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.
" The generation now coming of age has been taught three Great Untruths: their feelings are always right; they should avoid pain and discomfort; and they should look for faults in others and not themselves. These three Great Untruths are part of a larger philosophy that sees young people as fragile creatures who must be protected and supervised by adults. But despite the good intentions of the adults who impart them, the Great Untruths are harming kids by teaching them the opposite of ancient wisdom and the opposite of modern psychological findings on grit, growth, and antifragility. The result is rising rates of depression and anxiety, along with endless stories of college campuses torn apart by moralistic divisions and mutual recriminations."
One of the problems we have with Progressives is that they never seem to specify any end point at which government intrusion into our lives, or the desire to "care for our problems," will be sufficient. If they would tell me that, I'd be more comfortable. Their ideological trajectory is Mussolini's "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
"Isn't food important? Why not 'universal food coverage'? If politicians had given us 'universal food access' 20 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the 'food crisis' in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food-care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries is covered under your plan."
Because of his seminal recognition that rights do not originate from government, George Mason deserves more attention. In Robert Rutland’s words, he wrote “on behalf of… the birthrights of every free American… man’s native freedom from restraint unless he threatened or did harm to others.” As a consequence, “His ideas became permeating facts” at America’s founding. They need to again permeate Americans’ thoughts if we are to revive the liberty he helped create.
The vision of liberty the founders envisioned will never be seen again, anywhere. Sad. They gave it their best shot, for sure. Freedom and self-reliance go against man's slavish and dependent nature. Being heroic men in a heroic time and place, they overestimated the strengths and virtues in human nature.
Zoning is often a complex political issue. When overly-rigid, it makes for sterile environments. My instinct is for minimal zoning, but if somebody wanted to put a WalMart next door to our little exurban farm, I'd go ballistic.
As we'd suspect, the shootings in Texas are being politicized by the anti-gun groups. It seems I can't turn around without some anti-gun nut calling for more laws, if not outright elimination of guns. As if that would actually stop these events. Of course, none of these people have called for elimination of autos or trucks, particularly after last week's events in NYC.
What we hear is 'but that was only 8 people killed by a truck while there were 58 in Vegas and 26 in Texas' as if scale is somehow meaningful. Frankly, I'm less concerned about numbers, and more concerned about means, motive and outcome. The assumption is that the means is a desire to use a weapon, so being concerned with autos is silly since few people use them as weapons. There is a massive flaw in this concept. Two flaws, really. First, they are used as weapons (Nice and London are just 2 recent examples, and ISIS has called for them to be used more...but I should add Charlottesville to the list) often enough to be of concern. Second, whether they are used as weapons or not, autos kill far more people every year than guns, and people aren't even trying. Imagine how the numbers would rise if they were. By any comparative measure, it's not even close. WE MUST BAN AUTOS AND TRUCKS!!
The latest Solzhenitsyn book to appear in English, March 1917, focuses on the great turning point of Russian, indeed world, history: the Russian Revolution. Just a century ago, that upheaval and the Bolshevik coup eight months later ushered in something entirely new and uniquely horrible. Totalitarianism, as invented by Lenin and developed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others, aspired to control every aspect of life, to redesign the earth and to remake the human soul. As a result, the environment suffered unequaled devastation and tens of millions of lives were lost in the Soviet Union alone. Solzhenitsyn, who spent the years 1945 to 1953 as a prisoner in the labor camp system known as the Gulag archipelago, devoted his life to showing just what happened so it could not be forgotten. One death is a tragedy but a million is a statistic, Stalin supposedly remarked, but Solzhenitsyn makes us envision life after ruined life. He aimed to shake the conscience of the world, and he succeeded, at least for a time.
In taking literature so seriously, Solzhenitsyn claimed the mantle of a “Russian writer,” which, as all Russians understand, means much more than a writer who happens to be Russian. It is a status less comparable to “American writer” than to “Hebrew prophet.”
Crystal clear as only VDH can be. People are learning that, with Trump, you have to take the good with the occasional atrociousness. Best to ignore what he says, and just see what his admin. does.
