mike-istan

Inevitable

2012-01-04T06:45:00.000-05:00

I've haven't been paying attention with even almost interest to the goings on in Iowa. It's depressing - like watching the paste eaters from grade school stage a production of A Christmas Carol. You know every line, every scene, and how it's going to end. And even though the thing is so familiar you can recite it in your sleep, it is amazing how far below even your lowest expectations the show falls.

I have always felt guilty being so cynical about politics - always, in the silence of my heart, believed the goody-goody student council types who said, "If you want things to change, you can't just complain, you have to work to make it happen." Then I realized something - I'm right, and they are wrong. Reform is not really possible - history is, at its most basic level, a tale of things changing for the worse.

The reason isn't hard to fathom. There's three kinds of people: First, those who want to be someones pet - they want to be housed, fed, clothed, and protected from all evils - real and imagined. In return they promise to plow the fields, not run out of the yard, tug too hard on the leash, or make a fuss. The second kind are the ones who don't want to be kept as pets. Perhaps they are just ornery, and naturally do the opposite of what they're told, perhaps they feel no one has the right to make them do what they don't want to, or maybe they realize that politics is a zero sum game and every public good represents actual goods taken by threat of force from private individuals, that power exercised in the name of the government must be wrested from the hands of citizens, and every of advance of law must be matched by an equal retreat of freedom.

And then there is the third kind... the kind who wonder if zero sum game is on the same channel as Dancing With the Stars.

The first group has an entire political party dedicated to getting them what they want. In this time and place they're called the democrats, and they have been into keeping human beings as domestic animals from the beginning - you might call it the family business. But don't get hung up on names, there have always been those who were willing to sell their birthright for three hots and a cot, and there have always been those on the other side of the equation looking to accommodate them.

The great thing about this party is how easy it is to become a member - all you have to do is renounce your desire to be free, and promise to the best of your ability to get others to do the same. The better you are at convincing people to accept the yoke of servitude, the higher you go - sort of Cloward-Piven meets Amway. The hierarchy goes like this - on the top are the president and senior senators and congressmen, next come the sycophantic newspaper and television organisms, tame corporate CEO's, and labor leaders, followed by college professors, then public school teachers and other taxpayer funded worker bees. Finally, on the very bottom, are the organized community of mopes, dopes, mokes, druggies, rummies, lackwits, halfwits, dimwits, and nitwits who do the scutwork in return for any table scraps which might fall their way and a chance that the more enterprising of them can climb the ladder to higher levels.

There is also a political organization which tries to appeal to the third group - in the here and now, that organization is the republican party.

Oh wait, you thought the republicans would naturally try to appeal to the ornery and anti-social? Why?

That category of people isn't very large or well defined. If you are taking the time to read this, you probably fall, more or less, into that group - I would like to believe I do also, and I know regardless of meaningless polls where people self identify as democrats, liberals, conservatives, or republicans, those who want their elected representatives to use government to take wealth from others and give it to them, far outnumber those who want to be left the hell alone.

Along with being more numerous, that third group is more independent - in the same sense a toddler is independent. They weave around randomly, bump into things, fall on their butts, and finally end up in a corner picking their noses and drooling. Figuring out what they want is a hit or miss proposition. Which is why watching the republican party is so frustrating - every toy, game, and snack gets pulled out of the baby bag and waved around while candidates make cooing noises (Does diddums, want a binky, a woobie, an ethanol subsidy?), all in a desperate attempt to hold their attention until the second Tuesday in November.

And the party of treating people like infants must keep that attention focused; there is no room for error. That is because the party of keeping people as pets has massive built in advantages. Hell, the existence of public schools alone means virtually every person in the country gets ideologically sheep-dipped for thirteen years before being released into adulthood. Their constituency is designed to grow, and all they need for victory is to win is some plurality of the toddler cadre.

The republicans, on the other hand need every single one of the votes of people who get distracted by shiny objects; which means their platform, expressed in its simplest terms is, "Don't scare the baby."

Going to the Candidate's Debate

2011-12-18T20:29:00.002-05:00

Welcome to the Mike-istan studios. Tonight, we have a debate between all of the men... umm, men and women... err individual things who will be running for president. Remember, come January 2013 one of these things will take the oath of office and be the most powerful thing on the planet, and incidentally, hold your fate in their appendage.

Only one question: As president, what will you do to return the United States to a constitutional republic with a limited government constrained by narrow, enumerated powers?

