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.
With the new football season only a week away, I started gearing up for my fantasy leagues. I'm usually in at least one, sometimes two, because I love the science of football. I love any sport that is highly quantifiable, and football has recently begun to have more than its share of statisticians break it down.
To learn as much as I can and prepare, I've studied the game closely. The best sites I've found are Football Outsiders and Advanced NFL Stats (I'm open to more if anyone cares to share). Call them sabremetricians for football, and as Bill James' work revived my love for baseball, these people keep my enjoyment of football very high.
The real value of fantasy leagues are the communication which takes place between the participants. It tightens the bonds of friendship and improves the vibe in an office. People who once had only work in common suddenly have much to talk about.
The old saw that you don't discuss religion or politics in polite company should probably be revised to include sports. Specifically fantasy sports, but sports in general can be very messy. Many of us have had disagreements and arguments over sports. Regardless of quantifiability, the question of who the greatest players are will always be fraught with emotion rather than pure reason. Barstool logic tends to predominate these discussions.
One could say barstool logic predominates most emotionally driven discussions.
"Some of us will do our jobs well and some will not, but we will be judged by only one thing-the result."
My favorite coach of all time (many peoples' favorite), Vince Lombardi, was often called upon to share his opinions on business, politics, and religion. Vince was a devout Catholic, a very tough taskmaster, but he was known to have a heart of gold. His views on the relationship between success and work for the achievement of victory continue to resonate through the years. He was a man who took control and didn't place blame, he inspired people to perform a job.
It should be a scandal that the federal government is purposefully weakening a core principle of our value system: self-reliance. To wit, the feds are praising local bureaucrats for "counteracting" what they call "mountain pride." These bureaucrats are convincing people who characteristically reject food stamps to instead embrace a culture of dependence.
It's in the politicians' interest to grow dependency: dependency means votes. It's in the bureaucracy's interest to grow dependency: that's how they grow their "business" and make themselves necessary and important, and keep their jobs.
When I was a kid, one of the most exciting things to do was to take a Sunfish out in a hurricane. Doubt I'd still have the nerve to do that now, but these fun-loving folks in Maine took a Hobie 16 out in Hurricane Earl 2 years ago. Boat reached a max speed of 22 knots before pitchpoling.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy studied "How America Gives." One of the study's charts shows a remarkable difference: "Red states are more generous than blue states. The eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity went for John McCain in 2008. The seven-lowest ranking states supported Barack Obama."
Yankee Northeasterners are cheapskates: "In states like Utah and Mississippi, the typical household gives more than 7 percent of its income to charity, while the average household in Massachusetts and three other New England states gives less than 3 percent."
What's the bottom-line?: "The reasons for the discrepancies among states, cities, neighborhoods are rooted in part in each area’s political philosophy about the role of government versus charity."
Like Animal Farm's Boxer, the American workhorse has worked itself to the bone, paying taxes on everything imaginable to subsidize the revolutionary state of the left, its mammoth bureaucracies and the bribes and favors that it doles out to its voting bases. Homes have been lost, lives shattered and families broken up so that America might "live up to" whatever promises the left has made to itself on their behalf. And like Boxer, the American and his way of life, is being taken away in a knacker's van billed as a trip to the veterinarian.
The left has forcefully accelerated the death throes of the American mule by pushing government spending beyond anything that the horse can cover. That leaves the overworked horse with only two options. It can either become a donkey and be fed and work without any say in what it is fed or how it works, or it can try to break free of the great socialist boneyard.
His essay/post summarizes many or most of the Maggie's political concerns about America. The government is making it too difficult to be a mule, but it is the mule who pulls their electoral wagon and pays their bills.
I'll say it again: government is a special interest group, and one of the few growth industries left in the US right now. Washington DC is a boom town: people go where the money is.
Democrats have never tried, much less managed, to convince voters that the Democratic domestic agenda is so beneficial that ordinary Americans — not just the CEOs of the companies they work for, or the stars of the TV shows they watch, but their own friends, neighbors, and co-workers — should pay significantly higher taxes for government endeavors.
Democrats hate Paul Ryan because he has taken the measure of their cowardice and made public the logical, humiliating conclusions of their disingenuousness.