What is the source of Bastiat’s genius? Arguably it is that he analyzes all things economic through the eyes of the individual. Economies aren’t living, breathing blobs; they’re just collections of individuals. And for an individual, “It is only too obvious that abundance would be advantageous to him.” As individuals, we’re all too aware of how few of life’s necessities or luxuries we could produce on our own. And if imports are wondrous for the individual (whether from across the street, or the other side of the world), which they are, they’re wondrous for an economy that is merely a collection of individuals.
I didn't have to get too far into this to begin to see where it was going. Claims the Constitution is outdated, not suited for this era, etc.
The premise is that being shouted down or using troll-bots to humiliate or drown out 'undesirable' voices - using free speech to stop free speech - is, itself, based on an additional premise that is unstated. That premise is people are incapable of thinking for themselves and that it is impossible to discern the truth in the midst of mis- and dis-information.
It also presumes these things didn't exist prior to the internet era.
These tactics are not new. They are old. Kennedy put them to great use against Nixon, although his methods were not high-tech. These methods were used against van Buren, and even Grover Cleveland.
People tend to think technology changes the reasons for certain laws. In rare cases, it may. In the case of the Constitution, I have yet to see a decent example of a need for changes based on changing technology...but the Left will keep trying to make that case.
"Symbolic representation" sounds like a dull topic. Prof Peterson here is stunning as he takes on the organizing myths of human existence. Maps of meaning orient us to the world, and without them we encounter the dragons of chaos, confusion, and existential horror.
He connects psychology, myth, art, philosophy, politics, religion, good and evil, heroism, parenthood, and almost everything except the kitchen sink. The man is a Canadian national treasure.
"Any coherent organizing principle is better than none." Interpretive structures. I gave it a few listenings to fully appreciate this 2-hour talk.
In a time when many people genuinely believe that government policy has the power to create nice weather, one considers whether god-like power and god-like benevolence is still ascribed to governments in a post-Enlightenment world.
The same fallacy is applied to health - and to economics. Why can't governments keep the economy nice?
The prospect that any feasible political corrective for market failure might also fail when compared against the ideal standard of efficiency was not examined.
It seems to be that political correctives are often critiqued by conservative economists, but the "something must be done or you don't care about ____" often wins the day in politics. This is part of why the only politicians I even half trust are those who did not seek a lifelong political career. I respect most those who do some service and then go back to the farm.
It's human nature, I suppose, to enjoy imagining that somebody or some thing can fix reality to make earthly life more like the paradise of our dreams. Worldwide, the powerful have sought to affiliate with gods, or to become gods in name, to exploit that human yearning.
And if only government had more money and power, it might work. Or not. At the least, it would help fulfill the dreams of those who seek power. Unlike wealth, power is a zero-sum game.
To say our constitutional system is undergoing a crisis is an understatement. The states have been crushed by the federal government, and the national legislature — the predominant branch of the federal government — has allowed itself to be neutered by the executive and judicial branches, abdicating its responsibility to protect the people and the states from such usurpations.
As Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins wrote in what may be the finest piece of writing to emerge from Hurricane Harvey, (re the Cajun Navy) “They’re used to maneuvering through the cypress of Caddo Lake or the hydrilla and coontail of the Atchafalaya, where the water might be four feet or it might rise to eighteen, and the stinking bog is called ‘coffee grinds’ because of the way boots sink in it. Spending hours in monsoon rains doesn’t bother them, because they know ducks don’t just show up on a plate, and they’ve learned what most of us haven’t, that dry comfort is not the only thing worth seeking.”'
So rather than malign these men, or tut-tut that they are too libertarian, why not thank them for risking their lives to help others (a service for which none of them were paid). I doubt the judgmental journalists scolding the Cajun Navy would have been willing to do the same.
Somebody ought to explain to David that, for many of us, the issue is not an obsession with politics or the need to "get a life," but offense taken with the obnoxious intrusion of government into our personal pursuit of happiness. David is fully-insulated from that in his Manhattan bubble. When was the last time he tried to start a business?
