Saturday, January 20. 2007
 More items from the American Psychoanalytic meeting in NY this week:
1. Confidence that antidepressants will work improves their effectiveness by around 40%. I don't know what that means, and I tend to doubt it - but that's the data. Interesting. There are still many analysts who feel that antidepressants interfere with treatment. They could be right. 2. Most psychoanalysts practice very little analysis. It's the nature of the modern world. Analysts regret it, but they feel that their rigorous and lengthy training helps them in whatever they do. 3. I always knew this, but analysts tend to be stiff, unapproachable, stern, and unfriendly people. The presentations are humorless, cold, unrelaxed, and always delivered in a wierd - can I say "hypnotic? - monotone. Very strange, given their profession, in which they are very kind and caring. And yet an analytic meeting is the coldest, most unfriendly sort of "convention" you could ever find. Nobody chats, nobody hoists a few beers at the bar - unless they know eachother already. They are totally isolated at the meeting, which is not fun at all. Even when you sit next to them, they don't acknowledge your existence. It's like an Episcopal Church. A bit schizoid. When you smile at someone and say "hi," you feel like you are intruding. I am not like that, at least since my second analysis. Will ask Nathan to try to explain this unpleasant phenomenon. 4. In semi-contradiction to the above, overheard at the Waldorf lobby bar between a somber but cute youngish analyst gal and a gal friend at 2 pm: "I need a drink or two. And then, let's go do some shopping or something. I need a break." Do not ask me what I was doing at the bar. 5. I always find it amusing that Freud never had a psychoanalysis. He said he did self-analysis, which I am certain that he did. Like any explorer, he opened many doors, and was wrong about some small things, but right about a few very big things. A hero, for certain. 6. "Self-psychology" and object relations theorizing: Just say the term "projected self-object" and I am asleep. Same goes for the words "Melanie Klein." I am outta there. This stuff is gobbledy-gook to me, and I ain't dumb. If you can't explain it to me in the King's English, forget it. No sale. Back to Charles Brenner.
 I heard the NYT's Frank Rich interviewed on 770 radio this morning, by Mark Simone, about Rich's new best-seller, The Greatest Story Ever Sold.
Rich is no dummy, but he is a knee-jerk partisan. For example, when Simone pointed out that the Clinton administration viewed Iraq in the same way - as a global threat and as a threat to the US, Rich dismisses that as irrelevant. Rich's main point seems to be that the war was "sold" on the basis of flawed intel because the neos wanted the war. Of course the war was "sold" - leaders always have to "sell" wars because civilized people hate war. FDR was one of the great Music Men of world history. He could sell almost anything, but even he needed Pearl Harbor to "sell" the US on the war that he had long wanted us in, in Europe. Bush couldn't sell water in a desert. But Rich wants to talk about the flawed intel about Iraq's threat. Fine - it was flawed. But intel is always flawed. In life, we always act on incomplete information. This flawed intel was believed by the UN, the US, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia. You have to go on what you have, and you have make a decision. The buck stops somewhere. And the risks of inaction, in life, are usually comparable to the risks of action, even though passively-inclined folks are reluctant to accept that fact about life. Odd, is it not, that so many are prepared to take us back to the stone age because of highly speculative and politically-driven ideas about man-made global warming - but those same folks don't want to see the danger of the Moslem imperialism which is on the front pages every day? Were the neos biased towards nation-building in the Middle East? You bet. They still see it as the best path towards peace and long-term stability in the Middle East. Is it a fantasy? I don't know. But I still think Clinton would have gone into Iraq if he had had the stomach for it (and, if he had, I have no doubt that Rich would have defended that decision). Based on the interview, the most important flaw in Rich's case against the war in Iraq is that he does not put it in context of global Moslem imperialism, of which Jihad is one particularly malignant piece. Rich does not want to talk about Afghanistan, or Iran, or the whole "circle of fire" -from Chechnya to the Balkans to Lebanon to Somalia to Indonesia to Thailand - that Bernard Lewis talks about all the time. Not relevant. What? It has even reached France, now. And gee, I almost forgot - New York City and London too. It's getting to be a big circle. Iraq, like all wars, was/is debatable - especially with 20-20 hindsight. Saddam foolishly called the UN's and Bush's bluff, and discovered that it was no bluff. "Don't mess with Texas." Thus in the spirit of Dr. Sanity and others, and borrowing the idiom of Al Gore, I will use the term "Jihad Deniers." Is Islamic imperialism a serious danger to us or not? That is what it all comes down to. Clearly Rich, in his current positioning, thinks it isn't. Many will wish to agree with him - until the next catastrophic attack brings the truth home again that it's not all about oil, and that it's too big for the police. But if you think it's all about oil, then don't be a hypocrite - quit driving and flying. And if you believe it's all about the Jews - then dump Israel overboard (down the well?). But, IMO, neither of those would help one bit. Oil wealth is what funds Jihad - especially from the Saudis: it ain't about poverty - it's about wealth, power, and religion. A war of cultures, as they say. But the world will not give up their Texas tea until it runs out, and that will not be for a few centuries, at least. I think it is a danger. Not a threat to get hysterical about, and yet a threat to be forceful about and to use force to address. Every detail may be debatable - as was regime change in Iraq - but the guesstimation of threat is the bottom line. Jihad will continue to be a danger to the world, long after Iraq is finished. Our debates will continue, as they should, but shameful partisan sniping - gotcha games - is not honest and serious debate. Our governments and our military will be facing these issues for many years: our protection is the main reason we have hired them (the Left seems to always want to forget that is what national governments are for - we could do everything else we might want to do locally), but we cannot expect perfection from them. Clinton and Albright tried the limp-wristed approach, and it didn't work out well. Bush is having trouble too, by trying to wage a "limited, compassionate" war. Who has a better idea, other than dhimmitude?