Barack Obama: You're kidding right?

Mitt Romney: Nothing.

Newt Gingrich: Drug testing! And lots of police everywhere and I'll arrest judges I don't like and no-knock raids and drug testing for everyone except me.

Ron Paul: Limited government is vital, unless it is controlled by the Jews, because they control everything. Did I mention Jews control my mind? And we don't have to worry about Muslims because they are controlled by Jews.

Michele Bachmann: I'm prettier than Sarah Palin, and my husband can cure the gay.

Rick Perry: I apparently have no idea why Texas is doing so well, and I'll do or not do the same things in Washington plus I've got more Jesus juice than Jesus.

Jon Huntsman: I'm a Mormon with no real principals and good hair - I'm Mitt Romney.

Moderator: Thank you for your time, and I feel sick.

Concord Bridge or Fort Sumter Part IV

2011-12-12T06:00:00.001-05:00

Parts I, II, and III are here for those who wish to play along at home.

A while back, Kevin of Smallest Minority posted his thoughts on the future, and more or less concluded we are doomed and at this late date there is nothing we can do to save ourselves. His commenters split into roughly two camps - the optimistic pessimists who believe nothing is written in stone, and while tough times are coming, there is a solid plurality of citizens who will take a stand for freedom - and the pessimistic pessimists who think the collectivists have bored too deeply into the foundations of the culture and have left it ready to to collapse at the merest touch.

While both opinions have something to recommend them, they are both missing elements which leave us vulnerable to preparing for the wrong kind of trouble - and it is important we do prepare, and we do get it right.

It is vital to hold these conversations because no one person's predictions of the future are going to be completely right; they probably won't be even ten percent right, but as events unfold the parts which are correct will become evident and recognized, and hopefully just in time.

That is the other thing, if you are a genius and have predicted the future ten years out, bless your heart. But that's not me - my goal is not to outrun the future, it's to outrun the other guy.

To the pessimistic pessimists, I would offer the following warning: In our darkest moments we can envision every bad thing we see happening being taken to its logical, evil conclusion - all at once. But that's not how it works. History limps along in fits and starts because of how people are. Even the most diabolical plan is subject to the human element - and often fails because those carrying it out are venal, easily distracted by trivia, and sometimes, shockingly stupid. Hard history is on the way, but make sure you are not barricading the door against jack booted thugs who may not be coming at the expense of weather sealing the windows against a winter which definitely is.

And to the optimistic pessimists, all I can say is remember the fake but accurate Pauline Kael quote about not knowing anyone who voted for Nixon, and do not extrapolate the nature of the world from your own experience. You may be sitting comfortably on the right hand side of the bell curve. Your friends and children may have read Hayak, Burke, and Friedman, but educating people about the nature of society and culture, and then bringing them to an understanding of the need to defend the same is done one on one - it is work for and by individuals. Destroying culture and debasing society is being done on an industrialized basis in Hollywood, and virtually every public school and university, and is far easier to boot. The tearing down of things is always always less difficult than building them up.

I hope there is a path between giving too much credit to our enemies and giving too much credit to ourselves and I hope we are clear minded enough to find it.

Friendly Fire

2011-12-06T06:59:00.002-05:00

A lot of libertarian types have their boxers in a wad from watching the police clear the squatters from the various "occupy" camps - especially the whole pepper spray thing.

When amoral, power lusting, dirtwads like Mike Bloomberg and Antonio Villagarossa send the police to roust a bunch of whiny, collectivist, thumbsuckers who, when they grow up and have the power themselves, will gladly send those same cops to bust the heads of their current class enemies... well, it's kind of like Stalin sending the KGB to suppress the young pioneers.

Far as I can tell, it's blue on blue.

Saving The Strawmen From Further Beatings

2011-11-27T11:00:00.003-05:00

Acairfearann thoughtfully provided the following in response to Part III of my Concord Bridge or Fort Sumter series:

Interesting, but I am not sure about the validity of the statement 'those who don't need to be ruled'. Obviously, there are many people who don't need government as a large bureaucracy. But, the phrase implies to me, and I may be misreading it in which case my apologies, that 'rule' is a negative which has no benefit to the individual. The problem with that is that any sort of cooperative, social action, which is the sort of action that allows the development of human society, requires the community to agree upon rules. And at some point your interpretation of the rule and your friend's interpretation is going to be different. Or for that matter the best way to build the bridge, best place to dig the well, the irrigation channel... And someone is going to have to decide, because constantly flipping a coin to make critical decisions creates an element of risk that tends to discourage activity in the long run.

