Friday, November 7. 2008
Change? This is loony. When volunteering becomes compulsory, it's not volunteering any more, is it? Same difference between charity and taxes. Same as the draft. Plus, where I live, there are more volunteers than there are things to do. The chance to teach English to Hispanics has a long waiting list, and the Red Cross says "We'll call you if we need you." They have to form committees to try to "identify unmet needs." In other words, well-intentioned housewives and retired guys have to make up things to do because everybody who wants "help" already gets more than they can handle, and most New England folks seem too proud to accept help anyway. The old culture dies hard. Are people really so helpless in America that they need pimply high-schoolers or condescending do-gooder college kids - who know nothing at all about life - to "help" them? I very much doubt it. But I don't know anybody who isn't happy to cash a check or to take a freebie from the gummint to buy a new iPod. People are always happy to accept cash from "the gummint," because it doesn't feel so much like you're ripping off your neighbor. A Comment from our News Junkie: I have soured on do-gooderism. I have been to Katrina, to Appalachia, to NYC (where I now live), to Haiti and to Africa over the years with church groups, and every time I went the locals drank wine or moonshine or some kind of African hootch, and smoked in lawn chairs or lounging in the grass while telling jokes while we "helped." In Africa, the guys took occasional drinking breaks to visit the local whorehouse while we supposedly did stuff "for them." It's humiliating to all concerned, as if people were children; embarassing to the recipients and to the doers. Never saw anybody local ever offer to do so much as to pick up a hammer, a shovel, or a mop. I'm done with that approach to virtuousness. People have to want to help themselves, or there is not a damn thing you can do. "Wanting to help" is pure social imperialism of the most soft-headed sort. I once helped build a church building in Africa, and now feel foolish about it because a church is not a building - it's people. The building was insignificant except when it rained. They could have built a better one, better suited to their area, with poles and thatch (and much more cheaply) in a few days if they felt like it. What we built will no doubt be attacked by termites and fall down. Live and learn. What people want is cash to spend the way they want to.
Liberals want to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" as their plan to put talk radio out of business. How would it do that? Because every subject has 30 different views on it. I doubt that the Dems would wish to extend it to The Daily Kos or to Maggie's, but who knows? It always amuses me how Liberals cannot tolerate dissent. Let's all rely on NPR and become one beautiful, happy family of group-thinking "sensitive, caring" parasites. Anyway, in honor of the Dems' and especially Chuckie Shumer's desire to reinstate the Fairness Doctine, and out of consideration for our lady readers who feel that our Cheesecake/Beefcake ratio is way off target, we offer these: Navy SEAL in training emerges from the ocean: 
In training, but not a Navy SEAL: 
Thursday, November 6. 2008
A quote from Robert Samuelson's The Poor aren't Poor Because Rich are Rich: Judged only by economic inequality, the financial crisis is a godsend. It will probably narrow the gap — though still vast — between the rich and everybody else. But what good will that do? Economic inequality also declined in the Great Depression. The country wasn't better off. By and large, the poor aren't poor because the rich are rich. They're usually poor for their own reasons: family breakdown, low skills, destructive personal habits and plain bad luck. The presumption implicit in the criticism of growing economic inequality is that society's income is a given and, if the rich have less, others will have more. Up to a point, that's true. The government already redistributes much income, often for the good. During the boom years, companies might have been less lavish with top executives and slightly more generous to other workers or shareholders. Some new fortunes stem from self-dealing and financial razzle-dazzle, not the creation of real economic value. It's just desserts that some of this wealth has evaporated. But the redistributionist argument is at best a half-truth. The larger truth is that much of the income of the rich and well-to-do comes from what they do. If they stop doing it, then the income and wealth vanish. No one gets it. It can't be redistributed because it doesn't exist. Everyone's poorer.
Read the whole thing. Of course, the whole Lefty populist mantra about "corporate greed" and "sharing" only appeals to economic illiterates, but America and the world have plenty of those. It's difficult to create wealth if you are economically illiterate, so your own envy or greed will make you want to take it away from somebody else who created it with their creativity, effort, skill and drive. The fallacy is the one we discuss so often: the notion that wealth is a zero-sum game. Wealth, as Americans understand better than most of the world does, is an infinitely-expandable thing. All it takes is peoples' desire and creative spirit. Unlike material things, wealth is created from thin air - and wealth is destroyed leaving no residue. Speaking of which, we were too caught up in the election flurry to post this video of Dem. Rep. Jim Moran discussing his thoughts on wealth redistribution. It's populist, socialistic - and either as ignorant as hell or manipulative as hell. Who does he think "owns" corporations? 2/3 of Americans "own" the corporations via being shareholders and bondholders. I'd like to see it advance to 100%.