Friday, January 19. 2007
 Dr. Sanity gets it. Please read her piece: it's a classic. You go, girl.
And, by the way, Christ did not say that money is the root of evil. He did probably express the idea that love of money is the root of evil. The point being that love of anything more than love of God was a path to hell and a path to a rotten life. Indeed, in Christianity, loving anything or anyone more than God is sin. Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to Him, "I will follow You wherever You go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." 59 And He said to another, " Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father." 60 But He said to him, "Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God." 61 Another also said, "I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home." 62 But Jesus said to him, " No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."
A very demanding fellow, Jesus. Christianity invites us to be "in the world, but not of it." I think money, especially spare money, is a wonderful thing and the route to personal power, autonomy, freedom, and choice. Like guns, the money we have and the wealth we have represent our personal independence. The creation of wealth in capitalism is a remarkable phenomenon - like alchemy, we can create wealth out of nothing but using our brains. In the piece, she quotes Atlas Shrugged: "So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
Thursday, January 18. 2007
 Spent all day at the American Psychoanalytic Meetings today. Very pleased to see all of the PC stuff gone. No pro-Palestinian psychology, no terror apologetics, no sessions on transgenderphobia. Of course, they had to generate a press release condemning torture, but that is just window-dressing. These folks mostly aren't Jack Bauer fans, or shooters, except me and maybe a few others. (I am opposed to gratuitous or vengeful torture, but entirely in favor of torture to extract life-saving information.) Happily, though, it's pretty much back to basics.
Had a hilarious lunch with our recently-truant Aliyah Diary author, N. Szajnberg, MD, author of two new books of psychoanalytic research, including one on Israeli soldiers, who spoke wonderfully at a morning meeting on the role of theory-generation in the history of science. Will post his books later. Among others at lunch at the Cafe St. Bart's - Philly's Dr. Elio Frattaroli, author of Healing the Soul in the Age of the Brain. Given his interests, I told him to give One Cosmos a look-see. Nathan claims that Elio's is the best book every written on psychotherapy. My questions for our lunch-time informal panel: 1. Does anyone really believe our metapsychological theories? (I think not)
2. Do psychoanalysts overvalue the "inner life"? (I think yes, but they undervalue the spiritual life) This is getting a tad technical, but this was Anna Ornstein's reply to my question about an apparently narcissistic patient in analysis whose narcissism turned out to be a transference resistance against an oedipal transference: "It must have been pseudo-narcissism." Hmmm. The session I most wanted to attend was Dr. Bob Michels moderating about a case of organizational pathology presented by Dr. Dick Munich. Sold out, with barely standing room in a 100 degree room. Even Dr. Kernberg, my supervisor and boss many years ago, had to stand squeezed, leaning on a table and unable to see the discussion panel. Somebody could have had the grace to give Otto their seat at the table. Very disappointed, but by that point, I would have keeled over had I stuck around. Overall, a good day to re-center on the basics: process, transference, resistance, defence, assessment, etc. And, for fun, the role of theory in practice. And, again overall - what a bunch of scary smart, literate, thoughtful, kind folks.
Monday, January 15. 2007
 I never was a big fan of Martin Luther King, Jr.