Taxes are going to rise much further on the middle class. My simple theory is that the Left wants to take the money we all earn in the private sector, take their cut, decide what we need because we are too foolish and feckless to run our own lives, and then expect us to thank them with our votes for the service. They imagine we need care, like sheep, but we just want freedom from them. The Welfare State Industry underestimates the human spirit, and then shackles or cripples people to make their idea come true.
Try saving the money to open a corner pizza joint when you're paying a 50% tax rate. Then, try getting a license to sell beer there. Then, consider your employee cost of Obamacare. At some point, people say The Heck With It and you have an empty storefront. That's the way to end up like Euroland, where nobody tries to do anything except to hold on to their safe crappy job, and everybody just waits to retire on the dole to complete their entire safe, spiritless, crappy life while their government betters live it up. Serfdom.
It is a mistake for people to ignore the political appeal of the security of serfdom or slavery to the State or the Lord of the Manor, or dependency on the State, as long as those words are not used.
Re the photo, I find the entire US Capitol revolting in its grandiosity. What are we - the Roman Empire? Possibly many disagree about that, but, as a New England Yankee with a long pre-revolutionary heritage here, I strongly object to the notion of an imperial city. Those idiots should be meeting in a church basement where they might acquire a little humilty.
Many of the finest and most honest minds – conservative and liberal -- in and out of academia have argued, and sometimes succeeded, that campus speech codes often cross the line to suppression of First Amendment freedom of speech. The excesses in the wording of such codes, their arbitrary and often biased application, and the fear of usurping a constitutional right, together send chills up the spine.
Nonetheless, in court cases, private colleges have more leeway to enact speech codes than do public colleges, as they are not as subject to the First Amendment prohibition on government interfering with free speech. In the face of opposition to speech codes per se colleges, both public and private, have turned to anti-harassment policies. These seemingly turn the offense from the speech to the impact on those sensitive, and in effect make judging the offense even more subjective.Alongside, many campuses have instituted judgment procedures that deny those charged from confronting their accuser or, in some cases, even appearing to defend themselves. In many cases, those supporting such near star-chamber exercises in speech or behavioral prejudice are those judging for the kangaroo procedures. And, alongside these, liberal and leftist faculty have denied tenure or opposed research by those who have empirically challenged cherished thoughts or prejudices.
So, understandably so, any further enlargement of speech codes or definition of hate speech raises hackles among almost all those who have battled the present excesses. Further, most opponents have cause for little faith that in the prevailing leftist or hypocritical atmosphere on campuses that an enlargement to anti-Israel speech and actions that are anti-semitic would be enforced or fairly.
The occasion for the current discussion is the report by members of the University of California Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, and Inclusion task force on Jewish students (which I reported here). It recommends that a definition of anti-Semitism like that of the European Union be adopted to provide guidelines and current anti-harassment policies be enlarged to contain such guidelines.
Libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh, in opposition to the recommendation by the task force – from leaders of ADL and NAACP, still points out the elephant in the room. “[T]his is speech which does happen, which doesn’t generally lead to wide condemnation and counterprotests. The call for suppression by university, it seems to me, stems precisely from the fact that this speech isn’t suppressed by social pressure…” In other words, unlike speech and actions purportedly hostile to Blacks or Hispanics or gays, such equivalent or worse speech and actions against Jews or pro-Israeli students and faculty are not treated as seriously in the dominant left-leaning environment on campuses. Professor Volokh fears that such an enlarged anti-harassment policy, given the campus atmospherics, may lead to its use to further abuse free speech regarding other groups or causes.
These are, indeed, worthy arguments, paralleling many others. However, they still leave the elephant in the room, campus leadership ignoring or even encouraging vile anti-Israel speech and actions that are anti-semitic, and failing to enforce college rules that already exist to prohibit faculty use of college websites to promote such vileness.
Free speech advocates correctly assert that more free speech by those opposed to the anti-Israel forces is the best medicine. Many individuals and groups have used their free speech to expose such excesses. But, the offense persists, and as the task force report makes clear has created fear among pro-Israeli students and faculty and denial of academic and social opportunities.
The task force report just calls for exploration of reasonable guidelines, to “clearly define hate speech in its guidelines, and seek opportunities to prohibit hate speech on campus. The President should request that General Counsel examine opportunities to develop policies that give campus administrators authority to prohibit such activities on campus. The Team recognizes that changes to UC hate speech policies may result in legal challenge, but offer that UC accept the challenge.” U of C President Mark Yudoff summarily rejected the challenge: “I believe our current policies may go as far as they can, given constitutional limitations.”
