Tuesday, June 12. 2007
Gore bashes GHW Bush over Iraq. Youtube via Breibart via Drudge. Just amazing what lying hypocrites politicians can be.
Seen this yet? Hot Air. It's funny, but I really have no problem with government being run by regular mediocre blokes. "Government of the people, by the people," right? It's the experts and bureaucrats that give me the creeps: less likely to have common sense. But Miller is right about Reid and the war. Reid is playing on the other team, so to speak.
Monday, June 11. 2007
Steyn in The New York Sun. It begins thus: I forget where I was when I first heard the phrase "undocumented worker." Possibly it was after swimming the Rio Grande and emerging dripping on the northern shore to be handed a fake Social Security number and a driver's license. But I assumed, reasonably enough, that this linguistic sleight of hand was simply too ridiculous to fly even with the American media. I underestimated my colleagues, alas.
Sounds like a plan to me. Gateway
Moral equivalence, and, of course, Jihadi Etiquette. It's really about the NYT.
From VDH at NRO (h/t, reader). A quote: The old postwar order is tottering on the brink of Islamism, oil-price hikes, energy shortages, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, Russian belligerency, global-warming concern and hysteria, and war.
Europe is at the edge of the chasm, despite its strong euro and strengthening economy. Once convinced that they would serve as a kinder, gentler Western answer to the United States, Europeans would offer humanity a sort of soft-power colossus that would check George Bush’s “dead-or-alive,” “smoke-‘em-out” America. They would fix through good works what we had botched. That welcomed alternative seemed attractive to many as we slogged it out in Iraq, and the “I told you so” Europeans felt justified that military power really does cause far more problems than it solves.
Read the whole thing.
I like to be in America!
O.K. by me in America!
Ev'rything free in America
For a small fee in America! A quote from Heather MacDonald's The Republicans' Hispanic Delusion at City Journal: Even Republican Hispanics are not particularly conservative on economic issues. A 2002 poll by the Pew and Kaiser foundations found that 52 percent of registered Latino Republicans supported a higher-taxing, larger state sector, a higher percentage for big government than one finds among white Democrats, reports Steve Sailer. As for the majority of Latinos—poor and poorly-educated—the more government services, the better. Mexican consulates across the country are busily signing up illegal Mexicans for all the free government-funded health care that the consulates can find—that would be American - not Mexican-funded health care, mind you. “We have the right to health services,” an illegal Mexican in Santa Clarita, California, told the Los Angeles Times. This attitude of entitlement—not only among illegal aliens but also among legal Hispanic immigrants and their children—extends to the full array of welfare programs. In fact, welfare use actually increases between the second and third generation of Mexican-Americans—to 31 percent of all third-generation Mexican-American households.
This wave of immigration arrives with different hopes from America than previous waves who, we are told, sought only opportunity and/or political freedom. Of course, that might have been different if there had been government programs at the time of the Southern Italian and Irish immigrations.
Sunday, June 10. 2007
I guess I do not understand the French. Life remains interesting.
Friday, June 8. 2007
All the red-faced tirades of Lindsay Graham and Ted Kennedy, and the condescending and insulting comments by GWB (all furious at the "emotional" arguments of the opposition, apparently), were not enough to save the Senate immigration bill, which essentially died yesterday when it failed to garner enough votes to limit debate. This marks the second time in two years that an amnesty bill has been defeated before making its way to the President's ready-and-waiting desk. President Bush, who recently lashed out at his own Republican base by questioning their patriotism and accusing them of trying to "frighten" Americans by calling the bill an amnesty, apparently came down sick the same evening, according to Larry Auster. Perhaps not coincidentally, Bush was photographed drinking a beer (see above photo) before the episode, despite his well-documented abstention from alcohol. Update: As noted in the comments, the official line from the White House is that it was a non-alcoholic beer. The actual source of Bush's stomach ailment? A surfeit of rootbeer and raspberry cheesecake at the G8 dinner, apparently.
 At Home Depot, you can now just take whatever you want. That's what I call a good deal: why should greedy capitalist pigs make money on stuff I need, anyway? They should make it and give it to me because I am a nice person.
