Monday, June 4. 2007
A quote from a good rant from the New Media Journal, posted at Synthstuff: Why do Democrats keep claiming that they represent the middle class, when everything they campaign on is aimed at minorities, illegal aliens, the ignorant, and the poor? What have they done for middle class Americans other than to raise their taxes, lower their self-esteem, and attempt to destroy their national pride? What have they done for the country other than to divide it, criticize it, regulate it and tax it?
Definition via Samizdata. This is why we are suspicous of all government "benevolent" action.
Amusingly accurate, at Daily Dollop (h/t, Driscoll). Meanwhile, the eminently practical Chinese do not give a flying flip about it.
Friday, June 1. 2007
Chavez may have run into the internet. The youth want free speech. Socialists never want free speech - or free thought. We love those things at Maggie's Farm. Whether we are right or wrong, we require the freedom to say whatever we think - and we ain't stoopid: we is all highly and expensively eddicated.
The TB Man is a personal injury lawyer. If he was short on cases, he may have a few now.
 Long-time readers know that, while we feel FDR was a fine wartime leader, his domestic and economic policies made him the most destructive president in American history, whose errors continue to plague us.
He and his advisors and allies exploited the Depression to try to create their 1930s-era statist-style, Soviet-inspired big government, and partially succeeded. Alas for America, many of our post-JFK Dems have clung to this antique idea for dear life. They haven't found a new, positive idea yet. When we look back at the Depression, we can see that Andrew Mellon was right, and that FDR's professors and socialist intelligentsia advisors like Ickes - all of whom played on FDR's well-intentioned but naive sense of "noblesse oblige" - were fundamentally wrong about the resilience of American enterprise and vigor - wrong because their anti-capitalist ideology required them to be wrong about their basic understanding of economics. About economics, and human nature - of which economics is just a reflection. Kling takes a gander at Amity Schlaes' new study of the Depression - The Forgotten Man (h/t, Buddy via Insty). The "forgotten man" is the guy who paid the bills for all of FDR's ultimately useless programs (guys which includes both of my grandpas who were dutiful but deeply unappreciative, and one of whose boats went to Dunkirk - never to be returned by the Brits). One quote: The struggle over economic policy in the 1930's was really an episode in the long, historical conflict between business participants in the market and anti-business academics. Roosevelt gave free rein to the professors, until the start of the Second World War led him to realize that he would need the tycoons to help mobilize to defeat Hitler. I suspect that one reason that Roosevelt and the New Deal come off so well in the conventional wisdom is that history books are written by professors, not by entrepreneurs.
Read Kling's whole piece. Despite the astonishing American post-war economy, we still see politicians trying to make hay with the Rooseveltian perennially-pessimistic, anti-commerce, statist view of the economy. (I recently read the interesting factoid that he drank exactly 12 gin martinis daily, beginning at noon, prepared to his specifications by his butler, until the day he died - but never appeared intoxicated. FDR, that is - not Arnold Kling.)
Thursday, May 31. 2007
 Al Gore flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School, then dropped out of Vanderbilt Law School.
I didn't know those facts. He ain't qualified to either preach to, or lecture at me. By the way, how did he do in Physics 101?
Fascinating video via Ace. One guy says that the impetus for the anti-amnesty storm, from all sides of the political spectrum, is the unspoken motive of "it's cultural". It is partly cultural, for sure, which is why we often term it an "invasion." On the other hand, the amnesty bill is purely politically-driven. With black votes securely on the Dem plantation, everybody wants to pander to the (present and future) Mexican vote, which is now of sufficient size to determine elections.