This brings us back to the root cause, the runaway leftist environment on many campuses. No one expects that to change in any foreseeable future. Pro-Israeli students and faculty, and such taxpayers and tuition-payers, are on their own. Let’s, at least, hope that more see this challenge for what it is and step up their support for individuals and organizations that speak out against anti-semitism on campuses.
If conservatives are to succeed, we need to convince people in the U.S. and around the world that capitalism makes them richer and freer. Given the mountains of evidence on our side, why is it so damn hard?
Putting normal lives on a leash will be given an ideological aspect. Thanks to the opinion makers, the helpers will occupy the moral high ground. Earthly material interests mute into moralizing excuses. Stipulated justifications will exploit the original purpose of the regulating bureaucracy and thus protect it from criticism because of its claimed service of a higher purpose. Helping the poor might be virtuous. The institutions that fight poverty and thrive as a result, are not quite as noble as is their original goal. Existing values can also be hitched in front of bureaucratic carts. The values that preach helping and solidarity are enlisted to bless whatever the “office“ does. Accordingly, the critics are accused of lacking solidarity, of egoism, or to abuse the environment if, for instance, they dare to articulate the waste of some ecological regulations.
So, let us recap what's transpired since we last discussed the election.
As I recall, once Time Magazine and the New York Times picked up on the Maggie's posts and started printing them, the entire world realized that the wise and kindly Dr. Mercury was correct that Newt 'Big Picture' Gingrich was the one candidate with the historical perspective and across-the-aisle contacts to really-
Oh, wait. That was a dream I had the other night. Never mind.
Okay, so, while other blog sites were still mocking Romney by calling the others the "not-Romney" candidates, we'd all-but decided over here that it was probably Romney or bust. I believe he won my prestigious 'most presidential' award in every debate except one, where he shared the honor with Jon Huntsman.
Once the primaries started, the 'presidential' difference just became all the more apparent and the only surprise was the strong showing some of the other candidates made in certain states. But only in certain states.
Which brings us to today.
Like others, I'm expecting the Romney VP pick any moment now. For the record, I publicly called for Sarah Palin to be John McCain's running mate three weeks before he announced it.
But that was a gut call; wishful thinking. This is me actually trying to be politically analytical.
The standard "It won't be pretty" warning is in place.
The U.S. was created to foster human flourishing. The means to that end was the exercise of liberty in the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism is the economic expression of liberty. The pursuit of happiness, with happiness defined in the classic sense of justified and lasting satisfaction with life as a whole, depends on economic liberty every bit as much as it depends on other kinds of freedom.
Another:
... these capitalists of the left are concentrated where it counts most. The most visible entrepreneurs of the high-tech industry are predominantly liberal. So are most of the people who run the entertainment and news industries. Even leaders of the financial industry increasingly share the politics of George Soros. Whether measured by fundraising data or by the members of Congress elected from the ZIP Codes where they live, the elite centers with the most clout in the culture are filled with people who are embarrassed to identify themselves as capitalists, and it shows in the cultural effect of their work.
"Milton Friedman, who would have turned 100 on Tuesday, helped to make free markets popular again in the 20th century. His ideas are even more important today":
Well over 200 million were liberated from poverty thanks to the rediscovery of the free market. And now as the world teeters close to another recession, leaders need to urgently rediscover Friedman's ideas.
I remember asking Milton, a year or so before his death, during one of our semiannual dinners in downtown San Francisco: What can we do to make America more prosperous? "Three things," he replied instantly. "Promote free trade, school choice for all children, and cut government spending."
How much should we cut? "As much as possible."
A Libertarian at heart. The man believed in American freedom from the state and had faith in human potential - when unleashed. Listening to him talk, for me, is like seeing the sun come out from behind a cloud.
Dan is a long-time Maggie's Farmer, a 23-year pilot in the Air Force, an 11th-generation American, an Eagle Scout and a total muscle-car gearhead. On top of that, he also has the audacity to still be married to his first wife. He's obviously one of those sad 'bitter clingers' that President Obama referred to.