Well, maybe not all that nice, but I am special, right? We're all special, right?
 Chart is from an extraordinarily lucid piece by Kling on The Great Tug of War between Capitalism and Socialism/Communism. I thought that tug of war was over, but I guess, in some people's minds, it's not.
There are two utopias - the womb, and Heaven (if you can get in there before they close the door). Life is bracketed by utopias, but in between we must toil and strain and sometimes suffer. It's "the way things are", as the mice say. It's interesting to contemplate how distrustful and contemptuous of human nature and of human enterprise the anti-Capitalists are. What's that all about? If human nature is so dark, then what would make "policy-makers" any better than business people? I have never seen any evidence that policy-makers are angels. And, without the money generated by enterprise and commerce, where would the anti-Capitalists hope to get money to run things their way? Who would create the wealth that the policy-makers take from us to do what they want? Issue | Pro-Capitalist | Anti-Capitalist | Market Prices | valuable signals | corrupt | Our Behavior in Markets | rational, ethical | greedy | Solve Social Problems | spontaneous order | deliberate planning | Social Heroes | entrepreneurs | policymakers | Wealth Acquisition | positive-sum | zero-sum | Business Success | largely deserved | comes from exploitation | Business Failure | necessary | disastrous |
A quote from Don Surber: The first job of the government is not to give me food stamps; the first job of the government is not to give me Social Security; the first job of the government is not to give me a college loan; the first job of the government is not to give me free medical care if I am poor or old; the first job of the government is not to give me a guaranteed mortgage; the first job of the government is not to give me a check if I am unemployed; the first job of the government is not to give me one damned thing: The first job of the government is to protect the borders. President Bush needs to start doing his job.
Our best piece on the late lamented bill is here.
Yup. Be afraid. American imperialist tanks armed with chemical weapons are lined up on the northern Minnesota border at all times, just waiting for the "go" signal to advance to Winnipeg, and after that to take the real prize - Dauphin. Insanity at Dust My Broom
Thursday, June 7. 2007
Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is more relevant today than it was when it was written 75 years ago. This creepily prophetic, forcefully anti-utopian science fiction novel describes a world government which scientifically manages everything from hatchery to grave for the happiness and safety of all - except for the Alphas, who have the responsibility for running the whole thing. Truly rule by experts. Freedom is an antiquated illusion, and the government is an omnipotent, benevolent god. Caitrin Nicol, in The New Atlantis, takes a fresh look at the book. Some quotes from her piece: This “illusion of freedom” was cast into a clearer light by a reviewer who discerned that the temptation to sacrifice liberty to end suffering often becomes an attack on the reality of the liberty itself. Rebecca West, a prominent novelist and literary critic (and erstwhile mistress of H. G. Wells) said Huxley had “rewritten in terms of our age” Dostoevsky’s famous parable of the Grand Inquisitor from The Brothers Karamazov—“a symbolic statement that every generation ought to read afresh.”
and An unholy alliance of industrial capitalist, fascist, communist, psychoanalytic, and pseudo-scientific ideologies has brought about the end of history. The past is taboo—“History is bunk,” as “Our Ford” so eloquently said—and there is no future, because history’s ends have been accomplished. There is no pain, deformity, crime, anguish, or social discontent. Even death has no more sting: Children are acclimatized to the death palaces from the age of eighteen months, encouraged to poke around and eat chocolate creams while the dying are ushered into oblivion on soma, watching sports and pornography on television. Postmortem, the useful chemicals in every corpse are recovered in cremation to be used as fertilizer. “Fine to think we can go on being socially useful even after we’re dead,” gloats one character. “Making plants grow.”
and Unlike the other great dystopias, Huxley’s World State, though totalitarian in its orthodoxy, is ostensibly ordered on the wants of the governed rather than the governors. Threats are rarely used or needed. Rule by bread and circuses has proved more potent than force—and more pernicious, precisely because every means of control is a perversion of something people really want. The only people with any capacity for dissatisfaction are a handful of Alphas, who are as unable to articulate their objection as Russell is. It is difficult to reject the sinister when by slight distortion it masquerades as the sublime. Why feeling should be able to distinguish these things while reason cannot is an interesting question, one which could be left forever unsettled by tinkering, through biotechnology or psychological control, with what Huxley (in a later foreword to the book) called “the natural forms and expressions of life itself.” One such expression, of course, is a certain measure of autonomy over the meaning and direction of our lives. Its total absence in the World State is ominously signified by the professional title of the genetic engineers: the Assistant Predestinators.