'Rule' isn't just about negative punishments, it is also about agreed upon standards to create a society, be it neolithic Scotland or 21st century cities.

This is a tired argument and an old argument - I suspect one could find Plato using some form of it to justify the need for philosopher kings. It is an argument claiming the desire of people to be free ultimately leads to a dystopian chaos - Acairfearann has replaced Thunderdome with a coin toss, but the conclusion is the same - life becomes nasty, brutish, and short. It is an argument which cannot be refuted often enough or strongly enough.

What prompted my response however, were the examples of the kinds of rules Acairfearann fears would be lost in the inevitable anarchy. After over a quarter century in the field of civil engineering, I am familiar with regulations regarding bridges, ditches, and wells - both the rules themselves and the reasoning behind them, and Acairfearann's reasoning is exactly backwards - these standards are both the cause and result of people's desire to be free. The threat to the stability provided by these agreed upon standards comes not from those who do not need to be ruled, but from those who must rule.

Even the most cursory investigation of state, county, and local building, and development codes reveals some general themes:

First, those who administer and enforce them generally understand they are providing a service contracted by, and paid for by the citizens of their jurisdiction. When I call requesting information, whether from a local building inspector or county engineer, they call me back, send me copies of the records I request, or direct me to someone who can answer my questions. In short, they act as stakeholders who realize my work creates value, and thus, they also benefit from facilitating rather than hindering that work.

Secondly, local design and development codes represent hard earned knowledge. They are examples of “small e" empiricism and it is probably not too much of a stretch to say every item in the regulations represents a lesson learned from a flooded property, collapsed house, or a person sick, injured, or dead.

Additionally, the more local the authority, the less opportunity for rent seeking. There may be requirements for how far from the property line a house can be built, but nothing which says only Joe's Surveying Company has the magical measuring devices to tell if a building is conforming to code.

Further, the real consequences of violating the rules far outweigh the statutory consequences. If you construct your well too close to your septic system, you will be subject to fines, or the cost of moving one or the other. But these burdens are nothing compared to the impact on your health.

Finally, all of the above presume competence. The local officials and staff who administer the various agencies take for granted the people they deal with are capable of reading, understanding, and complying with the regulations. Plans are reviewed beforehand, and projects inspected afterwards on the assumption the work was performed in good faith and any problems can be discovered and fixed.

Acairfearann, the people responsible for enforcing the standards of the locality where you dwell consider you competent to arrange for building a home, excavating an irrigation channel, and for all I know, constructing a skyscraper, but do you know what you are not competent to do?

Buy light bulbs.

That is not my opinion - I'll bet you could manage it, and everyone in your town probably thinks so too, but the good people at the U.S. Department of Energy believe that given the choice of what kind of light bulbs to buy, you'll blow it, and they have the power to make you only buy what they approve.

Oh, and by federal statute, you are utterly incapable of deciding how much water your toilet should use when you flush it.

And, of course you do not have the faintest clue of what you should eat. Why, if left to your own devices you would shove any old thing into your mouth.

Actually, that last one is kind of interesting. Apparently California law enforcement, with the support of the Food and Drug Administration, raided a store which was selling people who wanted it, raw milk. It was originally reported to be a SWAT operation, but further reporting confirmed it was only a run of the mill; police kick the door in and arrest everyone inside, kind of raid. And I am also certain if someone in the store had twitched at the wrong time, they would have shot to death in an entirely different way than a SWAT team would have done it.

On the other hand, it does show there are people who, when they reach a certain level of authority, acquire a "do it my way, or I'll send men with guns to your house" attitude.

There is a Gresham's Law of laws - bad laws drive out good. Once people who we do not know, cannot reason with, and who do not care whether we live or die, have taken over our lives and the decisions which used to be ours alone to make, we are loath to surrender the remaining scraps of freedom do anyone even if they be our neighbors and no matter the potential benefit.

Acairfearann, do not take counsel of your fears. Not needing to be ruled is not the same as not wanting rules and people's desire to be free enables rather than inhibits the development of stable prosperous societies. And know this: if you are reluctant to allow yourself and your neighbors to make what decisions you deem proper and necessary, there are people with guns who will gladly take that burden from you, but good luck getting it back once it has been surrendered.