Wednesday, November 5. 2008
 Wow. The people spoke. The silver lining I can find in this cloud is that we elected a black guy as President. That is remarkable and quite wonderful. I wish him wisdom. Still, I had hoped that the first black Pres would be from the party of Lincoln.
Another plus is that the Repubs will be forced to renew and refresh themselves, and come up with a farm team of younger, smarter, more exciting and more inspiring candidates, with messages to suit the times. And I do not mean Mitt Romney. I'll admit to feeling bummed, but not at all surprised, by the outcome. I think John McCain did darn well considering everything that was dragging him down: a relentlessly hostile press, a hugely unpopular Bush, union money and a huge campaign $ disparity, economic fears, age, the Obama Cult of Personality - and his awareness throughout that the tides were running against him. Not to mention the perennial problem that Conservatives have in elections: they rightly find it hard to make goody-bag promises because they put their faith in free people rather than in government. I doubt anyone could have done better than McCain did this year, and I doubt he would have done better with Giuliani instead of Palin. The press would have Palinized Rudy too. (Well, on further thought, maybe Rudy could have done a better job than McCain: he's brighter and quicker but, perhaps, less likeable.) I think the Dems face the danger of over-reading this election. It's a common error for both parties. I do not feel that this election was an endorsement of a left-wing agenda but more an expression of general unease, Bush-fatique, and disgruntlement - mixed with a strong dose of celebrity-excitement. It's still the same center-right nation that it was last year, and every move the Dems make now will annoy some group or other. This Congressional leadership is not only loony-left but full of vengeance - and pent-up spending ideas. Hold onto your wallets, because we could quickly become the highest-taxed country in the developed world (we're almost there already). But who is going to benefit immediately from this election? - Gun dealers. If there are a few guns you've always wanted, now's the time.
- Tax accountants, tax lawyers, financial planners and estate planners
- Off-shore bankers
- Off-shore realtors: watch more businesses move divisions to foreign HQs which are more hospitable to enterprise. And, finally, consider this condundrum, especially those readers who are my fellow conservatives: How does one win national elections when you have to concede NY, California, and the rust belt in advance? Not to mention my New England?
Monday, November 3. 2008
Your Editor here at Maggie's will vote tomorrow (even though there is no point in ever voting) out of duty and citizenship. We promise no blame or recriminations towards anybody (except the press) if our preferred candidates lose in these elections which entail much more than just presidential elections, and we promise not to go hysterical, infantile, and paranoid like the Left tends to do if we don't get our way. (Well, but we may all move into Habu's cabin in Montana.)Related to that, our guest poster Bruce Kesler has some thoughts in anticipation of vox populi: What McCain did right and conservatives wrong By Bruce Kesler Over the past four years, conservatives have debated whether the Republican Party is serving them and the country. This discussion was stirred by several proposals by the Bush administration -- particularly not vetoing some budget-busters, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and the immigration reforms that didn’t prioritize border controls – and the failure to fire back at the gross distortions and language by opponents. Bush earned respect for his stalwart stance in Iraq, but even there lost points for his failure to act earlier to change a troubled strategy and command. Seeming backpeddling and soft-shoeing on the threats from Iran and North Korea, though following closer to the liberals’ playbook, didn’t earn him support from liberals or conservatives. The debate among conservatives and libertarians after this election is likely to grow much more heated, whether McCain wins or loses. Although conservatives have stood most strongly behind McCain, conservatives do not expect much thanks or loyalty from McCain if he wins, and do expect McCain to continue his practice of alliance with many liberal proposals, as he has in the past. That alone will add heat the pot. On the other hand, conservatives will welcome his Trumanesque temper and bluntness replying to the likely continuation of intemperate Democrats in the Congress. If McCain loses, conservatives will likely place most of the blame on him and his campaign for failing to take more advantage of Obama’s coterie of radical mentors, to alert more voters of their dangers. At the same time, in defense of McCain’s campaign approach, those most likely to hold these associations as important are aware of them. Meanwhile, in a campaign during which the overwhelming portion of the major media have utterly failed to research or expose Obama’s lack of record and record of shady allies, McCain would likely not have gotten much further in educating the wider public. So, McCain has concentrated on trying to woo