He also has an interesting idea, which he mentioned to me a few days ago in email. I told him if he expounded on it, I'd guest-host the post. And here you go.
President Obama could very well find an avenue to a Supreme Court seat. Think about it for a bit. Let the idea simmer on the back burner before you reject the idea as the ranting of a lunatic.
Justice Obama.
Excuse me, make that Chief Justice Obama.
Obama doesn't seem to enjoy being President much. Does he seem to revel or bask in the glow? Numerous reports indicate he easily becomes frustrated with the political process. It is singularly clear he thinks himself the smartest man in the room, no matter the room. Some say he doesn't listen to his advisors. He doesn't attend the usual meetings. Apparently, he hasn't attended the economic briefing in almost a year. He simply isn't presidential. This is hard to quantify, but most will agree he doesn't have that elusive 'it'. His speech, dress, actions and words (not to mention bowing and scraping before foreign leaders) just don't state, "I'm the leader of the most powerful nation on earth."
While he is attempting to fundamentally transform America, and succeeding on numerous fronts, think what he could do from the Supreme Court bench for 30+ more years.
Some would argue this is about as scary as it gets.
The very good Whittle video we posted this morning revealed that government in the US provides an average of $65,000 annually in funds, "benefits," and entitlements to poor families in the US. (Little or none of this is counted as income in calculating US poverty stats, as far as I know, nor, of course, does it take into account off-the-books cash income which seems pretty common these days.)
That's roughly the yield of a $2 million trust fund invested at a safe 1-3%, if my assumptions are correct. It's not a hard sale to convince people to vote for their own $2 million trust fund delivered by magic unicorns.
(The current fad for easy Disability and food stamps - anybody can get these things right now and I receive calls daily asking me whether I do Disability forms - is a whole new arena for free stuff, but a different topic. No, I do not do Disability forms on principle because I believe everybody is capable of dignity and self-respect. Speaking of cash, I have been offered good hard cash to fill them out for people in the last couple of years. On the phone "Doc, I'll pay you $1000 cash to complete my form for me.")
I have had plenty of experience with trust fund people, and am even fortunate enough to be the recipient of a very modest one myself, far less than $2 million in capital due to generational dilution. While some use their trust fund luck for productive purposes, many, it seems to me, lead relatively unproductive if not decadent, purposeless, and unstructured lives. People with meaningfully-sized trust funds, and families on the dole, have more in common with eachother than either has with the middle class.
As we often say here, real life is scary and challenging for almost everybody else. I am not convinced that that is a bad thing. It's the nature of real life and helps bring out the best in us. People spend money for lottery tickets just to enjoy the momentary fantasy of security and ease. Security and ease are infantile fantasies in this world which presents one problem after another.
Progressivism, in the Marxist and post-Marxist forms that have been swallowing the world for a century, is, in its methodology, nothing but the moral infantilization of mankind. It seeks the establishment of a population dominated by the childish fear of facing the world alone. Its pretty slogans are all variations on this theme. From "Workers of the world unite" to "It takes a village," the message is always the same: you can't face this "dog-eat-dog" world without the safety of the herd, which means without material security provided by political force. An all-powerful mother government must always be there to protect you from the ever-present monster, which is just life itself. And such security is not "charity"; it is your right. You are entitled to it, as any child is entitled to his parents' protection.
Today's ever-expanding "entitlement mentality" is literally shamelessness elevated to the status of a moral code. Progressivism has created an entire euphemistic vocabulary to justify the unabashed demand that others sacrifice their liberty to save me from my childish fear of facing life as an adult. "Positive rights," "social justice," "redistributive justice," "creative individuality," and so on, are all part of the leftist lexicon of cowardice.
Read it all. My view is that every American kid is born with a trust fund: their body, mind, soul, opportunities, and the remarkable free culture at hand. Amazing gifts which are rare on this planet. With all of that, nobody needs to lead a life which wastes his talents and capacities, or neglects his spiritual development.
I should add that I have no problem with trust funds per se (and have doubts about the whole idea of inheritance taxes too, which hit small family farms and businesses but never the very wealthy. America should welcome and ecourage family wealth-building, which reduces dependency). Similarly, I have no problem with the safety net for the very poor and/or dysfunctional. I do find it remarkable that American poverty benefits net out higher than the average American worker's income, which, like a good-sized trust fund, can be a perverse incentive for the weak in spirit. That's a shame, but people make their choices and not all Americans, unfortunately, have absorbed the American "Can Do" attitude.