Concord Bridge or Fort Sumter Part III

2011-11-20T08:46:00.002-05:00

Part I of my attempt to bring some order to my thoughts about politics and human nature is here, and Part II is here.

At the end of Part II, commenter Fast Richard raised an interesting point:

A civil war would only incidentally involve conflict between the government and the citizens. The primary conflict would be between factions of the citizenry. You present arguments which are substantially similar to what I have heard recently from the leftists of the occupy mobs. I suspect that the desired final state of society might be different.

He sees a three-sided conflict: more or less right versus left, with the government standing by as spectator/referee.

First, I think all internal conflict is always between citizens. The Bonus Army were citizens, and so were the soldiers who drove them out of Washington. The same for the New York Police and the occupy Wall Street protestors, and for that matter, the people on both sides of the fence at Waco were citizens.

I think it is a mistake to think of government as an entity in itself. Better to think of it as simply the means by which one group of citizens accomplishes its ends.

That is why I like the terms "those who must rule", and those "who don't need to be ruled" - they clear away the ideological baggage and let us get down to cases.

Assuming you are not self-employed, you have a boss who tells you what to do and holds your paycheck over your head to make you do it. Tough though that circumstance may be, you can always quit, and then if your boss kicks in your door at three a.m. to make you finish that project you left undone, you can kick him right back out. No more paycheck; no more work.

That kind of relationship is anathema to those who must rule. Take Elizabeth Warren for example. I don't have any specific brief against her, she is interchangeable with thousands of other brilliant, hard working, accomplished, professors emeritus of something or other, chairs of the president's council of what all and whatnot, and judging from her speeches, someone with a pathological need to rule. She is better than you, smarter than you, and knows what you need to be made to do for your own good. And when her need to rule results in your door being kicked open at three a.m., it is not going to be Liz Warren coming in, it's going to be people who don't take no for an answer - good luck kicking them back out.

As far as mine and the occupy folk's arguments being substantially similar: At its core, mine is that those who must rule are running out of other people's money and are going to use every means of government to squeeze the rest of us for what they need. While the people of Zuccotti Park believe that those who must rule are running out of other people's money and should use every means of government to squeeze the rest of us for what they need. That one word makes a big difference.

I suppose you could say the beliefs of those who must rule and those who do not need to be ruled are substantially similar - the same way you and the guy pointing the gun at you and demanding your wallet have a lot in common - both of you participating in an armed robbery and all.

Obligation

2011-11-16T07:40:00.001-05:00

In the process of writing this post, I said to myself, "Damn Mike, those are some pretty strong words for a chubby guy in a recliner. Maybe you should tone is down some."

When my reason, such as it is, leads me to a conclusion, and that conclusion is disturbing, I turn around, walk back and try again. If my best attempts still lead me to the same conclusion no matter what direction I come at the problem from, I write it.

Besides, I thought, who except me is ever going to read this stuff? It is not like reactivating a dormant blog so I have someplace to put the things which have been bottled up inside me for the past two years is even going to create a ripple on the surface of the internet.

So, along comes Tam and links to my post - thank you Tam.

With the attention came comments from good and honorable people who felt I was selling them short. Since the commenters took pains to point out they were on the side of the angels, and since I would like to be counted on that side as well, I am obligated to respond as clearly and honestly as I know how.

One comment mentions Oathkeepers, and they were in the back of my mind as the exception to my conclusion that all but a small percentage of those who do the day-to-day work of governing long ago decided they serve not the republic, but whoever signs their paycheck. I cannot guess what role the Oathkeepers and those like them will play in the coming years. But simply saying out loud that they intend to honor the promise they made when they put on the uniform causes enemies of liberty to explode in rage, and thus self identify. That means they are doing good right here and now.

And, I hope the commenters are right and I am wrong. I hope I am just some internet blabbermouth, and when the time comes, the country's public servants, and not just those in uniform, will take a stand on the side of people they serve and not their paymasters. I can live with knowing I am just a loud mouthed jerk with a computer, because that will mean all sorts of other, darker consequences will not have come to pass.

But I don't think so. I think my conclusion still stands.

Read this article from the New York Times. There is enough in a few column inches to make any decent person ill. If the picture accompanying is no longer linked to the article, here is the caption:

Hundreds of off-duty officers gathered on Friday at the Bronx County Hall of Justice, backing 16 colleagues in a ticket-fixing case.