I am sorry to say that in Yankeeland, King's Birthday means a 3-day skiing weekend at Okemo, Stratton, Stowe, Sugarbush, Loon, or wherever (if Bush-Cheney-Halliburton has not cancelled all snow) - and little more. I have always been a fan of treating every person with the human respect and consideration they deserve, depending on what they are made of and on how they lead their lives. Being a bit old-fashioned, I still believe that skin color is a matter of no interest or importance whatsoever. If I were a black guy, which I would not mind at all, I would thank my lucky stars, and God, that I lived in America - Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. However, racial equality is important - freedom of opportunity to be the kind of person you chose to be. King's politics were terrible, and I totally disagree with all of them. Why should black folks want socialism any more than white folks? Other than to get the benefit of the exertion of others? Alas, the lure of easy money crosses all human distinctions and categories, doesn't it? But segregation was truly wrong, and I give King credit for courageously taking the leadership of the movement to get rid of that dehumanizing tradition in the South. It was long overdue. Someone had to do it. I'm glad he did, and I am very sorry that he, a man of God, was killed by ignorant, low-life rednecks in doing it. Were he alive today as a grey-haired old guy on Hannity and Colmes (which I wish he were), I think I would still disagree with everything he might say. Still, one heck of a preacher, like his Dad. God rest his soul.
Sunday, January 14. 2007
Editor's Note: This post captures a chunk of the essential spirit of Maggie's Farm. Thanks, Barrister. Ya done good, ol' buddy, with Scotch or without. Glad to know that horse did not kill ya yet. We need ye as the Pilgrims needed Miles Standish.  I believe that the Dems want the USA to be Denmark.
A Dane explains why it's a bad idea. TCS. My guess is that it's a very good deal for the lazy, the unmotivated, the dysfunctional, the dependent, the feckless, the spiritless, the addicted, and the sociopathic exploiters of the system. I feel badly for all of such folks, except the latter. But how is it for strong or energetic adventurous men and women who want to do things and make things and grow and develop their skills and make money and create their own life free from government constraint and intrusiveness - and taxation? And who are willing to take the blows when they fail, as fail they must, sometimes? And for those who want to have the spare cash to support charities and causes you want - and not just those the government wants? The reason Denmark is not my ideal is that men can never be Men, and women never Women - because the State remains their parent throughout life, while sucking out their lifeblood - just never enough to kill them. Permanent adolescence - or serfdom, as Hayek would term it. Might just as well be laboratory mice with great sex and free food. All needs met, except for the ones that matter most, and which differentiate us from animals. I do like the Danes, but they can keep their risk-free, opportunity-free Mommy state. It's like life in a government mall: safe, sterile, spiritless, and never quite grown-up. Regressive, as the shrinks would say. Europe has a feudal history. They have an ancient template for a kind of relationship between the individual and the State. Authority does best, and knows best. When they screw you - hey, that's life. Each year, you thank them for your bowl of porridge. If you're unhappy, you go on strike, like a passive-aggressive teen-ager. But don't expect anything of yourself, like to try something different. It is bullsh-t. Those "authorities" are just sucking off your own teats, like piglets in a pig sty. What do they produce? What wealth do they create? What products? What services, other than those moved from one person to another? Excepting military defence. Because of love of power and self-love, government always becomes an unfaithful servant. Darn that ol' sinful human nature. Uppity souls - they forget to stay in the servant's quarters where they belong. They forget their place. Think they are important - and worse, think they are smart. But what can they really do? (Think about it it, If you took away Ted Kennedy's or Joe Biden's or John Dean's trust fund, or Nacy Pelosi's or Jon Cary's husband, or Tony Blair's pension, how would they support themselves? They would starve.) The average citizen knows far more about life in any country than their insulated leaders. I am certain of that, and even more so in Europe and in the EU, where government is even more of a "profession" - as is prostitution - than it is in the US. America does not have that. We were founded on the principle of keeping the State off our backs. We took a lot of risks, and died willingly for that novel notion that placed the individual human spirit at the top of the pyramid. Correction - the individual human spirit as fed, inspired, and led by the spirit of God. Theirs jes' ain't the red-blooded, well-armed, God fearin', spirited American Way that built this country that the whole world wants to come to. Sure, they want the money - but the legal immigrants mainly want freedom and risk: opportunity, not freebies. And, besides, whatever Robert Reich wants - I don't want it. Give me liberty, etc. I am near fed-up with the EuroWeenies being held up as role models. I prefer John Wayne and Gregory Peck to Mr. Reich. Well, duh. We native Yankees refuse to be happy mice: that is not the bold spirit our ancestors wanted for us. Free men, free women, on our mentally-disordered psychotic horses, with guns, in a free land, on a grey January afternoon in New England. That is real America, or at least a big piece of it. But this battle wearies me. No snow on the ground - I have been to church and have had a fine glass of Scotch whiskey with some cheese for lunch, and am ready to go out for an afternoon (horseback) ride now with the lovely Mrs., to enjoy our glorious free land. With my 20 ga. in the scabbard, in case we happen on a nice grouse cover. One of these days, this wacky horse will kill me. He is fast, but he never watches where he is going. Great fun. Duck your head for low branches when he feels like a gallop, because the SOB only listens when he feels like it. Gotta love his ornery nature. He would not be a good Danish citizen. He lacks mouse genes. And I do not mean to equate the bold Viking Danes with mice.
