Saturday, November 17. 2007
At Dino: Do you feel manipulated yet? Why isn't this CNN media collusion a scandal? Easy answer: because it's media collusion. Who is going to report this stuff except blogs? More at Flopping here and at Gateway here.
Friday, November 16. 2007
 From Will There Always be an England? in New Criterion, a quote:
Lee Smith, in an article in The American Prospect a couple of years ago, accurately summed up Tariq Ramadan’s “point of view”: Ramadan is a cold-blooded Islamist who believes that Islam is the cure for the malaise wrought by liberal values. His revision of the jihadist paradigm—peaceful but total—is brilliant in its way, and he may well turn out to be a major Islamist intellectual, far surpassing even his grandfather’s influence. His cry of death to the West is a quieter and gentler jihad, but it’s still jihad. There’s no reason for Western liberals to try to understand that point of view. That gets to the nub of the issue—both with respect to the reality of Tariq Ramadan’s agenda and what we in the West should think of it. It was not a popular “point of view” at Oxford. But then political realities have always had a difficult time surviving in that rarefied air. On the High Street last month we saw a church placard announcing that they were “praying” to be a more “inclusive” congregation. And remember the Oxford Union in 1933: “Resolved, that we will in no circumstances fight for king and country.” To have resolved otherwise would have been to exhibit what one confrence-goer stigmatized as “cultural essentialism” and a lamentable tendency to demonize “the Other.” How comical Tariq Ramadan and his friends must find these effete moral gymnastics. “An open mind is the best way to look at the world.” It’s such emollient advice, especially if you are bent on making sure that you alone will decide what counts as openness.
I believe that one reason the Left has contempt for Conservatives is for our coarse, knuckle-dragging lack of such effete gymnastics.
Thursday, November 15. 2007
 Henninger on the '60s, in the WSJ. The Long Goodbye. Good stuff. Comments on the piece by Scott at Powerline.
Of 1968, Henninger notes: The year began with sales of the Beatles album, "Magical Mystery Tour." In retrospect, it was a premonition. In late January, North Korea captured the USS Pueblo and crew members. A week later, the North Vietnamese army launched the Tet offensive. On Feb. 27, Walter Cronkite announced on CBS News that the U.S. had to negotiate a settlement to the Vietnam War. On March 12, Sen. Gene McCarthy defeated incumbent President Lyndon Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, aided by antiwar students that Sen. McCarthy called his "children's crusade." Two weeks later, LBJ announced on TV that he would not run for re-election. One week later, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. It was only April 4.
Read the whole thing. Link above.
 From Opinion Journal on Tuesday:
A Treasury study refutes populist hokum about "income inequality." OK, "hokum" is our word. The study, to be released today, is a careful, detailed piece of research by professional economists that avoids political judgments. But what it does do is show beyond doubt that the U.S. remains a dynamic society marked by rapid and mostly upward income mobility. Much as they always have, Americans on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder continue to climb into the middle and sometimes upper classes in remarkably short periods of time.
Whole thing here. Chart is from the article.
Wednesday, November 14. 2007
If Warren Buffet wants to pay more taxes, nobody is stopping him from sending in a check. The Feds welcome donations, but get none from the mega-wealthy - including offshore Soros and offshore Kennedy. If you do not feel you are sufficiently taxed, don't complain - just ACT. Send it in, and give your conscience some relief. Taxes are not progressive enough. h/t, Dr.X. (By the way, if it needs to be said, I disagree with this link, entirely. I am in favor of a flat tax of 13% on everyone, with no deductions and no increase above 13% except in wartime.)
Tuesday, November 13. 2007
Why I think Hillary will win. I am by no means as pessimistic as Mr. Armey, but he makes good points with which I agree. In fact, I believe McCain or Rudy could beat her relatively easily. Without the MSM carrying her water and covering her tracks, and her last name, she would not even be in the running. She is a wholly media-made celebrity product, like Crest toothpaste and Paris Hilton. Where's the beef? I think the country is "ready" for a woman, black, or anything-else President (I know I am - but I do not like to vote for a potential Commander in Chief without military service) - but I don't think it's ready for a socialist with a rotten personality and a dubious moral compass.