marginal voters. Those non-partisans react more to appearances and mood. McCain earned none of the points he should have for trying to tackle the credit-economic meltdown, even by comparison to Obama’s passivity. Neither did McCain draw attention to the Congress’ tainted hands in creating it, but there are many Republican members who sat by and prospered from the false sense of well-being that preceded the deluge. McCain did not throw the Congressional Republicans under the bus, as Obama repeatedly did every time a mentor was exposed. And, McCain did exhibit a bully optimism in reacting to the meltdown and focused on quick actions. It is that indefatigable optimism and sense of fair play that has been highlighted and redounded to his credit. This is in line with his military and political record of bravely meeting challenges. Despite every odd, McCain has fought the election to a near thing. Conservatives must recognize that, for any of McCain or his campaign’s failings, it is among conservatives that reform must come. Much of our NY-DC commentariat are corrupted by overlong proximity to comfortable power and cocktail circuits, exhibiting callowness, lethargy or outright capitulation. Their lack of principle and intestinal fortitude must be replaced. Much of our bloggers have been consumed by editorializing and not organizing. The think-tanks we built and many major donors have been cringing or avoiding confrontation. Rank and file conservatives mostly looked to this inadequate leadership instead of to ourselves to step forward and fight. It will take a major overhaul to revive the conservative movement. As in 1964, it will not come from the establishment, but must depend on openness to new participants and leaders. Of course, that does not mean fringe elements or ideas. The crucial role that National Review played post-1964 in guarding against that will require a new central forum of conservative sanity and principle. No one can predict where they will come from. But they must be encouraged, welcomed and supported when they appear. Indeed, each of us must see in ourselves the willingness and determination to be those participants and leaders.
George Orwell wrote his most famous short essay, Politics and the English Language, in 1946. I would encourage all of our readers to read, or re-read it, when you have a few minutes. One excerpt:  Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find — this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify — that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship. But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought...
Here's the whole thing.
Saturday, November 1. 2008
Our Californian guest poster Bruce Kesler sends us the following, in response to our post on How Redistributionist is America?  Barack Obama’s bluntly answered Joe the Plumber that we should have more redistribution from the well-off to “spread the wealth around.”
Yet, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States has the most progressive income tax and employee Social Security taxes in the developed world. Progressive means that the top 10% give more. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) figures show that the top 10% of adjusted gross income tax filers pay over 70% of income taxes. That’s after allowable deductions, which supposedly favor the better-off. The top 50% pays over 97% of income taxes. Over 30% of tax-filers pay no income tax, a percentage nearing 50% of those potentially subject to income tax if non-filers are included. Top-earners receive less than 2% return, and many a negative return, on their Social Security tax while low earners receive over 8%, and the lowest almost an infinite return for having paid very little or no Social Security tax. Retirees with earnings from savings, or pensions, can be charged double for participation in Medicare hospital and Rx coverage. We’re approaching each Social Security recipient being supported by only 2 or 3 workers, a major wealth transfer from the younger to the older and the well-to-do to the less fortunate or careful in gaining education, working hard or saving. Most current workers eligible for defined benefit pensions, guaranteed payouts, are employed by governments. Regardless of economic conditions, the stock market, or other expenses, these payouts are locked-in. The audited deficit in ability to meet these payouts are several trillion dollars. Essential public services to Americans are being cut by state and local governments, and public colleges are raising tuition, while increasing portions of public budgets are funneled into government-worker pensions. The Bible enjoins us to contribute at least 10% of our earnings to the poor, but scriptural commentary says we should be careful of going past 20% as we must not sacrifice our family’s needs. The best charity is that which provides skills to earn for oneself.
John McCain’s tax returns show him consistently donating over 20% to charity. Barack Obama’s shows him giving about 2%. McCain’s wealthy wife pays for a La Jolla condo for her aunt, contributes heavily to poor children around the world, and they’ve adopted one. Obama’s aunt in Chicago collects welfare and lives in public housing, though here illegally, and his brother in Kenya lives in a tiny shack.