The scariest things about Huxley's book are 1) On a bad day, anyone might be willing to sacrifice some liberty for security, and, 2) On a bad day, the Brave New World Huxley imagined has a certain regressive, hedonistic appeal and, 3) There are politicians who, unknowingly, use the idea of such a world as an ultimate goal - assuming, no doubt, that they would be the Alphas, and not me. At Maggie's Farm, we try to make a stand for the messy, often-difficult, often-painful freedom of the human soul and spirit. Please take the time to read the whole thing. And read the book, if you haven't.
I agree with Flares about that. It's going to continue getting more costly, but it's still a good deal.
This does not bode well for them. No Pasaran
Wednesday, June 6. 2007
Rick, the esteemed, amiable, and often-provocative proprietor of the Right Wing Nut House, is indeed nutty enough to try to make a living blogging. Who's gonna throw that minstrel boy a coin? We'd hate to lose him because he is one of those guys who has the time to dig into things rather than going off half-cocked, as we sometimes (some would say often) do here.
 No Looking Backwards (in this morning's links) linked to an editorial in New Hampshire's Union Leader, which explains the freedom view of the world in terms of the minor issue of mandatory seatbelts.
When freedom is removed from the political equation, and replaced by benevolence, the result is tyranny. Don't all tyrants say they want what is good for some or most of "their people"? I love the C.S. Lewis observation, which we often quote: - Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
I will trust free markets over government any day of the week. The problem with all of the "minor" issues - trans-fats, smoking, motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, gun control, etc - is that they eventually add up to an oppressive, dispiriting burden, as in the UK. A quote from the Union Leader article: When the state crosses that line and begins protecting adults from themselves, the people have lost their authority over the state. At once, there is no decision the state may not make regarding an individual's personal behavior. The people have conceded that power, and it is no longer theirs. New Hampshire remains the "live free or die" state, and its people take that motto very seriously. Start telling them how to live their lives, and they will start telling you exactly where you can go.
That's right. But you can feel like a nut and a crank standing up and opposing each tiny, seemingly well-intentioned step that government takes, even though the imposition of most of these issues is really driven by controlling do-gooder cranks with too much time on their hands. The problem, as I see it, is that these are laws, not advice. Heck - I usually use my seatbelt - especially when I am driving my pick-up, drinking Coors Lite, reading the paper, shooting various animals and shooting various annoying people out the car window, listening to the radio, eating a bagel, talking on my cell, and blogging on my Blackberry - all at the same time, like every normal busy red-blooded American does. If America doesn't still stand for individual liberty from state power, then what good are we? If we, and our politicians, remove individual liberty from the equations they apply to law-making, what are we? If laws have to have "Environmental Impact Statements," how come they don't have to have "Freedom Impact Statements"? (I don't think I am the first to say that, but if I stole it, I don't remember from whom.) Addendum: I should also have re-linked the Cafe Hayek piece on the subject of trans-fats (which government experts insisted upon, just a few years ago, as an improvement over lard) and the food Nazis. A nanny with cops and guns backing her up is worth calling a Nazi, in the sarcastic Seinfeld sense of the term, if you ask me. (See our Mayor Bloomberg satire, which some readers thought might be real.) Appalling examples delivered fresh, daily, at Moonbattery
While the Repubs duked it out (Rudy was excellent), Fred went solo on Hannity. Video
Tuesday, June 5. 2007
 Bella Thomas spent some time in Cuba in April, and reports on the visit in Prospect Magazine.