Governments are marketing the "You Can't Do" attitude. It sells.
Blacks had more political power in Chicago than ever before, yet that power had no impact on the tidal wave of dysfunction that was sweeping through the largest black community in the United States. Chicago had just elected Harold Washington, the city’s first black mayor; the heads of Chicago’s school system and public housing were black, as were most of their employees; black power broker Emil Jones, Jr. represented the South Side in the Illinois State Senate; Jesse Jackson would launch his 1984 presidential campaign from Chicago. The notion that blacks were disenfranchised struck even some of Obama’s potential organizees as ludicrous. “Why we need to be protesting and carrying on at our own people?” a prominent South Side minister asked Obama soon after he arrived in Chicago. “Anybody sitting around this table got a direct line to City Hall.”
The article is deeply depressing. The concepts of planning and of delayed gratification seem to be lost. It's consistent with my theory that many or maybe most people will go feral unless raised to civilization. Lord of the Flies. Is this the product of government policy? I think so. Nobody lived this way before The Great Society, and now it has become its own multigenerational subculture.
It also seems clear to me that these teen mothers do not want husbands anyway. Why would they want to marry unreliable losers, drop-outs, or gang members? Or anybody? In my view, government can do nothing to fix what they have irretrievably broken in the name of compassion. Rich, poor, or in-between, big government programs lock people into things and inhibit change. Tragic. Another quote:
Some members of Chicago’s Left will argue against holding fathers or mothers responsible for their children. “To blame it on the family is totally unfair,” says Gwen Rice, a board member of the Developing Communities Project. “I’m tired of blaming the parents. The services for the poor are paltry; it boggles the mind. Historically, you can’t expect a parent who can’t get a job to do something that someone with resources can do. These problems have histories; there are policies that have mitigated against black progress. What needs to happen is a change in corporate greed and insensitivity.” Rice corrects my use of the term “illegitimacy”: “There are no illegitimate births,” she says.
Maybe we need laws to prevent Corporate Greed from impregnating innocent teens. And we need more government services. That would solve it all.
Insty points out that much of the financial "inequality" in the US is due to the marriage gap. Wonder of wonders, even the NYT is finally willing to discuss the forbidden topic: Two Classes, Divided by ‘I Do’. It's not news. Sen. Pat Moynihan famously warned about this decades ago, but the subject was judged to be politically incorrect.
Why is it a forbidden topic? I can think of at least two reasons. One is fear of the racial aspect, although no race has a monopoly on single motherhood. My second reason is the knee-jerk refusal to judge based on bourgeois life style choices, or some such Marxist baloney.
Even with government functioning as a modest trust fund for many, having kids outside marriage is not a recipe for a good, orderly life (from my petit bourgeois standpoint, of course). It's not mostly about income - it's about functionality, support, structure, partnership, responsibility, committment, teamwork. This is not a secret. The income part is just an extra side-effect if two people have jobs.
As best I can tell, it takes at least two people to raise kids properly. Ideally, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and close family friends around too. Nannies or babysitters if you can afford them. Tribally, in extended family and in community. Income doesn't really matter much. Kids thrive on Cheerios, Wonder Bread and baloney, macaroni and cheese, hamburgers, and Fluffernutter. I did. 6'2" and fairly strong.
The mayor of Scranton, PA recently lowered all city workers' salaries to the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. This in an attempt to cover a budget gap but still keep people working. It's a fine attempt to try and balance financial hopes with reality. Scranton doesn't want to follow in Stockton's footsteps.
But what is the reward for doing something intelligent? You get sued, of course. The logic of this is obvious, because another lawsuit burdening the system helps you get what you can't create. It's the most productive solution in the modern economy.
I grew up not too far from Scranton. The region has been depressed for as long as I can remember. But when people get used to a certain quality of life, they begin to believe they deserve it. What's the solution? Taking out a loan is only a good idea if the money is put to work building productive capacity somehow. But that's not what the city would borrow money to accomplish.