Saturday, January 13. 2007
Reposted from December, 2005 Scotland was a feudal, corrupt, barbaric land where the warlords had all the weapons, until the late 1600-early 1700s. But when they discovered capitalism and French enlightenment thought (the wild Celts never had much connection with the strange and foreign Brit land to their immediate south), they really ran with it. Along with everything else, they were especially interested in how the newfangled capitalism (which was replacing the concepts of mercantilism at the time) might be consistent with Christian virtues. David Hume and Adam Smith were just the tips of a giant iceberg that thrived for one hundred years until squelched by a pious Presbyterian religiosity which stifled intellectual adventure. For a fine synopsis of this splendid period in Scotland's history, read here. After refreshing your memory with that, let me introduce you to a jewel of an essay by David Denby in the New Yorker from 2004 entitled Northern Lights: How modern life emerged from 18th century Edinburgh. It begins: "On January 8, 1697, at some time between two and four in the afternoon, an eighteen-year-old student named Thomas Aikenhead was hanged in Edinburgh. Aikenhead had been found guilty of a serious charge: the previous year he had several times told other young men that the doctrines of Christian theology were “a rapsodie of faigned and ill-invented nonsense.” Aikenhead’s friends, testifying against him, told the court that he had spoken of “the Imposter Christ” and had rejected the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption. Aikenhead recanted all these sentiments—he said he had fallen under the spell of atheistical tracts—but no one defended him, and the jury voted for death. On the scaffold, Aikenhead declared that he had come to doubt the objectivity of good and evil, and that he believed moral laws to be the work of governments or men. His disastrous misstep—the joshing blasphemies about Christianity—point toward the anti-Christian side of the French Enlightenment, toward Voltaire’s suave pagan ironies and sarcasms. The student’s last statement—that moral laws are the work of governments and men—is one of the assumptions behind the American Revolution. The remark anticipates, as well, the British liberalism of the nineteenth century and the enduring work, and enduring trial, of modernity."
Read his entire piece. (The flag is the cross of St. Andrew, wherein whose connection with Scotland lies a curious finger and tooth tale.)
Friday, January 12. 2007
Among various other business interests, my Gramps had the Elco dealership for New England in the 30s. Although he was mainly a sailor, he loved all sorts of boats, and the dealership made it possible for him to have a new Elco every year. I still think of the Elco as the classic yacht. You can still buy them, if you want to can afford to mess with wooden hulls. The history of Elco here. (BTW, PT 109 was built by Elco.) He donated his last Elco to the war effort. It was shipped to Britain, and used at Dunkirk. Here's a 1925 57' Flat Top Motor Yacht ($195,000): 
Here's a 1938 34' Sedan Cruiser ($137,000): 
A sight for sore eyes, especially considering the vulgar, non-nautical appearance of most modern motor yachts. You can look at other old Elcos for sale here.
Wednesday, January 10. 2007
 The Religio-Fascists are coming! The Religio-Fascists are coming!
Dunn at American Thinker considers ex-NYT reporter Hedge's new book. Last Sunday, The New York Times featured a review of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, in which author Chris Hedges makes the argument that millions of Americans are about to fall on their fellow citizens and punish them in the name of a righteous Lord. This is the latest of a series of such volumes - also mentioned is Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. We could add as well the recent "militant atheist" volumes by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, which are intended to serve the same readership for the same purpose. While reviewer Rick Perlstein doesn't particularly approve of the book in question, he does buy into the thesis. "Of course there are Christian fascists in America", he insists, followed by several anecdotes that demonstrate no such thing. "...they want dominion - for the Lord to make an America where other values are impossible to hold", he concludes.
And that, in a nutshell, is the latest left-wing horror story. The fascists are coming. They're waving crucifixes this time.