And, if you can no longer see it, the protesting police are carrying signs reading "Just Following Orders".

Just Following Orders?

Dear God.

Looking at the picture I can imagine I am seeing, fathers, husbands, little league coaches, and church goers. I know I am also seeing men who participated in the establishment of a feudal fiefdom.

I can think of no other term for it. The rulers of the city and their servants granted one another exemptions from the laws they enforced on the lower orders. You might call it privilege of rank, or benefit of clergy, but it is feudalism in its purest form. The police provided service for those above in return for their protection. Read closely and you see their anger is directed at those above who violated the oath of fealty - one of their own estate, a prosecutor, betrayed them.

Do you think they made their choice just that day? That the sight of their comrades being arrested turned them from honorable men to thugs in one moment? Nothing I know of history and human nature tells me that is how it works. Their choice was made in bits and pieces over time - theirs was a hand dealt years ago, and the day the picture was taken was merely the day they turned their cards over.

In New York, hundreds of police came out at the request of their union to protest what they believed to be a stab in the back by someone on their own side - if there were any who had second thoughts about the justness of their cause - I could not see them.

If a real crisis hits, and I believe it will - I believe we are heading for a convulsive time, and the mayor, police commissioner, and police chief need the support of the rank and file, do you think they will hesitate to reinstate old privileges in return for that support?

The question will not be who do you serve, it will be what is your price?

Not just in New York, but in bankrupt cities and states everywhere, the consequences of decades old decisions are going to be played out. And it won't be just the police who will be revealing the choices they made, every person who is paid from the public treasury will be laying their cards on the table.

Republics fail the same way people go bankrupt - slowly at first, then all at once. I do not pretend to know where we are on that continuum, but I know when those who must rule need to ensure the loyalty of those who carry out their will, a man in a black uniform with a deaths-head badge is a lot less effective than an accountant asking if you would like to keep your pension.

Concord Bridge or Fort Sumter Part II

2011-11-11T16:00:00.005-05:00

Part I of my attempt to bring some order to my thoughts about politics and human nature is here.

Things which are unsustainable obviously will not be sustained, and the current political order in the United States is unsustainable. It is difficult not to see in today's heated rhetoric and occasional violence - though mild compared to what has happened in other places - the first breezes heralding the approaching storm.

In my previous entry, I attempted to define the opposing world views which make the conflict inevitable. I described them not as liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, or red or blue - these are meaningless labels - the modern equivalent of Guelph and Ghibelline . The next civil war will be between those who must rule, and those who have little need for rulers, and it will not flare into violence until the latter change into those who will not be ruled.

I use the term civil war simply to refer to a conflict between people who are citizens of the same country, so banish thoughts of Pickett's Charge, and Sherman's March - it will not be that kind of civil war.

The reason it won't be, is not because those who must rule are enlightened and wouldn't think of launching a scorched earth offensive through the cities and neighborhoods of those who defy them. It has happened before in this country, and it would be folly to believe the police, national guard, regular military and all the others who draw a paycheck from the state would refuse orders to make war on their fellow citizens. I would like to believe that would be the case, but the still standing chimneys of the long gone homes which once stood between Atlanta and Savannah argue against a naive trust on the better angels of human nature.

Money is the reason the conflict will not resemble that of 1861-1865. That war was mostly fought on credit, and the federal government's credit was good enough that it could issue debt to finance its efforts - even the the confederate states could, until the last days of the conflict, still purchase weapons and material on loans mortgaged against their future cotton production.

This is not the case today. Even though U.S. debt still has some value, that value would evaporate if the already nearly bankrupt federal government were to try to finance a fight against a rebellion. If you think the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were expensive, imagine the cost of those same kind of operations covering the continental U.S.

But just as the central government does not have the wherewithal to mount a continent-wide counter insurgency; no other group has the wherewithal to mount a threat which would require it. With all due respect to constitutional militia groups, while I do think citizen militia will have an increasingly important role in the coming decades, that role will not be as the thin line of resistance standing athwart the path of some statist behemoth which has finally crossed into tyranny.

You may say a government whose employees stick their hands up ladies skirts before letting them board airplanes, and supplies weapons to the vilest gangsters in the hemisphere so it can use the resulting carnage as a justification to curtail our rights at home, has already become tyrannical - and I agree with you, but do the people who live up and down your street also agree?