Thomas feels that the US embargo has been a major factor in keeping Castro in power. A quote: Most also know that liberalisation is vitally needed, but they are cautious about speaking openly, partly because they have too much else to think about (such as how to get food), partly because living under a dictatorship generates extraordinary levels of patience, and partly because questioning the regime can lose you your job or even land you in prison. Also, whatever the iniquities of the current system, there is still a certain sort of fear about what may be in store once the regime passes and, in some cases, there is even an affection for a tyrannical parent figure.
There are plenty of visitors to Cuba from rich countries (including a disproportionate number from Britain) who believe they have encountered a true alternative to capitalist democracy. Why? Perhaps it is a way of keeping alive the idea of some ideal society, without having to experience the disadvantages oneself. It may also be a facet of a general dislike of the US, or a way of expressing unease with capitalist excesses. But it is also, in all probability, related to a nostalgia for the political certainties and the handsome design of the 1950s and before: the cars, the bars and the glamour. It is not for nothing that Cuba sells itself with the music of the pre-revolutionary period. If North Korea had charm and salsa and innuendo and beaches, perhaps a lot of politically naive people would be advocating its merits too.
Like the Barrister in his fine piece on the subject of poverty, I am interested in understanding who the poor are in the US, and why. What lies behind the census data and stats? In medicine, we of course deal with many people who are poor due to various physical and mental dysfunctions and disabilities, and our charities and government programs offer them a great deal of help and support. In fact, the poor in general are beneficiaries of a huge safety net in the USA thanks to the generosity of our citizens. But what I found most interesting in The Barrister's piece was this notion of the "voluntarily poor." In America, we are too quick to assume that everybody wants to be rich. Indeed, I think no sane person would refuse a $160,000,000 check from Powerball, but the word "voluntary" refers to behavior, not to idle thoughts and dreams. If you aren't willing to move from Podunk, Maine to Charlotte, NC to get a good job, you are indeed voluntarily poor. And if you would rather drop out of high school and have four kids as a single Mom in St. Johnsbury, VT, you are also voluntarily poor. If you are an uneducated, illiterate immigrant, you are voluntarily poor - but presumably better-off than at home. I would like to be able to look behind the poverty stats to try to understand what choices in life the poor have made, with the understanding that these choices probably reflect a part of what they want in life. Not everyone is materially-driven, and most people are only partially materially-driven. Some people are driven to nothing at all, including basic self-respect. Some are, in fact, motivated by dependency. There are only two facts that I know for certain: Single moms are often poor, and people who do not work full-time are often poor. Gals who get knocked up without "a ring and a date" are deeply foolish. Government support (if it were included as income) would bring them out of the poverty stats, however - but that support from their neighbors rewards bad decisions made by folks who have not been taught better, or who simply haven't made any life plan. Life lived recklessly sometimes - but very rarely - works out. I'd like every kid to be taught, by example and by words, that they have something of value to add to their families, their country, and to other people, but that none of that will be be realized without making smart choices and without making a plan. Freedom demands a lot of maturity from people because it offers so many choices. LaShawn has a piece on the subject: Why Mothers Need to be Married. The recent, widely-quoted piece in The Economist makes it clear that getting and staying married correlates highly with good kids and correlates highly with a secure life. Apparently, if you graduate from high school, get married before having kids, and if at least one of the couple has a job, and if you have no more kids than you can afford, things tend to work out fairly peachy in the USA. However, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy implied is not addressed. In the end, do the data say anything more circular than "People who run their lives well do well in life"?
CBO says immigration bill will not accomplish its stated purposes. Captain Ed. But when has that kind of conclusion ever deterred politicians?
Monday, June 4. 2007
Re forceful intervention in the world. Barone, as quoted in a piece at Betsy: Democrats like Biden and Feingold seem to want the United States to abide by children’s playground rules. It’s selfish when you intervene to help yourself, but it’s acceptable when you intervene to help others. It’s egotistical when you do things alone, but it’s commendable when you play well with others. But those rules aren’t much help when a child molester stalks the playground. Sometimes you have to act alone and act out of self-interest to prevent evil people from doing evil things.
It is so basic that one would not think that this needed to be said - but it does.
|