The book sounds either paranoid, or purely manipulative and political. Almost sounds like a "Scare the Jews" book. The Am Thinker piece here. Classical Values takes a look at the same subject. What these fear-mongers do not choose to understand is that Christians want dominion over nothing and nobody. Of course they prefer to live in a culture where Christian morality and Christian worship is valued - they would be foolish not to want that. But the dominion the Lord offers is a dominion of the Spirit, not a worldly one. It's called "The Kingdom of God." Maybe they just don't get it?
We haven't shown a nice gun in a while. This is the ArmaLite AR-10 in .308 caliber - a good caliber. Mr. Free Market wants two - one for him and one for his lad. And I know Buddy would like one for popping the bunnies in his garden. Useful also for creating peace in the Middle East. 
Monday, January 8. 2007
Seen this one? .
The Democrats now promise "A New Direction For America" . The stock market is at a new all-time high and America 's 401K's are back. A new direction from there means, what? Unemployment is at 25 year lows. A new direction from there means, what? Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means, what? Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means, what? Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there means, what? The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year. A new direction from there means, what? Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction from there means, what? Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means, what? Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new direction from there means, what? Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel. A new direction from there means, what? Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks. A new direction from there means, what? Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here. A new direction from there means, what? Now let me see, do I have this right? I can expect: The economy to go South Illegals to go North Taxes to go Up Employment to go Down Terrorism to come In Tax breaks to go Out Social Security to go away Health Care to go the same way gas prices have gone
 Do most men need a place to go to be alone, or to be with the guys, where they can feel undomesticated among their own stuff? I think so.
The barn, the garage, the workshop, the tack room, the gun room, and, in big houses, maybe the library or the study. A "family room" does not fit the bill - it defeats the purpose. Villainous Company takes a look at a new book, Manspace. Also, Dust my Broom shows you his. Gwynnie and I have a friend who has the best "manspace" I have ever seen. It's his boathouse, with a deck over the water. Inside, cabinets for his boating and fishing stuff, racks for fishing poles, racks suspended from the ceiling for masts, a pool table, a refrigerator filled with beer, a well-stocked humidor, a cooktop, a bar, TV, music and good speakers, etc etc. Decorated with hunting and fishing art. There's a big old wood stove, but he had the place heated and insulated.
Wednesday, January 3. 2007
Seen this one yet? The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Sarbanes,
As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you. My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted.
If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year. Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Monday, January 1. 2007
See What 50 Years Will Do You don't have to be over fifty to see how much the world has gone berserk!
++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.
1956 - Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack's rifle, goes to his car and gets his to show Jack.
2006 - School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1956 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody expelled.
2006 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1956 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by Principal. Sits still in class.
2006 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad gives him a whipping.
1956 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2006 - Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to school.
1956 - Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2006 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.
1956 - 5 High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at a special school for expectant mothers.
2006 - Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets an abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge. Mary given condoms and told to be more careful next time.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.
1956: Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2006: Pedro's cause is taken up by state democratic party. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't speak English.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.
1956 - Ants die.
2006 - BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary, hugs him to comfort him.
1956 - In a short time Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2006 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison.
Sunday, December 31. 2006
It's time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella Awards." The Stella Awards, which are not genuine awards but just lists of real cases someone compiles, are named after 81 year old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in NM). That case inspired the Stella Awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the United States. Clever lawyers, or brain-dead juries? We report - you decide. Here are this year's winners:
5th Place (tie): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.
5th Place (tie): 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and
medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.
5th Place (tie): Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania was leaving a
house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able
to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door
connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The
family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the
garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a
large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming
the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the
tune of $500,000. In my opinion this is so outrageous that it should
have been 2nd Place!
4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500
and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door
neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.
The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have
been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who had climbed
over the fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a
pellet gun.
3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and
broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms.
Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an
argument.
2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner
of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom
window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred
while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies
room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000
and dental expenses.
AND.....
1st Place: This year's runaway winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski of
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mrs. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot
Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, (from an OU football
game), having driven onto the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70
mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back & make herself
a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway, crashed and
overturned. Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising her in the
owner's manual that she couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded her
$1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their
manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other
complete morons around.
Thursday, December 28. 2006
 One of the pleasures of getting into this blog world a bit is seeing, with my own eyes, how many bright people there are out there who see things the way I do. For a Boston person, that's consoling enough, but to find people in my general profession - which tends very liberal and pacifist, if not intellectual/passive - who have arrived by similar paths to a somewhat shared current thinking is plain wonderful.