Doubtful.

No, make that extremely doubtful. Here in Ohio we just had an election where the biggest issue was a referendum on repealing a pension reform package which would have just slightly slowed the gravy train for public employees. The public sector unions and their allies spent thirty million dollars to convince voters that asking state employees to contribute a few percent of their pay to fund their otherwise completely tax financed salary, benefit, and retirement packages, would leave the police helpless to stop crime, the fire departments without water, and death and destruction just around the corner. The rubes bought it and repealed the reforms by a two to one margin. So no, to the vast majority of our countrymen the idea that friendly Mr. Policeman and brave Mr. Firemen, and selfless Mrs. Teacher could ever be agents of a despotic government would be an absurdity.

But the cost of those pay and benefit obligations has been going steadily up, while the revenue required to cover them has gone down. Those who must rule have established a regime where the support of half of the population is purchased by plundering and then distributing the wealth of the other half. The problem is the money is running out.

Even if those who must rule suddenly realize the trap they are in, do you think their allies - the ones who supported them, collected the taxes for them, distributed propaganda for them, enforced the laws for them, and depended on their largess for daily bread, will also just walk away saying, "No pension for me, I guess I backed the wrong horse." I can't think of a metaphor to illustrate the minuscule chance of that happening.

Mr. Vanderboegh has said that law enforcement officers must "Choose This Day Whom You Will Serve". It is important that the question be publicly put to those we trust to enforce the law, but I believe it contains within itself its own negation - the "This Day" part. All but a small percentage of police and for that matter, everyone who draws a paycheck from the state, made their choice years or decades ago - they chose the cause of their paymaster.

Bust the Joint Out

2011-11-09T06:26:00.002-05:00

It was not unexpected. The Ohio voters decided it was an offer they couldn't refuse. Now, the inevitable consequences will start to accrue. Our electorate has decided "Fuck You Pay Me" sounds good.

It is a matter of morbid curiosity for me what the "Bust the Joint Out" phase will entail.

Concord Bridge or Fort Sumter Part I

2011-11-07T19:10:00.001-05:00

Joe Huffman used for a recent quote of the day a bit from Mike Vanderboegh's post titled "Choose This Day Whom you Will Serve".

Mr. Vanderboegh posits and Mr. Huffman concurs that hard times are on the horizon, and America's law enforcement officers will be forced to pick sides. Additionally, both men, after their own fashion, warn that the police will not have an easy time of it should they choose unwisely.

Fair enough. Mr. Vanderboegh and Mr. Huffman are serious men, and are not given to bravado, and when they warn of approaching storms, we had best take heed.

But take heed of what? It is one thing to tell someone they will soon have to choose sides in a conflict and warn them of the consequences of choosing the wrong side, but that leaves some questions unanswered: What will the sides be? What kind of conflict will it be? And what will the consequences be?

What side has both Joe Huffman and Mike Vanderbeogh (and for that matter... me) on it?

You could call it the freedom lover's side, but that is a little imprecise - everyone, including drunks, addicts, perverts, and thieves loves freedom, so that won't do at all. As a flag of convenience, let’s call our side the written word side. We believe the rules by which the government must abide are written down in words; the words have meaning; the rules may be changed by consent, but words can never be arbitrarily made to mean their opposite. It is the side which believes the good of having the government prohibited from doing harm far outweighs the harm of having it obstructed from doing good. It is the side which believes in putting the government on a tight leash and never letting it loose.

The other side is less abstract, They are the elected officials, appointed bureaucrats, and the tenured university elite. In medieval history, they were the first and second estates - the aristocracy and the church. Circling them are an army of functionaries, purveyors, and petty officials, all hoping and hungry that some bit of power and legitimacy will flow downhill and accrue to them by their association with the ruling class.

The nobility may fight among themselves, we call these fights elections, history books call them dynastic wars, and while kings and popes may have struggled endlessly for power and prestige, on the issue of keeping the peasants firmly in place, they were of one mind.

Our side believes words must not be permitted to change meaning, so that regardless of innovations, technological revolutions, and social evolutions, each generation will know what the previous meant and thought.

