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.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, March 21. 2015
Friday, March 20. 2015
She's not too deep, but fun to listen to. Highly recommended for a jolt of ideas.
Tuesday, March 17. 2015
Who is "we," pardner? While attacking straw men, bringing race into a non-racial discussion, and demonizing "individualism", he seems to be arguing for a top-down, one-size-fits-all, centrally-organized system of primary and secondary education in the USA. He suggests that it be oriented ideologically, and claims it would be "for the common good." He is a Bismarckian with that Prussian control attitude towards the masses.
Thus it's a little dissonant to read his views, coming as they are from the president of hippy-dippy, free-spirit, granola-ridden and hugely expensive, and private, Bard College. But maybe it's not odd.
I'd bet home schooling drives him nuts. As usual with Liberals, "I know how to deliver your pursuit of happiness and I would like to shove it up your butt." I hate hearing the elites and the experts pontificate about what "we" should do. I'd rather hear myself pontificate about freedom and free choices in life. Even the freedom to apply to the somewhat offbeat Bard College if you want to.
Monday, March 16. 2015
Sunday, March 15. 2015
Friday, March 13. 2015
Since renowned philosopher Roger Scruton has a place in the Maggie's Farm pantheon of thinkers, I suspect that it will be good: How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism (Oxford University Press).
Hayward discusses here.
Readers know that we Farmers are not Gaia worshippers or fanatics. We are old-fashioned Conservationists, mostly outdoor people, with respect for God's creation and its critters. We don't just talk the talk, we walk the walk when it comes to protection of land.
We burn carbon, too, in all forms. Good stuff to burn. Wood stoves, fireplaces, tractors, boats, furnace, etc.
Thursday, March 12. 2015
Wednesday, March 11. 2015
At first I considered joining, if only to share a slightly different viewpoint than the ones I'd seen posted (click and take a look). I saw comments like "Serving people & Loyalty to government" (loyalty to government? Why is this always absolutely necessary? What would Jefferson and Washington have said?). Or "Respect for Authority" (this is so wrong, I can't even think of where to begin. I'm not sure 'authority' is generated from winning a popularity contest). Then there are some really bizarre ones like "Identity, Belonging, Altruism" (not sure when being a citizen provided me an identity, helped me feel like I belonged and don't get me started on the concept of altruism).
So I figured, I'd start my own here and find out what Maggie's visitors consider citizenship to be. Here was my stab at it, the one I never posted:
To me, Citizenship is loving my country and the rights of the individual which are protected by the Constitution while questioning the nature of human authority. Acknowledge and respect individual rights while exercising individual responsibility which strengthens those rights.
What would your thoughts be?
Wednesday, March 4. 2015
Kevin Williamson has the ability to take on any topic and go straight to the heart of the matter. A guote from his piece about government roads:
Tuesday, March 3. 2015
Bigger than ISIS? Maybe or maybe not, but not as hair-raising. Bigger than Hillary using her personal email? Absolutely, but not as top-of-mind or intriguing. Bigger than Immigration Reform? Probably not, but interestingly the topics which are involved would play a role in hopefully reducing the influx of illegals by opening up markets more.
We are smarter than you, and we know what's best for you. Don't worry that you never voted for us, or that we are completely unaccountable. It's in your best interest.
Ultimately, it's a kind of boring topic. Which is why I like it, because it involves politics, law and economics. Economics being 'the dismal science', Net Neutrality has often been misconstrued and misunderstood in the media because it doesn't attract much thought beyond a populist angle. After all, most reporters and bloviators who comment on the topic work for companies that will benefit from Net Neutrality. Of course, they were never harmed without it, but hey, these populists are busy looking out for your best interests. Because, of course, nobody else will and you're simply not smart enough to know better. I'll be clear, I work for a company that supports Net Neutrality and conceivably benefits from it. Which is one reason the small level of anonymity which blogging provides is beneficial when writing pieces like this.
The passage, last week, by the FCC of a policy which treats broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act basically means they are now utilities. Not completely, but close enough to make that claim without much disagreement. But what sparked this vote, why is it needed (or why do populists feel it is needed), and what does it potentially do?
Continue reading "Net Neutrality"
Thursday, February 26. 2015
Napolitano: What if the government fears freedom? What if Bush and Obama have been wrong about the priority of their constitutional duties as president?
Don't all governments fear freedom? Power, unlike money or sex, is a zero-sum game.
Monday, February 23. 2015
Government regs always disadvantage the little guys. That's why the bigs guys don't mind too much.
A case: The Big Banks
A better example: Sheri's Ranch Versus Sugar Babies
Friday, February 20. 2015
In our nation, we have taxation with representation. However, given the size of our current debt, and the length of financing being pushed out to 20 and 30 year bonds, much of the repayment will be provided by another generation.
This generation, of course, has no say in the introduction of debt, and this is a fairly common theme when the size of our debt is discussed. However, I've seen relatively few people discuss the political implications of forcing taxation without representation on these future generations.
Is there a moral issue related to deficit spending, over 20 to 30 years, since it is essentially taxation without representation? I think there can be a strong case made, though I've never seen it discussed. Has anyone else?
Thursday, February 19. 2015
Indeed we do because we refuse to understand the Moslem mindset.
The Islamists are true believers.
All they want is more love and understanding? Well, so do I...and I am not getting any from them and, on a bad day, I don't even get enough tolerance from my girlfriend.