From Prof Deneen, Giving a Damn. A quote: Can it be any coincidence that within a decade of the supposed renewal of political philosophy in America - the publication of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice in 1971, perhaps the most intricate theoretical justification of the welfare state ever penned - that the welfare state in America, and increasingly throughout the world, was being dismantled? The American welfare state increases in scale especially during those decades when our thicker communities are being dismantled or abandoned ("The Great Society" - in the singular). As Tocqueville predicted, it would be the ascent of individualism itself that would give rise to the felt need for a "tutelary State" to compensate for what had once been provided - albeit unevenly, informally, unequally - within the thicker webs of familial and local life. The dismantling of the welfare state is seen as a victory by the Right, but they are often uncognizant of the corresponding dismantling of communal forms that their valorization of individualism - especially the individualism of the marketplace - effectively undermines. The Left believes that the battle can be won by getting the correct philosophical articulation of Rawls's thesis, and are fundamentally oblivious to the wholesale dismantling of any real commitment to civic concern that has been a consequence of their wholesale efforts at achieving individual liberation and autonomy. Contemporary liberalism and conservatism (so-called) alike are fundamentally incoherent.
This echoes some of Dr. Bliss' comments a week or so ago on The Problem with Women. Link is above to the whole essay.
Is there a vast media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton? I have no doubt. L. Brent Bozell agrees: Whitewash: What the media won't tell you about Hillary Clinton.
 People are talking about the new Brit socialist/communist blog, Liberal Conspiracy. It is remarkable to me that, with so many years of Labour power and their disheartening, intrusive programs, that there are still people in the UK who want more government in their lives.
Our thoughtful friend Chris at Stumbling and Mumbling, with whom we generally disagree, discusses the two types of "Positive Liberty," which are at odds with the "Classical Liberalism" which we stand for here. A quote: But there’s a second type of positive freedom... It’s that people must be empowered to control their lives - they must have real liberty, as well as formal liberty.
This means, for example, greater direct democracy in local and national government, worker control and a no-strings-attached basic income.
Heck, I want a free Lamborghini. But thus does the "new," FDR-era definition of "liberty" become an infantile and spineless serfdom to a supposedly benevolent, but ultimately psychotically power-hungry State. It always works that way, human nature being the dark thing that it is. But I guess I would be OK with a Philosopher-King - as long as it's me, and not you - because I seek no power over anybody except my dogs. What's the point of all of this in prosperous, middle-class countries which are full of opportunities for anyone who wants to reach for them... assuming they are not either dysfunctional, or the fortunate people who are motivated by the good things in life above and beyond material gain, and choices which cost money like recreation, entertainment, education, and special comforts and pleasures? God bless 'em, but I am not one of them (mostly) because there are too many things I'd lke to do which have costs attached. Like another ten days in Tuscany or Turkey or Scotland. My basic human dignity will not permit me to take things from others: it's degrading and leads to shame and shame's companion - bitterness, rather than the pride in finding your own path through life. A path illuminated by your own conscience, abilities, gifts, judgement, resourcefulness, hopes and dreams. In my view, "positive liberty" represents, or necessitates, a form of totalitarianism (whether democratic in origin or not), and "classical liberalism" is far more than a pretty abstraction. Has the dream ended? Are people in the West exhausted by fighting for freedom from the State, and resigning themselves to an ignoble "Gimme" attitude? I hope not, but sometimes I wonder. Photo: Our Massachusetts Minuteman, who was not fighting the Brits for a free lunch, but for autonomy and self-determination, freedom from the State and its power and its oppressive taxation at gunpoint.
Monday, November 12. 2007
It's zillionaire Ron Burkle. Why? Kaus suggests it's to protect the Clintons from bad publicity.
Today, says Theo. (Expressive language NSFW in most places, but bravo to his sentiments.) His website here.
 Roger Kimball. What took us so long? He is in our Pantheon of Essayists.
Here's a list of his books. Here's his Wikipedia entry. He is not an amateur thinker.
From a review of Ted Dalrymple's new book, In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas, by Rebecca Bynum in New English Review, a quote: The influence of Mill and others is such that today social mores and traditions are thought to be evils in themselves, since they are considered to be impediments to progress, enlightenment and individual freedom. Therefore, there is nothing left to act as a brake on human behavior except legality and therein lies the rub. As says Dalrymple: The lack of any intervening authority between the individual on the one hand, and the sovereign political power on the other, enables the latter to insinuate itself into the smallest crevices of daily life.
Over the last century we have witnessed such a powerful ideological attack on tradition, that tradition has not held, then on religion, and religion holds only in pockets, and then upon the foundational unit of civilization, the family, so that finally in many places, especially at the lower rungs of our social scale, the family has effectively been destroyed, so that nothing stands between the individual and the power of the state. Often in these areas many adult individuals are dependants of the state by virtue of welfare. They are provided with their physical needs, food, clothing, shelter and medical care, often dispensed in the form of anti-depressant drugs, all through the benevolence of the state. It is inevitable that these solicitations should take the form of greater and greater totalitarian control. So what starts out as a drive toward absolute freedom ends up in absolute totalitarianism.