Imagine if all these redistributions, “spreading the wealth around”, didn’t occur. How much more would you have? How much are you and your family now being denied or sacrificing for? How many more jobs would be created if business and entrepreneurs were taxed less? One might raise one’s finger and tell Obama to “Redistribute this!”
Friday, October 31. 2008
 See comparisons with other countries. It's an eye-opener. Americans may talk Capitalism, but our Capitalism serves to stuff the ever-greedy maw of government. There isn't much room to become more redistributionist without truly disincentivizing effort, initiative, creativity, and job creation (see Cory Miller the Well-Driller).
Furthermore: The OECD, the organization of western economies, says the U.S. already has the second most progressive tax system among its members, trailing only Ireland. Maybe there might be other ways to spread the wealth besides the tax system. Or maybe we're already doing that, too. Remember, no matter what we do, half the households in America will be below the median income.
Tigerhawk's anticipated total tax rate of 50% surely does approach the disincentivizing point, except for those who want to get really rich quick. Hence booming lottery sales and hedge funds, because achieving prosperity and security through slow, hard work and savings gets tough against the headwind of taxation. Yes, I know the image is a cheap scare tactic but, honestly, I am a bit scared. A bit Halloween-scared. Not so much about Obama alone, but about the combination of Obama-Reid-Pelosi. Their view of America and Americans is quite different from mine. They have no faith in us, the people.
Thursday, October 30. 2008
Mr. Miller is a "Joe the Plumber," the kind of American the Dems do not understand because Leftist ideology cannot account for such fine folks. His open letter to Obama is below (h/t, Eclectic Will). I know plenty of people who have done the same, and who could have written similar letters. Cindy had an email chat with Cory.  From: Cory Miller
Mr. Obama,
Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me “Cory the well driller”. I am a 54-year-old high school graduate. I didn’t go to college like you, I was too ready to go “conquer the world” when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80’s oil boom. I didn’t get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawnshop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start not a result of privilege. It is the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self-discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn’t afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10-year-old, ½-ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck). A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time… $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.
Continue reading "Cory Miller the Well-Driller's open letter to Obama"
Wednesday, October 29. 2008
 Women are approaching equality with men in the rapidly swelling ranks of the unfaithful.
Indeed, it should not be difficult for women to exceed men in this critical metric of gender equality. All it takes is to give the guy a few beers to dissolve his noble conscience, a well-timed wink and smile, followed up by a gentle touch. Right? Just make him feel "special," and he's yours, ladies, because real, everyday life doesn't tend to make most guys feel very special. Why should it? Life owes us nothing. And you want to feel special too.
Tuesday, October 28. 2008
As BD posted yesterday, it's sort of like feudalism, run by a "caring," "benevolent" political aristocracy on top of the heap. Scott at Powerline. You know, Panem et Circenses for the great mass of ignorant, feckless unwashed. Like me. It's truly heart-warming to know how much they care, and who can resist the loving, altruistic care of politicians? What the Left always forgets, however, is that the State is totally dependent on us for its existence - on our wealth creation and wealth accumultation. The State does no work, produces no value, and pays no taxes: only free people can work that magic. Governments cannot do it, nor do they know how to do it.
 Despite all the other headwinds he is fighting against (recession, the MSM, his age, his skin color), one major problem McCain faces is well-described in the Villainous piece we linked yesterday. McCain is not a visionary type, and he is not an ideologue. He is a solid, practical, trustworthy and remarkably strong fellow. He is running against a youthful (Socialist) visionary who promises to make your life easy and beautiful, but McCain is characterologically unable to present a competing vision. Like Bush 41, he probably thinks "the vision thing" is BS and unmanly, and cannot or will not fake it.
My problem with that is that McCain does have a vision, but he takes his vision of America so much for granted that he doesn't see it. It's the vision of freedom through strength, economic opportunity for all, holding the line with Federal power, and fiscal prudence. It's not Pie in the Sky, but it's an important and fundamentally American vision which deserved better "marketing" in this election, and people would rather vote for somebody than against somebody. My vote will be a bit of both. Selling visions requires sales and marketing skills, just like selling cars: you have to make them feel that the new car will make them happier. Reagan knew how to sell freedom, and he knew what Obama knows: mass market politics is sales and marketing (including packaging). I think that notion is beneath a man like McCain's dignity. To his credit, he is not "a natural politician." (Sarah Palin is, which is why they want to destroy her.) Now to my morning links: Can you imagine if this were an Obama effigy? (I thought the current theory is that nooses were racist.) What the Weather Underground had in mind. Insane sociopaths. Dean Barnett: A real writer whose outlet was blogging. What's wrong with the idea of energy independence? 2008 Economics: The two middle classes Why Obama's health plan would make businesses sick New book by James Kalb: The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command (h/t, Vanderleun) The interbank markets are recovering. That is good news.