Best I've seen about life in the Caliphate by Rasha Al Ageedi: Caliphatalism? An Iraqi exile eavesdrops on life in her old hometown of Mosul.
It's all interesting. However, it's all a repeat of ancient history. Except for the UK, most of the anglosphere has little to do with all of this. Who needs to watch out? Europe, the Saudis, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia. The US can get out of the way and let them all work it out. They have all done this before. Gates of Vienna, Poitiers, Lopanto, and all that. That's why I dislike the FOX warmongers and fearmongers, Yellow Journalism. Chill, and let the locals deal with their issues as they have always done. It's just a blip in a long history of cultural warfare. Let's include Thermopylae.
Wednesday, February 18. 2015
From my perspective, a college degree is good for a few things. These are not limited to: expanding one's view of the world, improving one's own process of inquiry and learning (my father's old line is you go to college to get an education, not to get a job), and to become technically proficient in a variety of specialized fields where proficiency is otherwise difficult to achieve. I'd toss in that it's also a means of networking and learning social skills to improve future prospects in both life and work.
College is not the only place to learn these things, though it's probably one of the better places to learn them. You could say the same for the military, in some respects. Be that as it may, limiting one's view of a person's potential and capabilities to very specialized qualifications, such as college or military backgrounds, is a bit odd.
Mike Rowe explains why:
Continue reading "Mike Rowe on Qualifications Versus Competency"
Sunday, February 15. 2015
From Z Blog's The Elite Monoculture:
... the better way of looking at the great divide is between those who think there is a perfect social arrangement and those who do not. The former imagine there is a perfect way to order human affairs to achieve maximum happiness. That perfect way is both discoverable and achievable. Morality dictates that anything and everything be done in order to reach this state of social perfection. The Rousseau-ists are entirely focused on the end and are willing to use any means necessary to achieve those ends. It’s why the body count for the various Rousseau-ist cults is staggeringly high.
Thursday, February 12. 2015
During the Obama administration, the last two goals of the American Left have been set on paths to completion: government control of medical care, and open borders.
So do they announce that their domestic mission is accomplished and that all they need to do now is to be good stewards of what they have done? Nope. They have been busy forging a fresh agenda for the future, just as all organizations tend to do after their goals have been met.
Democrat-Media Complex Issues New Talking Points - Why should only poor people get free stuff?
The Left will begin offering middle-class freebies, and the Repubs will offer the promise of growth and opportunity. Who wins that argument?
Tuesday, February 10. 2015
Sunday, February 8. 2015
Do we really need more roads, highways, and bridges? And if we do, what does the federal government have to do with it? In my humble view, most government infrastructure is a disguised subsidy for somebody or something.
One good guy vs the government. Guy loses.
Wednesday, February 4. 2015
Tuesday, February 3. 2015
As anybody graduating from Middle School knows, the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. It was cleverly designed to limit government power and to prevent mob rule by majorities.
Government has been trying to change that ever since.
Friday, January 30. 2015
Are we witnessing an epidemic of PC bullying? Of course, and the contagion has spread out of academia to the real world. People have become fearful of what and how they talk, as if we were in the old East Germany. Fact is, you can pass yourself off as a victim, you can bully and intimidate all you want.
The argument is that only certain (usually academic) elites can be rational, so it is the job of our moral and intellectual superiors to protect us from bad ideas, bad words, and unhindered speech. Good, concise piece: Yes, Political Correctness Really Exists - Social media gives new muscle to German Marxist Herbert Marcuse's arguments against free discourse.
There is truth in that notion that the biggest megaphones are loudest, but this concern misunderestimates people - even the benighted hoi polloi like us who believe everything on NPR. As you might expect, here at Maggie's we take some amusement from a world full of loony-tunes and liberal fascists -regardless of the size of their megaphones - because we have faith that good old American common sense and resourcefulness will endure and see through the insanity.
Indeed, I believe the Left would be happy to hinder my free speech. I have no desire to hinder theirs, even though I sometimes feel it is fundamentally malevolent. As we often claim here, the desire to control others is a form of mental illness.
CS Lewis: Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
For an amusing take on the topic, Another Progressive Self-Excommunicates Over Political Correctness Thugsquads
Sunday, January 25. 2015
Doesn't dying suck enough, unless you are in terrible shape?
Tomasky is in favor of death tax. He'd like the government to take most or all of your estate when you croak, and makes a moral case for it.
Leviathan will eat all he can, and it is never enough for him and never will be. There should be no death tax. Family, and free choice in saving and spending, trumps government. I can make moral cases in opposition to Tomasky. For starters:
- That money has already been taxed once. Why a double jeopardy?
- One reason people work and save is to provide for family and future. Isn't less dependency on government a good thing? In my view, more wealthy families are a good thing. The more, the better. They invest, and if they are not financially successful on their own, at least they do not become dependent on everybody else.
- Who is the government to tell me how much is "enough"?
- Despite Tomasky's dismissal of the loss of family farms and family businesses to pay taxes, I have seen it happen, and sadly. A damn shame.
- Very wealthy families (eg Kennedys, Rockefellers, Kerry-Heinzes, Clintons, etc) find ways around it. Middle class people with small businesses, farms, or small collections of real estate or gas stations, cannot.
Add your own arguments, for or against, in the comments.
Saturday, January 24. 2015
From a thoughtful essay by Harvey Mansfield, Our Parties, Part One - The Democrats: how progress became drift:
(Page 1 of 114, totaling 2849 entries) » next page