I find his comments condescending, preachy, and self-congratulatory. One year in a real job in a real place might teach him something.
I don't want to write a commentary on the violence in Charlottesville. What happened is terrible, wrong, and any discussion of violence begins and ends with the violent acts themselves, not the activity commentators choose to associate it with. I rarely take part in group protests or political gatherings because the likelihood of one outlier who wants to impart damage is very high and I neither want to be associated with, nor a victim of, poor individual choices.
I do want to write a commentary on the removal of icons and monuments. In Tuesday's morning news, Bird Dog posted an article about Confederate statues in the Capitol building.
Before I dig in, I want to point out that if a statue triggers your emotions, I suggest you think long and hard about why you're having an emotional response to an inanimate object. I'd further point out that if these emotions regarding the statue are related to taking offense, or increasing your anger or hatred, you may want to see a therapist. I'm not a psychologist or psychotherapist, and maybe one of our other writers who are in that field can elaborate (or even tell me I'm wrong) about this point.
Consider one fact. Since Monday, monuments around the US have been removed, sometimes forcibly, in an angry response to Charlottesville. Taking this further, New York's governor, and NYC's mayor, have decided to review and remove 'symbols of hate'. One NYC councilman said "if not hate, at least symbols of hurt." I'll have to send him my list of statues that 'hurt' me.
I think politicians, and people, get bent out of shape over strange things. When I see virtually any protest forming, I begin to think "Don't those people have better things to do?" It's been a long time since I marched or protested or did anything political in a group setting. I generally don't like aligning with large groups that claim to speak for me. But a bigger personal issue is the current mindset is the assumption that if you don't agree with removal, you must somehow be sympathetic to the white supremacists. Thought Police abound in today's society, driven by emotions of hurt and hate. Moral equivalency is employed with alarming regularity, often unnecessarily and ignorantly.
I'll relate one experience I had in which I'd have to admit I was emotionally 'triggered'. It was a great learning lesson. I was in college. I was working on a TV show about hunger for the college station. A speaker arrived and handed out leaflets. One person pasted several of them on the set. It was an elephant with "GOP" written across his chest, preparing to drop a nuclear bomb. This was 1984, I was 22 years old and Reagan was being protested regularly on campus. I stood up, stated my opposition to the leaflet on the set, saying it neither had anything to do with hunger, and had everything to do with politics which we weren't discussing. I was told to be quiet and do my job. I protested again, saying it "offended my sensibilities" and that I couldn't work on a project like this. The professor who managed the station walked over, put his arm around me and said "you will be asked to do difficult and uncomfortable things throughout your life, and on your job. If you allow your emotions to get the better of you, it will cost you your job. Today, if you walk off the set, you will fail the day's project." I walked off the set, took my "F" for the day and still got an "A" for the class. But I learned a lesson. Don't let your emotions overwhelm you. I could have done the work and still been effective at my job. Today, I guess I could've sued for a "hostile workplace."
Consider the different careers of the terms “democracy” and “populism.”
Do you know any responsible person who would admit to being opposed to democracy? No one who does not enjoy a large private income would risk it. But lots of people are willing to declare themselves anti-populist. The discrepancy is curious for several reasons...
In my mind, there are at least three founding principles of the United States that are far more important than the right to vote.
...
Government is our servant. The central, really very new concept on which this country was founded is that an individual's rights do not flow from government, but are inherent to man. That government in fact only makes sense to the extent that it is our servant in the defense of our rights, rather than as the vessel from which these rights grudgingly flow.
This is the only political piece I put on my site during the election. The reason I'm porting it over here is twofold:
- While pretty much every pundit in the Central Galaxy figured Trump didn't have a snowball's chance in hell, there actually was one small group who thought otherwise. I was lucky enough to be a part of it.
- For Trump supporters, the first video below is outstanding. It's masterfully done and deserves to be shared.
The reason I'm putting this in the Political Humor section is because, quite simply, Trump made a joke out of every talking head on the planet. Every pundit, every pollster, every 'expert', every left-wing writer, almost every right-wing writer, every commenter on every left-wing site, every newscaster, every op-ed writer, every opinion-maker, every every.