Wednesday, May 30. 2007
Ardent Greenies find fault with every power source except solar panels, which are trivial. In the end, I think they want us to live in the stone age. On Maggie's Farm, of course, we have our own mini-fusion reactor in the basement which provides all of our power needs along with an endless source of truly hot water. It is entirely safe, designed by Arnie, our brilliant tractor-repair guy, constructed from old cast-iron tractor parts, and any dangerous radiation is fully contained by solid hardwood planks. The cracks are secured with duct tape, and all is painted with a coat of lead paint, just to be extra-safe. But Greenies hate nuclear, and I don't know why - France gets 70% of their power from nuke plants. Greenies don't like windmills. They hate oil, gas, and coal - and wood. They make laws (Belgium) that you cannot cook on a grill. In today's article in the WSJ, they want to tear down the Klamath River hydroelectric dams. Fine - but propose a non-frivolous alternative and don't play childish fantasy games like telling me to change my lightbulbs or to plant a tree. A quote from the article: Al Gore has been hectoring Americans to pare back their lifestyles to fight global warming. But if Mr. Gore wants us to rethink our priorities in the face of this mother of all environmental threats, surely he has convinced his fellow greens to rethink theirs, right? Wrong. If their opposition to the Klamath hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest is any indication, the greens, it appears, are just as unwilling to sacrifice their pet causes as a Texas rancher is to sacrifice his pickup truck. If anything, the radicalization of the environmental movement is the bigger obstacle to addressing global warming than the allegedly gluttonous American way of life. Once regarded as the symbol of national greatness, hydroelectric dams have now fallen into disrepute for many legitimate reasons. They are enormously expensive undertakings that would never have taken off but for hefty government subsidies. Worse, they typically involve changing the natural course of rivers, causing painful disruptions for towns and tribes. But tearing down the Klamath dams, the last of which was completed in 1962, will do more harm than good at this stage. These dams provide cheap, renewable energy to 70,000 homes in Oregon and California. Replacing this energy with natural gas -- the cleanest fossil-fuel source -- would still pump 473,000 tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. This is roughly equal to the annual emissions of 102,000 cars. Given this alternative, one would think that environmentalists would form a human shield around the dams to protect them. Instead, they have been fighting tooth-and-nail to tear them down because the dams stand in the way of migrating salmon. Environmentalists don't even let many states, including California, count hydro as renewable. They have rejected all attempts by PacifiCorp, the company that owns the dams, to take mitigation steps such as installing $350 million fish ladders to create a salmon pathway. Klamath Riverkeeper, a group that is part of an environmental alliance headed by Robert Kennedy Jr., has sued a fish hatchery that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife runs -- and PacifiCorp is required to fund -- on grounds that it releases too many algae and toxic discharges. The hatchery produces at least 25% of the chinook salmon catch every year. Closing it will cause fish populations to drop further, making the demolition of the dams even more likely. But the end of the Klamath won't mean the end of the dam saga -- it is the big prize that environmentalists are coveting to take their antidam crusade to the next level. "This would represent the largest and most ambitious dam removal project in the country, if not the world," exults Steve Rothert of American Rivers. The other dams on the hit list include the O'Shaughnessy Dam in Yosemite's Hetch Hetchy Valley that services San Francisco, Elwha River dam in Washington and the Matilija Dam in Southern California. Large hydro dams supply about 20% of California's power (and 10% of America's). If they are destroyed, California won't just have to find some other way to fulfill its energy needs. It will have to do so while reducing its carbon footprint to meet the ambitious CO2 emission-reduction targets that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has set. Mr. Schwarzenegger has committed the Golden State to cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 -- a more stringent requirement than even in the Kyoto Protocol.
Hey, Arnold - 80%? Pretty to think so, but it will never happen. The whole piece is subscription-only in the WSJ.
 The same old tired politics of greed, envy, resentment, and whining emerge once again from multi-millionaire, private-jet-addicted Mrs. Clinton. Does she have a single middle-class friend? Or a single real friend? I doubt it.
Well, she knows first-hand that the distribution of riches and power aren't "fair." She got them purely by exploiting - and putting up with - a hideous marriage. However, she does not realize that most people seek neither riches nor power, but seek just freedom from government burden and government interference to build their own lives according to their own lights. She must imagine that everybody is like her: hungry, greedy, angry, empty, and unfulfilled. It's a psychodrama. It has always been darkly amusing to me that the most redistributionist of our politicians are always the greediest and the most worshipping of personal wealth: see Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy, Soros, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, etc etc. There is a level at which taxes no longer effect your daily life, and are just another minor expense. No doubt her advisors told her that this could be a winning theme, plus a distraction from her Iraq vote. Although this theme stands in opposition to the hearty and healthy red-blooded American themes of opportunity, risk, adventure, and the freedom to chose your own path through life, pursuing whatever heart and conscience decide - and living with the consequences - I guess her pollsters have concluded that there are voters out there who are mad that somebody else has more toys than they do. This is a truly infantile, negative, and mean-spirited appeal to the lowest and least admirable aspects of human nature. Editor's note: Blue Crab calls it a fresh new exciting idea for America - socialism.
Tuesday, May 29. 2007
If you are white, you have one on your back, filled with goodies. David Thompson. There is a germ of truth in this racist nonsense, though: people from the same subcultures have more in common, which makes trust - or detecting reason for distrust - easier. Nothing to do with race, though. There is no "black culture" and no "white culture."
If Bush is a liberal (which I believe he is), what is Hillary Clinton? She seems to want the USA to be one big happy kibbutz, or collective, or whatever, and is quite clear that she does not approve of the "on your own" society. I don't know about her ancestors, but mine came here precisely to live in the fresh air of an "on your own" place.
Not from us, but from Daily Kos. (h/t, LGF). I guess there are people - even in America - who value some things more highly than the freedom of the individual mind, soul and spirit. It's a shame.
