen from 
Da Vinci’s Ghost: 
Image stolen from