Well, almost every every.
There actually was one small, hard-core group who had a pretty good idea of what was going down:
Fans of Ann Coulter.
Myself, I blushingly admit I've followed her every word for over a decade. I even have a few articles on this site where she's highlighted. That's her in the preview pic below, over on the right. Watch her expression when she makes her prediction and the liberal audience breaks out in amused and derisive laughter.
She just smiles knowingly.
She maintained for a year that as long as Trump stayed true to himself and stayed on message, he could very well pull it off. Like Ann, I never bought that the average American would turn from Trump to Clinton over some ancient misdeed on Trump's part that the media blew all out of proportion. Like Ann, I figured Americans had become a lot more politically savvy in the past decade and saw through the spin the liberal media was producing. Or, perhaps more to the point, they simply ignored it.
So, without further ado, allow me to present what I'm casually labeling The Video Of The Year.
As for the many, many (many) reasons Mrs. Clinton lost, well, the list is almost endless. First, it was racism, because all white Americans are secretly white supremacists and were just getting back at Obama by way of Trump. Then it turned out all American males are secretly devout misogynists and just couldn't stand the thought of a female president.
Then it was Clinton aide Huma Abedin's fault. Then it was FBI director James Comey's fault. Then Russian President Vladimir Putin's fault. Then-
Did I mention the list is almost endless?
But now everyone agrees that it was 'fake news' that did her in. One or two "Hillary Clinton Found Running Secret Child Pornography Ring In Basement" story and that was enough to sway America.
We took a surprise trip to the NJ/PA border to look at some apartments for a friend. She lives in Georgia and is thinking of relocating. We decided to use this as an opportunity to go bike riding along the Delaware Canal, and make a day of it.
Bike rides aren't all that interesting but are great exercise both physically and mentally (riding gives you tons of time to concentrate). I spent a great deal of the ride thinking about a person we'd met at one apartment. She said was a writer and a professor. A writer of anything I might attempt to read? Why yes, it turns out. She is a 'futurist' and writes about Artificial Intelligence. A topic which is changing my job on a daily basis. I told her I knew quite about AI, and look forward to the day it replaces me. She looked at me quizzically and said "Really? That's strange, most people would fear it. Besides, we have to hope it comes with a Universal Basic Income."
I simply looked at her and said "No, I don't fear it. I've studied history enough to realize change is good. The Industrial Revolution destroyed some jobs, it's true. But it created many more, and those jobs paid better. It also created new industries altogether. I see the same thing with AI. After all, AI is great, but it will probably always be better with humans working in tandem, rather than as a standalone, though some standalone items may exist. Overall I see more jobs coming from it, not fewer. Training is what needs to improve, not payoffs to those who don't want to learn."
I didn't get into a deeper discussion, since I wanted to ride my bike. She seemed amazed I was so nonplussed. Actually, I think she was surprised to meet anyone willing to discuss the topic but shocked at my indifference to her perceived negative consequences. My reasons are based on economics, but also her personal story, which made my ride a mental exercise.. She espoused a point of view which may seem to make sense, but her behaviors told a very different story.
"Free market capitalism" is just what trustworthy people naturally do to make stuff, get stuff, and do things without violence or threat of violence: "I'll give you two arrowheads for that nice spearhead." The only "system" in free markets are government constraints to preserve orderly markets, to protect people from fraud, and to reward government friends. Those constraints are sometimes helpful, often destructive.
Other things - not "systems" but really just conditions - which make non-violent interactions possible are free speech, voting, a legal structure, honest people, and property ownership.
Lefties have a knee-jerk suspicion of those fine foundations for civil society.
Indeed, Frederic Bastiat was
I don't want to write a commentary on the violence in Charlottesville. What happened is terrible, wrong, and any discussion of violence begins and ends with the violent acts themselves, not the activity commentators choose to associate it with. I rarely take part in group protests or political gatherings because the likelihood of one outlier who wants to impart damage is very high and I neither want to be associated with, nor a victim of, poor individual choices.