 Czech President and tennis fanatic Klaus is the only world leader who has been bestowed the honor of being named an Honorary Member of Maggie's Farm.
Our wisdom in that selection is further reinforced by his May 18th speech discussing his reservations about the EU. One quote: I am... in favour of redefining the whole concept of the European Union.
I suggest going back to the intergovernmental model of European integration. I suggest going back to the original concept of attempting to remove existing barriers among countries. I suggest going back to the consistent liberalisation and opening-up of markets (not only economic ones). I suggest minimising political intervention in human activities. Where this intervention is inevitable, it should be done close to the citizens (which means at the level of municipalities, regions and states), not in Brussels.
To summarize, I want freedom in Europe, not democratic deficit, I want democracy in Europe, not postdemocracy.
More of his speech at EU Referendum/
Ilya Somin at Volokh takes on the paternalistic/fascist notion that our lives should be designed and regulated by experts. I wish I had written it, because Ilya does a great job of ripping the notion to shreds. ...some advocates of libertarian paternalism try to get around the problem of political ignorance by suggesting that their policies be implemented by government-appointed experts rather than by elected officials. This is not a new argument. Totalitarians from Plato to Lenin have argued that the ignorance of the masses can be offset by concentrating power in the hands of an expert elite. So too have some moderate liberal scholars such as Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and even libertarian Bryan Caplan. Breyer, the libertarian paternalists, and Caplan would never think of taking the argument as far as Plato or Lenin. But the core logic is similar: the experts know better than the average person - and therefore they should make the decisions. For advocates of limited government, the rule of experts is like the vampire that refuses to die no matter how often we drive a stake through its heart. We've been fighting it for 2500 years, but have never quite managed to finish it off. Nevertheless, I'm going to put on my vampire slayer hat, and take a wee little stab at it.
Read the whole thing. My opinion, as you might imagine as a Maggie's Farm contributor, is that common sense beats expertise nine out of ten times; that character beats intelligence nine out of ten times, that too many people have the mental disease of wanting to control people they don't even know, and that regular folks like me - "the masses" - are much smarter than the experts think, and quite capable of making our own choices.
Sunday, May 27. 2007
 James Edwards at NRO demonstrates the emptiness of the Jesus-exploitation of the illegal immigration fans. One quote:
Amnesty, moreover, risks abrogating the “love your neighbor” commandment and biblical standards of justice. It privileges the foreigners who broke our laws to get and stay here, and puts at a disadvantage the poorest citizens, law-abiding employers, and legal immigrants. This doesn’t sound at all like what Romans 13 describes, where the civil government wields the sword of justice to punish the wrongdoer and protect the innocent.
We all can empathize with someone who aspires to a better life. We wish the same for ourselves and our children. But there are lawful ways to achieve it.
Particularly in light of the utter failure of previous amnesties, the legalization route would constitute the government’s failure to mete out justice. It certainly wouldn’t be merciful, on balance.
When government tries to show mercy, it often results in injustice toward someone else. In this case, it’s native-born Americans who’ll suffer government-inflicted injustice.
Some 12 to 20 million illegal aliens have broken just, duly enacted laws that deserve to be enforced. Mass amnesty and a failure to enforce immigration laws subject all our laws, to contempt. That is a very high price to pay, because the rule of law protects us all against tyranny.
Whenever politicians invoke Christ's name, watch out. They are desperate. There is a little thing called the Third Commandment -Catholics call it the Second - it's about using the name of the Lord in vain, eg for your own purposes.
Saturday, May 26. 2007
And who the heck cares? Well, apparently some people do. (h/t, Jules). Some people need to get a life. What did Tut do anyway, other than get born into the right family, die young, and have the luck not to have his tomb ransacked before the Brit archeologists arrived.
Friday, May 25. 2007
Whatever your view of illegal immigration, let the bozos in DC know what you think - today. For phone, Michelle has the numbers. To sign a petition, here's one at And Rightly So. It's the American thing to do.
 I heard Thomas Sowell quoted on the radio last night. I don't have the link, but he was asking something like "What problem does this immigration "reform" act solve?" His answer: just one problem - the politicians' problem, which is to look like they are doing something and to get the immigration theme off the table.
Too bad for the politicians: the voters aren't stupid. Too bad for the voters: the pols don't give a damn in this unholy alliance they have made. Primum non nocere is my advice. Second, a quote from me, yesterday (Buddy thought it was good): People are not annoyed because they are racist. They are annoyed because they are being invaded. The fact that this particular invasion is not lead by an army is irrelevant: nowadays, leaving your gun behind is more effective.
People tend to hate to be invaded. It's sorta human not to put up with it, unless you are French.
Thursday, May 24. 2007
There is one which specializes in the subject: The Center for Immigration Studies. Lots of info.