Sunday, October 26. 2008
 So there I was, innocently minding my own business, when suddenly I came across a video on some blog site named Maggie's Barn or sumpin' and I wanted to watch it. Little knowing that my fate was already sealed, I clicked on the box.
It started playing, but it seemed a little small so I clicked on the side of the window to go to the YouTube version so I could watch it full-screen. The original was still playing in the background when the YouTube page opened and its video started playing as well.
Blink!
That was the last online video I heard for the rest of the evening. Somehow, two videos playing at once messed up something in the system and that was that. I ran Registry cleaners, Norton WinDoctor, warm-booted, cold-booted, prayed to the various computer gods, promised I'd never look at porno again, but nothin' worked. (I think my computer knows when I'm lying to it, dammit)
The next step would have been to reinstall Flash, but I wouldn't have been hopeful. Program files don't "break", and internal system settings (like what got messed up here) usually aren't touched by program installations. Regardless, in this case I had a much better option.
It's to note that during this entire time, when most people would be pulling their hair out, my blood pressure never rose an iota. After trying the fix-it programs last night and getting nowhere, I watched a movie and hit the hay. This morning while I was eating breakfast I reinstalled the image file I made of the C Drive last Saturday and the system works perfectly.
And if this had happened to someone not using an image file backup system?
Nightmare.
Regular backup programs only back up files, and, even if you tell it to back up the system files, it can't get them all because the ones that are "in use" can't be copied. The answer is an image file program. It makes a 'snapshot' of your entire C Drive and turns this 'image' into one great big file. Come meltdown time, you merely tell the program to write the big file back to the hard drive, overwriting your damaged system. Ten minutes later and you're good to go. Nor do you lose any email or bookmarks or personal files if you follow my routine.
And that's all. Just a little reminder as to how quickly a system can go into the toilet, and how easy it is to fix if you have the right tool. The full Maggie's post is here.
By the way, a couple of readers named "Meta" and "Luther McLeod" left a whole bunch of nasty comments in my posts over the weekend (since deleted) so I'm forced to moderate the comments until the situation improves. An example from Meta is down below in the comments (the quote). If you think you're actually real, Meta begs to disagree.
 Spring Island, SC, is just a stone's throw from Savannah, GA, one of my favorite towns in the US.
If I planned to remove myself from Yankeeland when I get tired of working, I think I'd like Spring Island. However, I will never do that. I have roots where I am, and the idea of leaving real life behind for a WASP ghetto of prosperous aging golfers has only slight appeal. Might be nice for a getaway place, though. I wonder how the duck hunting is down there. The comfortably unpretentious Spring Island bungalow pictured is here. The two guest cottages are great additions. Here's the Spring Island website.
Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us. - P.J. O'Rourke  Who is greedy? New York, London, Hong Kong and Singapore bankers who work 18 hrs/day, and the investors around the world who take the risks which make economies work and grow?
No. Those are folks with real and challenging jobs. I'll tell you who is really greedy: Politicians with their endless demands on my money, and the people whose votes they want to buy by making me pay their bills (after passing it through the governmental/political machine which always takes its own generous cut) and to give them the money I have earned through hard work and taking risks. That is real greed, and "Gimme yours" is the Dem agenda. Anybody who wants an entitlement from somebody else's effort and risk and energy and creativity is, by definition, greedy. But Greed is Good, right? Once upon a time, it was a sin...but that's ancient history. The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. - P. J. O'Rourke
Friday, October 24. 2008
 Will Self visits the most remote and God-forsaken of the Shetland Islands.I would like to go, unless Dem taxes prevent me from ever going anywhere again. These islands were Scandinavian until relatively recently. Photo by Will Self of the Brough of Mousa, a remarkably well-preserved Iron Age dwelling. More like a fortress. I'd guess it had a thatched roof on top. It is especially interesting to me because I am halfway through Francis Pryor's Britain BC. Do not read Pryor's book unless you want a ton of detail about prehistoric Britain. My sense is that pre-Neolithic, ie pre-agricultural man lived pretty much the same way everywhere on the planet, digging roots and picking nuts and killing stuff - including each other. Likely eating each other too. During most of that late-glacial history, Britain was connected to the Continent, with what is now the southern part of the North Sea being a giant marshy plain full of reindeer, elk, horses, pig, auroch, moose, beaver, and deer. (There are tons of prehistoric artifacts sitting in the now-undersea peat.) The Neolithic history is more interesting, and everything post-Neolithic isn't too much different from today except technologically.