The 'solution', such as it is, is exactly what the mayor is doing. Trying to live within his means and find a way to make it work. Eventually, if Scranton isn't a viable productive center which attracts or starts new businesses, it's going to fail. Just like many cities or small towns before it. This is nothing new. It's sad, but reality isn't always happy and fun.
Unfortunately for the mayor, the people want what they perceive to be theirs so they can preserve the life they've become used to.
With the federal government handing money out to all and sundry, is it any surprise people want what they can't have?
Are America's components too large, too diverse in culture, religion, geography, population, prosperity, politics, way of life and point of view, for one-size-fits-all directives from Washington?
I believe so. That's why I don't care that Vermont is socialist, or that Massachusetts has Romneycare, or that Texas is Texas, or that Stockton is Stockton.
Or that California - by itself the 8th largest economy in the world - is wacky California. I'm in favor of letting them be what they want to be, but not on my nickel. Do your own thing, dude, take responsibility for it, but don't ask me to pay for it. I have my hands full caring for my own.
On this Independence Day week, with the Sousa bands and the marching Vets and the martial rockets' red glare, I think about this: the primary job of the Feds is to protect us from external threats so we, the people, are free to figger out life in our own ways. Not in the ways determined by our supposed "betters."
In America, we acknowledge no "betters." "Betters" are for Europeans and Asians.
We are not children, nor are we stupid: after all, many of us were educated in government schools. We are in life, not cloistered in Washington and we are all as smart - if not as articulate BSers - as they are. We know there is no life on earth without problems, difficulties, challenges, and death at the end of it. That's plain reality. What we do not need is our governments making it all more difficult. We can handle it, most of it.
In America today, the greatest threat to individual and local freedom is our own Federal government. Our external threats are relatively trivial, given our power.
Maine has nothing in common with DC, Hollywood, or Chicago. Nothing, well, except for harvesting the Maine lobsters that the limo Liberals feed on.
When governments accomplish the basic, simple tasks to which they are assigned, they tend to grandiosely meddle in other things to feel important, to keep themselves busy, to invent problems, or to buy votes with the voters' money (A Nation of Takers?). It's an insidious use of power even if it sometimes satirizes itself and makes us laugh at its foolishness: An Open Letter to Mayor Bloomberg. Please do not "help" us, jerks. Most of us are far from helpless.
In their book The Size of Nations, Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore argue that, if America were as centrally governed as France, it would have broken up long ago. But hey, that’s no reason not to try it! In a land where everything else is supersized, why not government? Obituaries for the late Andy Griffith generally glossed over his career finale as a pitchman for Obamacare. But he was a canny choice to sell the unsellable, for is not “health” “care” “reform” the communitarian virtues of beloved small-town Mayberry writ large? The problem is you can’t write Mayberry large. And, if you attempt it, it leads not to Mayberry but to Stockton, Calif., and to a corrupt, dysfunctional swamp. A large Sweden is a contradiction in terms. It cannot be done, and the more determinedly you try to do it, the more you will preside over a ruined wasteland. The road to hell isn’t paved at all, and the street lamps went out long ago.
Is leaving people alone a full-time job? Naw, it couldn't be. Corny as it may be to post, this is one of our historic American flags, and some days I wish we had kept it for its ornery assertion to governmental power:
The neoconservative approach posits that universal peace is achievable by engineering a world of democratic institutions and that, if history does not move quickly enough, we can move it along by military force. My concern is that this ultimate goal is in practice so remote, and the method of reaching it so uncertain, that it leads to an interventionism exhausting our society and ultimately to abdication, as in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The difference is less one of destination than of pacing. The point is not that what exists is unalterable, but that the effort required to implement change will be more sustainable, if we temper the visionary aspect of policy with a recognition of the variety and complexity of circumstance.
The current situation in the Middle East is instructive...
There are two sorts of Americans, the "What can I get?" Americans and the "What can I do?" Americans.
Some folks might wade through the Rio Grande for "What can I get?", but I think most of them, like the ones who immigrate from further afield, come because of "What can I do?" Nowadays, it's mostly smart, ambitious Asians who can write code but are also willing to do the night shifts at the minimarts (kind of crazy to see work-free Americans on welfare in the minimart lines while the Asian or Haitian keeps busy at the check-out counter practicing his or her English and studying some textbook between customers).