If we are all wrong, at least we can be wrong and stupid together. I am thinking of such psychologically-minded folks as Neo-neocon, Shrinkwrapped, Dr. Sanity, Assistant Village Idiot, and SC&A. And One Cosmos. Gagdad Bob's thoughts on Thomas Sowell's recent piece is an example of the kind of applied psychological take on things that gives me delight. One quote: What most seems to annoy leftist intellectuals about the free market is that, not only is it something that they cannot control or understand, but it accomplishes its task much more effectively and efficiently than the most brilliant person -- or group of people -- ever could. Sowell cites a famous essay which pointed out that no single person knows enough to produce so much as a single lead pencil. That is, "there is no single individual anywhere who knows how to grow the wood, mine the graphite, produce the rubber, and manufacture the paint." And yet, no one need ever worry that there won't be enough pencils, so long as we don't interfere with the process: "Complex economic processes cause all these things to be done and coordinated by a wide variety of people, just in order to produce something as simple as a lead pencil. Multiply that by a hundred or a thousand when it comes to the complexity of producing a car or a computer."
Indeed, it takes a village to make a pencil, but not an African village, and not a village in Afghanistan or in the jungles of Ecuador. A special kind of village, with certain kinds of values and motivations and cultural structures, knowledge, interests, and freedom of opportunity. I especially enjoy the famous pencil example because, as you may recall, Henry David Thoreau's family made their money from their pencil factory. Henry worked there for a while, and apparently made some significant improvements in the manufacture of the Thoreau Pencil, until he decided that he didn't want to work on Maggie's Farm no more, and decided to be a writer and a public intellectual, living off his family's money. In addition, of course, the pencil was the original keyboard. Quill pens must have been terrible to write with, and I am sure they scratched the heck out of the monitor screen. It has been a wonder to me that so many folks in the mind and soul-treating professions are so non-freedom-minded, when these professions are designed to free people from their inner demons which restrict their taking on life freely, cheerfully, and energetically, in the way they see fit, and taking their own chances and making their own choices - in free societies. Freedom is what they are all about, and why psychoanalysis and psychotherapy are never permitted in totalitarian states. Does every human have a slavish, dependent side to them? Of course. Many days I wish to be nothing but a pampered pet, with a simple life - except I'd be bored in 40 minutes and begin doing something I wasn't told to do. The wonderful possibility is the possibility of governing oneself according to aspirations for higher levels of maturity and autonomy. And that, Dear Readers, is a culture-specific aspiration, rooted in Protestantism; in the notion of "every man his own King," (and every man his own priest as well). And, with the keyboard, "every man or woman his own pamphleteer," like the wacky Sons of Liberty, pasting our visions of freedom to the walls of the alleys of the world, hoping some passerby will stop and read. On the same subject, see our recent Liberty, Who needs it?, or, even more recently, Give me Liberty or Give me Health. Equality is for farm animals. While Orwell remains one of my political guiding lights, Huxley really nailed the danger of "well-intentioned, rational" soul-crushing tyranny in Brave New World. Pure, soul-less logic requires tyranny, as the wise Plato said. Our blogging shrink friends remember that psyche means "soul," not mind, as Bettelheim made so clear in Freud and Man's Soul. The soul needs space! I will conclude today's rambling sermon with a Dylan quote from My Back Pages: A self-ordained professor's tongue
Too serious to fool
Spouted out that liberty
Is just equality in school
"Equality," I spoke the word
As if a wedding vow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.
Wednesday, December 27. 2006
 Hitler on Federalism. Volokh's piece begins thus:
One of the relatively few underanalyzed major topics in the extensive academic literature on federalism is the relationship between federalism and totalitarianism. A potential advantage of decentralized federalism is that it might serve as an obstacle to the establishment of an oppressive totalitarian state. Yet most scholars have largely ignored this possibility. One writer who didn't, however, was Adolf Hitler, who had this to say on the subject in Chapter 10 of Mein Kampf (which is devoted to German federalism):
"Might serve"? Definitely serves. That was the original deal, aka the US Constitution. It's easy to forget the degree of sovereignty the states had, before signing the deal - and long after the deal, until Lincoln re-wrote the deal. Not that he was wrong about the slavery issue, but our modern, post-FDR, post-LBJ federal government has us all becoming 50% slaves. What's the difference? Well, voting is the difference. We are free to vote ourselves into benevolent federal slavery. The Volokh piece is here. We agree with the point which is made. Centralized power is always a threat to freedom - even when it is elected. It is in the nature of government to accrue power over the lowly, ignorant and inept masses, using any excuse at hand. You can always find a "well-intentioned" reason to assert distant federal power over the people, and forget that the people are meant to be sovereign in the USA. The American ideal was meant to be "every man a Lord of his domain," guided by God and his (or her) conscience and interest. FDR was the worst criminal, in this regard. That well-intentioned, arrogant, noblesse-oblige aristocrat was a natural totalitarian, but I doubt he ever really knew it. (Harold Ickes, and other advisors, knew it, though - and made the most of it.) The Civil War and Jim Crow gave state's rights a bad name, but I am inclined to believe that, generally, states and localities have the right to be wrong sometimes. That is part of what freedom is meant to guarantee: dumb mistakes are part of freedom. As is paying the price for them. Neither wisdom, nor common sense, resides in Washington, DC; it resides elsewhere - in our people in our towns, the hard-working real people who lead honest lives, and ask no-one for anything. Washington, DC obtains most of its power from the income tax, and the ignominious power of vote-buying with OPM - and is thus intrinsically corrupt. But many will vote away their personal freedom for a bowl of lentils, especially when they feel spiritually and personally uncertain, frail, and lacking in a "support system".