Read the whole thing, which reads very much like a (better-written) Maggie's Farm post.
Speaking of lying with stats and charts, here's a nice political example from Asst Village Idiot.
Sunday, November 11. 2007
 A propos the link this morning about lying about infant mortality (but also a propos everything else) we urge all readers and all Americans to read Darrell Huff's classic How to Lie with Statistics.
You do not need to be a math whiz to understand it, but if you don't know this basic stuff, you will be easily duped. Duped expecially by the MSM, which is not only biased in data presentation but is also widely ignorant about the most basic statistics. In the link we mentioned above, the report was making an "apples and oranges error", known as a "Category Error." It's the same error involved in the report that showed the world's best cancer center, Sloan-Kettering Memorial in NYC, as having the worst mortality rates of American hospitals. Data can be technically accurate, yet meaningless. Similarly, the most talented docs often have the lowest success rates because they take on the toughest cases. Money manager acquaintances have told me how they make their numbers look good: they select their best time frame to present, and they decide whether to include or exclude new money added during that time frame. That is a fallacy known as selection bias. A good example at the bottom here: how different would the impression be if you just charted June to November? Speaking of money managers, I have also enjoyed Jones' How to Lie with Charts and Graphs. Fun to peruse.
Saturday, November 10. 2007
 From a Dick Morris piece on Bill and Hillary:
Would we expect Dennis Thatcher to speak up for Maggie? What would we think if he berated the men of the Argentine Junta for piling on against his wife? How would we respond if he accused the BBC of bias against his Prime Minister/wife? The fact that Bill has been president just makes his intervention the more obvious and politically costly. Here we have not only a husband standing up for his woman, but a former president helping his ingénue wife in her efforts to fend for herself. The stereotype is not appealing and undermines Hillary’s candidacy.
Photo: Billary Clinton
Friday, November 9. 2007
 Gateway, with video. Isn't totalitarian socialist revolution a beautiful thing? But where are Cindy and Sean and the rest of the American Chavistas today, when they could be helping to shoot freedom-seeking students to advance the cause? Maybe they are too busy today? Well, then call Warren Beatty.
And why, why, do potentially prosperous and happy South American countries keep falling for this dictator business, socialist or otherwise? It's a damn shame.
 I am a democrat [believer in democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . . The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.
CS Lewis, 1943 (h/t, Dr. Bob)
Thursday, November 8. 2007
With thanks to Chris Muir: 
Baghdad free of terror. Surber. Stubborn persistence wins.
Story with updates at Insty, if anyone missed it yesterday. 
Hey Sean - get a load of this, dude. I suppose the reply would be the usual Commie one: You have to break eggs to make an omelette. Many eggs, until the human spirit is pacified, terrorized, or dead.
Bravo, Sarko. Sarkozy's visit, and his speech. Flopping. It is refreshingly sane.
Wednesday, November 7. 2007
Excellent, via Iowahawk. h/t, Driscoll.
 A quote from Don Luskin: It's the same game, whether played from the right or from the left. Scare you into herding yourself into a malleable collectivist mass.
Well, maybe from the Conservatives a bit when they weaken, but the power-greedy Left in America rarely misses an opportunity to declare "market failure", followed by a grandiose plan to expand the power of the Federal state. FDR wrote the playbook, with Lenin's help. Whether it's oil profits, climate, medical treatment, schools, risky mortgages, income differences, etc, there's always a "plan" for a grab for money and power. That is why I am always highly skeptical about manufactured and trumped-up crises. Medical insurance is a case in point. TigerHawk has a solid piece on the subject, in response to a piece by Ezra Klein which tries to convince the reader that American medical care is terrible, and the NYT piece by Mankiw that we linked yesterday. All worth a read. And one more comment, re the "fully-socialized VA system." I have worked in a VA hospital attached to a major teaching center, and it worked just fine as long as you worked within the decreed limits. That's beside the point. VA patients have the choice of where to go for medical treatment, and they use those choices because the VA only offers clinic-style medicine, much like the charity clinics most kindly hospitals provide to their communities. The Post Office works pretty well too (except for the USSR-style lines at the window), but we also have UPS, FedEx, etc as welcome alternatives to a government-controlled, lazy-bureaucrat-operated, arrogant monopoly which has no incentive - and no heart - to give a damn about you.
|