Land of Opportunity, and all that. Whining and whinging not allowed here. There is still more freedom here to pursue your life goals than anywhere on earth, and leisure is not a traditional American life goal. In fact, the original Americans considered leisure to be disreputable if not shameful except on Sunday, after church.
It was the banks that first felt the lash of Mr Hollande’s tongue when he declared that his “true adversary” was not Mr Sarkozy but “the world of finance”. The president, who has spent almost his entire career in the public sector or working for his party, once said: “I don’t like the rich."
If you hate the world of finance, don't borrow and don't invest. It's simple. Also strange, since Hollande has become very wealthy working all his life for government and in politics, and all of his friends and girlfriends are rich. He has the parasitic mind, and parasites hate their hosts because they are ashamed of their dependency.
Leftists harp about the corruption in free markets, but rarely about the corruption intrinsic to centrally-controlled or -manipulated systems (see Solyndra, or Fannie Mae, for recent American examples).
The "invisible hand" has been given a teleological interpretation, as if some benevolent agent is active in bringing about that benevolent end. For Smith the hand is simply a metaphor for a free market, a "system of natural liberty", in which individuals exchange their goods and services without the intervention of any supervising hand or authority. Only in such a system could the division of labour produce the "opulence" that would distribute the "necessaries of life" for the benefit of all. "By necessaries," The Wealth of Nations explains, "I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without." Society, the rich and the poor, employers and workers, even unto the "lowest order" — this is the "nation" in The Wealth of Nations. It is not the nation state in the mercantilist sense, but the people who constitute society. And not the "people", as contemporaries often used that word — those who play an active part in politics — but the "common people" as well, including the lower and even the lowest orders. By the same token, the "wealth" in the title is not the wealth of the state (again, as the mercantilist understood it), but the wealth, or well-being, of all the people. Only a "progressive" — that is, a free and industrious — economy, could bring about "a universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people, . . . a general plenty [which] diffuses itself through all the different ranks of society." To those who complain that if the poor shared in the "general plenty", they would no longer be content with their lot in life, Smith put the question: "Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or an inconvenience to the society?" His answer is unequivocal — and very much in the spirit of Moral Sentiments:
Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.
I've been reading a bit about how western forest fires could be prevented, or reduced, by human intervention. I am opposed to that. Wildfire is a natural occurrence, and forest regeneration is a natural and necessary process and one upon which many species depend. It's well-known that fire-prevention eventuates in bigger fires.
If you want to live in the woods where fire is eventually expected, don't do it on my nickel. While I must admire the valiant forest-fire-fighters, I don't know why I am paying for them. There are dangers in the woods. Cougars, wolves, fires, bears, snakes, crazy rivers, etc. Nobody is forced to live there.
Same goes for federally-subsidized flood insurance. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Why should my tax dollars subsidize somebody to live where there is a predictable expectation of flooding? Or hurricanes or tornadoes?
Perhaps this sounds "insensitive," but adults are expected to calculate their risks in life and not come crying to me when the odds turn against them. I can be charitable when I choose to be, but I don't want to be forced by government to subsidize other peoples' adult choices.
An angry client today told me how pissed he was that the bank wouldn't swallow his $250,000 loss in the home he needs to sell now. I pointed out to him the obvious fact that he was implying that he would have been happy to keep any gain on the house, but not any loss. Then I pointed out that, if somebody wants to give up loss and to give up gain, then they should rent. When you rent, the landlord or the bank takes the risks.
In my long life experience, the more responsibility people take for their decisions and their consequences, the better and more careful decisions they make.
It's about Americans who have 
The death of the American mule.
Middle-class taxpayers will pay a
So, let us recap what's transpired since we last discussed the election.
"Milton Friedman, who would have turned 100 on Tuesday, helped to make free markets popular again in the 20th century. 
President Obama could very well find an avenue to a Supreme Court seat. Think about it for a bit. Let the idea simmer on the back burner before you reject the idea as the ranting of a lunatic.
I grew up not too far from Scranton. The region has been depressed for as long as I can remember. But when people get used to a certain quality of life, they begin to believe they deserve it. What's the solution? Taking out a loan is only a good idea if the money is put to work building productive capacity somehow. But that's not what the city would borrow money to accomplish.
Are America's components too large, too diverse in culture, religion, geography, population, prosperity, politics, way of life and point of view, for one-size-fits-all directives from Washington? 