 Some Warren Buffet aphorisms, from Businesspundit:
- You can't make a good deal with a bad person.
- It's easier to stay out of trouble than it is to get out of trouble.
- The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.
- My idea of a group decision is to look in the mirror.
- The reaction of weak management to weak operations is often weak accounting.
- You can always juice sales by going down-market, but it's hard to go back upmarket.
- You have to think for yourself. It always amazes me how high-IQ people mindlessly imitate. I never get good ideas talking to other people.
- In looking for someone to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. But the most important is integrity because if they don't have that, the other two qualities, intelligence and energy, are going to kill you.
- Never ask a barber if you need a haircut.
- A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought.
- If you let yourself be undisciplined on the small things, you will probably be undisciplined on the large things as well.
- The fact that people are full of greed, fear, or folly is predictable. The sequence is not predictable.
- We also believe candor benefits us as managers. The CEO who misleads others in public may eventually mislead himself in private.
- What we learn from history is that people don't learn from history.
 When you read something like this piece at Driscoll, you have to wonder why Americans - and people from all over the world - are not lining up to emigrate to Cuba.
After all, it's the fun place to live, where everyone is happy, almost nobody has to go to work, and there are no problems. Oh - I almost forgot. Free medical care and free education too! Nobody needs money! And no-one needs religious superstitions, because you are already in paradise. So you can sleep in on Sunday morning! That is true freedom! Fidelito does did it all for you, because of his great love for his people!
Tuesday, December 26. 2006
 After our mention of Burgoo last week, the Bluegrass-born prof at Right Wing Nation was kind enough to furnish us with a recipe. Sounds good, but a bit civilized. I thought that you needed to use whatever you shot in the woods, plus whatever road-kill you found - or nailed with your truck bumper - on the way home.
Well, the Prof reminds me that he did include "varmint," such as the cute critter in photo. I think my ideal Burgoo would include possum, coon, and squirrel, with a pork base. Most of 'em can be shot from one's back porch without hardly gettin' up out of the chair. Like Bill Quick's blog, I wonder whether the Prof is slowly turning his into a foodie blog. Indeed, there is only so much politics that one can take before you begin to gag on it. After a while, the sheer stupidity of it all just pisses you off. However, as citizens of a free republic, it is a duty to care, even if we would prefer not to.
Saturday, December 23. 2006
 Bush's former speechwriter, Michael Gerson, wrote a piece about the idealistic strain in the Republican Party for Newsweek, which was highlighted by YARGB and Ankle Biting, among others.
I think it's worth reading because the Repub Party is, like any party, a mix of views and philosophies. Furthermore, I think many Repubs are, like me, a mix of contradictory and philosophically inconsistent views, ranging from the radical Libertarian to the socially "progresssive." Indeed, almost all Republicans these days are "big government Republicans." There's no big movement to eliminate Medicare, is there? It's just a matter of degree. For me, and for most of us bred-in-the-bone proud Yankees at Maggie's Farm, I think it boils down to something like this: We distrust Federal power. We distrust state power less, and local power even less. We are Federalists partly because it is a bulwark against excessive centralized power, and we lean Libertarian because power, unlike money, truly is a zero-sum game. We are sympathetic to CS Lewis' statement: 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.
Here's a quote from Gerson: Campaigning on the size of government in 2008, while opponents talk about health care, education and poverty, will seem, and be, procedural, small-minded, cold and uninspired. The moral stakes are even higher. What does antigovernment conservatism offer to inner-city neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing. What achievement would it contribute to racial healing and the unity of our country? No achievement at all. Anti-government conservatism turns out to be a strange kind of idealism—an idealism that strangles mercy.