 In our "It's all about ME!" America, it's no surprise that reporters feel narcissistically ungratified by the idea of being observers. Maybe just writing and talking about what other people do makes them feel small and insignificant if they are inclined that way. Shucks, they want to be important too, like Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. You know, they want to personally "make a difference," "save the world," and all that nice Miss America stuff. They probably also want chicks and dough, too, along with getting rid of land mines. Who doesn't?
Dang. A white spider keeps running across my keyboard and distracting me. Run away home, little guy. It's a Little Miss Muffet moment at Maggie's. OK, he's gone. Now, to continue. Today, we have yet another confession from a political reporter at Newsweek. But he's not a reporter, he's a blogger getting paid to pretend to be a reporter. This sort of thing, which we have seen everywhere this election year, demeans the entire profession of reporting. In fact, it mocks the very illusion that it is a profession at all if my definition of a profession holds. This fellow is basically saying "I am neither capable of, nor interested in, being a devoted, ethical, and disinterested professional in my professed profession." In real professions, you get tarred and feathered if you screw the pooch. A note pad does not a reporter make any more than a knife makes a surgeon. I want to say to these guys, who should have their hands full just trying to find and state the facts, "When I want your opinion, I'll ask for it."
Thursday, October 23. 2008
 I am told that Krauthammer made the interesting point on TV last night that the intensity of the hatred for Sarah Palin from women has little or nothing to do with her personality.
He said it's because she, as a lovely and feminine mid-40s woman with a litter of kids including one with Down, a cool masculine Eskimo hubby, and a stunningly-successful Governorship, stands as a reproach to the complaining and whining class of American women: a reproach to the cult of victimology and a reproach to the abortion fetishists. (Plus she's just too happy about life and her country, and intelligent, sophisticated folks aren't supposed to be happy about things.) A reasonable person might have expected her candidacy to be a source of pride and pleasure for those women. I promise you that, if she had a "D" after her name, she would be a MSM heroine. Colorful and exotic. The Dems would find a way to make her "Josephine Sixpack" - "The fresh voice of the American worker from the American Frontier." Anybody who criticized her would be slammed as "classist" or "intellectual snob" or "an elitist out of touch with real Americans." And they would, no doubt, remind you that she runs a $6 billion budget and 26,000 employees and plays hardball with the oil companies. Nobody else running has ever done anything like that. Something similar applies to Obama. Clearly his race (What is his race? I guess I mean his skin color) is a source of fascination to the MSM, Leftists, and black voters. However, black Repubs have had little success in elections with black voters, including Repub stars like Michael Steele in Maryland. That is why Obama is not detested by black Americans as a reproach to their victimology and resentment (although he was seen that way at first, most notably by Jesse Jackson who expressed the tolerant opinion that Obama "was too white" implying that his success served to discredit, and to alienate him from, grievance-seeking blacks). Had Obama been a celebrity "R" preaching freedom and opportunity, how far would he have gotten? Would he have given Chris Matthews a thrill up his thing thigh? I suppose my point is that, for the MSM and the left, race and gender are only a big deal when they are combined with that magic "D."
Saturday, October 18. 2008
 This week we had Joe the Plumber in front of his modest home with an old rusty basketball hoop for his kids, burdened with tax debts but uplifted by his aspirations, and we had Sarah Palin stopping the campaign bus to get diapers at WalMart for her baby.