A quote: In 1986, when there probably were 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, Americans accepted an amnesty because they were promised that border control would promptly follow. Today the 12 million illegal immigrants, 60 percent of whom have been here five or more years, are as numerous as Pennsylvanians; 44 states have populations smaller than 12 million. Deporting the 12 million would require police resources and methods from which the nation would rightly flinch. So, why not leave bad enough alone?
People are not annoyed because they are racist. They are annoyed because they are being invaded. The fact that this particular invasion is not lead by an army is irrelevant. Whole piece at WaPo here.
 SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES. May 24, New York. New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a series of bold new initiatives to protect the health of New Yorkers today.
The Mayor's approval rating of 76% has been largely due to his efforts to safeguard city residents from tobacco smoke, trans fats, cars, guns, and other ills with which the ignorant masses are too stupid to deal with on their own. He seeks to build on this foundation with his ambitious new program, entitled "A City That Really Cares." Highlights of his proposals, which the City Council is expected to accept with little debate, include the following: 1. Banning the sale or wearing of heels on women's shoes over 2" high.
2. Requiring the wearing of warm scarves when the temperature drops below 40 degrees F.
3. Banning sunbathing in all New York City parks and beaches.
4. Requiring a serving of broccoli and carrots with every restaurant meal served within the five boroughs.
5. Banning the dangerous habit of swimming at ocean beaches.
6. Requiring the unplugging of all TVs and toaster ovens when not in use, due to fire hazard.
7. Banning any employer from demanding more than three hours per day of computer work, due to risk of carpal tunnel syndrome and eye strain. (Any work on Bloomberg machines will be exempted due to the important role of financial services in the city.)
8. Requiring the wearing of sturdy rubbers during rain, and lined boots during snow.
9. Requiring the wearing of hats during sunny days, and wool hats when the temperature drops below 40 degrees F.
10. Banning the use of iPods on city sidewalks due to the street-crossing risks iPods cause.
11. Banning all dangerous sports in schools or on city property. While the list is not complete, this will certainly include football, soccer, dodgeball, and handball. Running and jogging may also be banned, as they contribute to joint diseases and anorexia nervosa.
12. Banning the sale or use of any tobacco products indoors, outdoors, or in any vehicles other than golf carts, limousines, or private jets and helicopters. Violators will meet a stiff fine of $250 per incident. One thousand police officers will be transferred to a new Public Health Unit of the NYPD to monitor compliance, with many more expected. This unit will have extensive rights to enter your home to check for tobacco smoke, trans fats, and safe TV use. During his presentation, the Mayor emphasized his committment to health. In response to a question asking why he had not included a ban on sale of alcohol products, meat, candy, soda, junk food and and fried food, the Mayor replied "Now just hang on. This is only Phase One. As people get used to following good habits, we will introduce further steps in our "The City that Really Cares" program. So let's be constructive and positive, and work together in a stepwise fashion to guarantee good health for all New Yorkers." Public health experts praised the Mayor's presentation. Dr. Harvey Weiss, Professor of Public Health at Columbia University and an advisor to Mayor Bloomberg, attended the press conference and stated "This is a wonderful beginning, but there is so much more we can do to help people." "The people of New York need to understand that we really care, and we care enough to include significant enforcement in this program. We will get to butter, chicken fat, lard, eggs, meat, cheese, creme brule and ice cream as time goes on. Plus we are deeply concerned about cell phone usage, overly-tight lingerie, poorly-fitting shoes, and of course the crisis of noise pollution. We hope to submit requirements for noise-free jackhammers and garbage trucks in the near future." "Health is too important to be left up to people."
Wednesday, May 23. 2007
 Midwest Lutherans largely reject violence, says a new Pew Research Poll reported by Iowahawk News Service (h/t, Driscoll). A quote:
Although a majority 87% of respondents agreed that "The world should be brought to submission under global Lutheran conquest and eternal perfect rule," there was a great deal of disagreement on the means to accomplish it. More than 95% supported "pancake breakfasts" "popcorn fundraisers," but support dropped to less than 80% for "cow tipping" and "T-P'ing infidel houses." Support dropped even more dramatically for more violent means of conquest, such as "suicide bombing" (28%), "decapitation" (24%), and "running over Presbyterians with my Ski-Doo" (23%). "Taken as a whole, the results show that Midwest Lutherans emphatically support a moderate, mainstream path to world domination," said Kohut. "These folks are well-assimilated into the broad fabric of American society, and unless you are Presbyterian, there is probably very little here to cause concern."
Image: Midwestern Lutheran in traditional costume
This video at Jawa is worth it, if only for the superb music. In America, even paranoid psychotics have free speech, but it is important to label it as such - as this video does.
|