But there is another Republican Party—what might be called the party of the governors. It is the party of Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, who has improved the educational performance of minority students and responded effectively to natural disasters. It is the party of Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who mandated basic health insurance while giving subsidies to low-income people. Neither of these men embrace big government; both show convincing outrage at wasteful spending. But they have also succeeded in making government work in essential government roles—not a small thing in a post-Katrina world.
The future of the Republican Party depends on which party it wants to be—the party of purity, or the party of the governors. In that decision, Republicans should consider: any political movement that elevates abstract antigovernment ideology above human needs is hardly conservative, and unlikely to win.
There is an "idealism that strangles mercy" - and there is government power that strangles freedom, self-reliance, autonomy, and emotional and spiritual maturity - and thus cripples humankind. I'm not saying I agree with all that Gerson says, but it's well worth the read, here.
Friday, December 22. 2006
 A Christmas diamond idea for wives and/or girlfriends this year: the $30 million dollar diamond bikini.
Gal not included - you have to find your own, but with these trinkets in your hand, it shouldn't be too difficult. Watch for more of her in Sports Illustrated. Please note: If males readers are aware of suffering from Gynophilia, as may be characterized by an undue interest in such diamond photos, contact your local health care professional at once. Attraction to adult females could be a sign of a serious disorder. And hey, Jules Crittenden fans! Thanks for visiting - and check out Maggie's Farm while you're here. We are interesting, most of the time. Is that Maggie modeling the bikini? We will not tell you. (Ignore Continuation page - it's an error)
Continue reading "A special Christmas card for our readers, plus a last-minute shopping idea"
Thursday, December 21. 2006
Welcome to the Farm, Canadian Gun Nutz! Man, what a storm of new visitors. Please check us out, while visiting. You might like us. This sniper carbine made by CheyTac is functionally accurate at over 2 km. It has an integrated computer, a weather station, and has night vision, of course. With the CheyTac round, it set the world record for smallest group size at distance. This is pretty standard as the Iraq sniper weapon now. CheyTac is necking the .408 down to .375 and the 32-inch drop at 1500 yards is reduced to 21 inches. (The WW1 .50 cal drops 12.5 feet.)
Mr. Free Market would love one for foxes, and we'd like to find one in our Christmas stocking for popping rats down at the dump. Doubt the cops will mind, if we let them play with it.
It's the kind of weapon that makes a fellow wish they were young enough to go to Iraq or Afghanistan to try their hand with this baby on a few Jihadist Moslems. Gently but firmly introduce them to their waiting virgins, or to eternal darkness. Whatever.
Wednesday, December 20. 2006
 It's an old joke -- that, eventually, in a true "nanny state," everything not forbidden will be mandatory.
The above noted in a piece by Jay Tea on how MA is considering extending the Nanny role that Mayor Bloomberg has in NYC. And he accurately points out that, of all things Americans ingest, alcohol is the most problematic. A trans-fat never killed anyone, after all. Meanwhile, also in MA, there is a move to revive sodomy laws - for health reasons! The gays will love that one. Maybe "health" and "safety" are our new, narcissistic religions, worshipping our oh-so-precious, irreplaceable selves? Or is it control just for the sadistic fun of it? Why don't I find such things simply silly or amusing? Because if the government can rationalize controlling things like this, they can rationalize controlling anything and everything - whether for "my good" (because I am an drooling idiot and cannot feed myself) or for the "common good" (because I don't matter as an individual). That is, fascism - whether our "very caring" leaders are elected or not. So it isn't funny. Image: Mary was not an evil nanny. Update. Related: The state cannot love you, at Never Yet melted
Tuesday, December 19. 2006
Best piece I have seen on the Lord Monkton letter (a perfect smack-down) and the whole politicization of geology and climatology in the interest of state and/or bureaucratic control over the world economy - at Classical Values. Read his piece - it is funny. One thing I wonder about is not how much politicans hurt themselves when they get on quasi-religious bandwagons like this - we expect them to be foolish - but about how much scientists discredit themselves and the profession in this way. I cannot remember a time in my life when loud scientists were right about any public policy or about any long-term prediction. Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will.). Just off the top of my head: the population "bomb," "Star Wars", the ABM Treaty, the Global Cooling Crisis, how to make peace with the USSR (surrender), Vietnam (surrender), the earth running out of oil (1970s), not to mention endless medical and health scares. People will gradually just tune out the hysteria.
|