By way of contrast, we had Michelle Obama, a highly privileged Limo Liberal with millions in the bank and a $350,000/yr "administrative" job for some hospital or something, ordering lobster, Iranian caviar, and champagne for a snack from room service - and whining all the while about how mean and tough life is in America if you have two kids, as her husband preaches about taking from Joe to give to...whom? Those are called "defining moments." We shrinks understand defining moments, because those are the moments when patterns come into focus. Me? I love caviar... if I earn it.
Thursday, October 16. 2008
 They say that our Flicker numbers are decreasing, but we have tons of them around here. A couple of years ago, we had two young dumb ones decided to plunge down our chimney, and it was tough catching them and putting them outside. Sharp beaks.
I heard one calling this morning. "Flicka flicka flicka." They migrate, unlike most woodpeckers, but these guys do more pecking in the earth than they do in trees. They love to eat ants, and suburbia doesn't seem to bother them. You can read more about these birds here.
Wednesday, October 15. 2008
 Who pays taxes? From Spread Your Own Wealth Around at Powerline:
According to the most recent (2006) data released by the IRS, the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 60 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent paid virtually no income taxes (3 percent of all income taxes paid). The personal income tax, the federal government's main source of revenue, is collected overwhelmingly from a relative handful of Americans. The large majority of all Americans pay little or no income tax. Given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, political philosophers have long worried that government based on majority rule could lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city," warns Aristotle.
We have turned into a two-class society: the shrinking paying class and the large receiving class. Disgruntlement ensues, because the paying class resents carrying everybody else's load, and the receiving class covers up their embarassment and shame about receiving with resentment, envy, and a trumped-up sense of entitlement: it is basic human psychology that the recipient always must resent their benefactor who, in politics, is their neighbor and compatriot. The obvious political strategy is to increase the % that pay no taxes (or, under Obama's plan, get "refund" checks without paying taxes, aka welfare, aka vote-buying), while raising the numbers of government employees in any way you can. That's how you create a "grateful" population of spirit-crippled dependents, incentivized to work the system and to vote to their economic advantage. Obama's plan will take from the middle class and the small number of wealthy while bringing the number of non-taxpayers up to the magic number of 50%. 100 economists say it's a disastrous idea, and so do I. I believe that everybody should pay their dues so as to feel like a part of the country by contributing their sweat and to have a stake in it, but with 50% of people paying no taxes and getting checks instead, you'll never get a flat tax through. The receiving class would rebel. The now-famous Joe the Plumber understands life better than any Dem politician, latte liberal, or academic, because he is in real life and he made it work.
 We concluded our most recent planning meeting for our local Ducks Unlimited event by consuming a bottle of delicious, smooth, and healthful Liquore di Mirto (aka "Mirto") which the Dylanologist was kind enough to bring us back from Sardinia this summer.
It is apparently the national drink of Sardinia. They like it in Corsica too. This bottle was from Oristana. The rosso is like a port, with the extremely pleasant and unique fragrance of Myrtle. It's too precious and tasty to waste on debate-watching. We recommend shots and beer for that.
"Good character is made up of three parts," according to a British think tank report released last August: "a sense of personal agency or self-direction; an acceptance of personal responsibility; and effective regulation of one's own emotions, in particular the ability to resist temptation or at least defer gratification."
Why it takes a think tank to figure that those things are foundations of good moral character is beyond me. As Sissy notes in "It's the character, stupid," McGuffey's Reader, if not Socrates, has been saying those things for quite a while. But those things, in themselves, are not "good character." An effective Mafia Don or a dedicated Jihadist probably has those "three parts" too. What I define as "good character" depends on the code which is placed on those foundations, and the extent to which behavior is consistent with it. That think tank was trying to come up with a morality-free, "value-free," psychologized concept of character. Why on earth would they waste time trying to do something like that?
An odalisque is a Moslem's slave concubine, but all guys could use a bunch of them around the place, as long as they have sweet and agreeable temperaments and are willing to give the wife a hand with the chores. Plus no burkhas required when they are lounging around ye olde wood-stove-heated New England harem. Ingres' Odalisque (1814). 
The modern version: 
Tuesday, October 14. 2008
 It's been a terrible year for butterflies in Yankeeland, and I have never seen so few Monarchs migrating through our gardens. (I blame global cooling.)
But I did see a stunning and feisty Orange Sulphur on my woodpile this morning. It's their flight season. This one had wide black margins like the one in the photo, but their coloration is variable. It looked like an orange autumn Maple leaf, taking flight.
|