The other side believes meanings must be divorced from words so that mere logical consistency will not impede the establishment of a static social order where their position on top is secured. The courtiers at Versailles constantly invented new dances, conversational tropes, and social rituals to act as barriers to entry and badges of status - what was new yesterday is outdated today, and if you can't keep up - back to the farm with you. The same is true today - ask anyone who has fallen afoul of a university speech code. Political correctness is a means of keeping the lower orders in their place. Use the wrong word, criticize the wrong politician, or hire the wrong person, and you will be dragged down.

The conflict between the two sides arises then as a natural result of who they are, and what they believe. It is an existential battle between those who are driven to rule over others, and those content to rule only themselves. Many in our current version of the first and second estates understand explicitly, and all understand at least implicitly, that it is meaningless to be a ruler without subjects - and no subjects may be had, if people are free to simply walk away and rule themselves.

The constitution was originally conceived to act as an impediment on the ambitions of neo-monarchists. The founders understood it was the natural tendency for some people to look for kings, and the natural tendency for others to cast themselves in that role. But freedom is a mechanism which requires constant vigilance, and those who wished to be kings encouraged those who feared living without rulers to attack the very idea of that vigilance.

Argue that divorcing words from their meanings is a deadly philosophy, and the best you can hope for is blank stares. Not many care, and many others actually approve of the fact that promoting the general welfare stopped meaning protecting citizen's livelihoods and now means redistributing wealth; regulating interstate commerce stopped meaning enabling trade, and now means an invitation to rent seeking; and that enumerated powers metastasized into a stack of regulations, enacted without the consent of the people, and used as a bludgeon to keep the populace in line.

The conflict then, is between one side which must... MUST rule over others, and another which cannot understand why anyone would want to.

Two Cheers

2011-10-30T10:00:00.015-04:00

I was at a party a while back, and the subject of libertarianism came up. Considering the makeup of the crowd, the opinion of the topic was one of almost universal approval.

Normally, I save my political rantings for more intimate venues (my wife gets to hear a lot of them - sorry honey), but I'd had a few drinks, and couldn't stop myself from playing devil's advocate.

The problem is, libertarianism is completely correct. Yep, the the whole program, liberty, personal responsibility, voluntary association - its entire intellectual foundation is logically and morally consistent, so there is almost no chance it will ever be anything but a fringe movement.

Imagine a modern person transported back to fifteenth century Germany - arriving in a large field where the townsfolk are dragging an old lady to the stake to be burned for a witch.

"Wait!" Screams our hero, "There is no such thing as a witch. This woman is innocent. Your crops failed and your cows went dry from completely natural causes, and you should look for those instead of engaging in this useless behavior."

"Further," continues the visitor from the future, "Even if this poor old lady believed herself to be a witch, even if she went out on the night of the full moon, danced naked and offered her soul to Satan in return for earthly power, even if she went about casting curses on your fields and cattle, it only means she is as deluded as you. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WITCH! Now stop this nonsense and find the real cause of your problems."

It makes no difference that everything he says is true - factual, absolutely, mind-of god true. The mob will grab him and toss him in to burn with the witch.

It is an iron rule: Denying the existence of witches means you are one.

But, you say, those are ignorant peasants; us modern folk would never fall victim to base superstition.

Oh, yeah? Try the same kind of speech as above in Zuccotti Park, but substitute bankers for witches as the authors of all the world's ills, and see what you get - hopefully not burned at the stake, but don't bet the house on it.

Hyperbole? We have just left a century where cynical men directed the rage of the masses against Jews, capitalists, hoarders, wreckers, polluters of racial purity, and other imagined enemies. The result was a pyramid of a hundred million skulls. The context may have been different, but the unbroken chain connecting those atrocities to the witch hunts of the distant past was the eagerness of people to throw their neighbors onto the pyre.

So, to all you Free-Staters, Reason Magazine readers, and Cato Institute supporters, I am with you sixty six and sixty seven one hundredths percent, but remember, the vast majority of our species wants, needs, and seeks witches to burn - because witch hunts are less terrifying than freedom.

I Withdraw My Consent

2011-10-27T07:40:00.012-04:00

The president's executive order on student debt forgiveness is making all of the expected waves. It is a virtually empty gesture which will benefit the recipients little, and cost the taxpayers more, not a great deal more, but something more.

It is enlightening that an obviously cynical attempt to buy the votes of what is, considering the amount of debt they have accrued in return for virtually nothing - the country's stupidest demographic, has generated so much heat.

Read enough history though, and you realize that it is frequently the small things which act as the spark that ignites the blaze. That is why the first signals of great events are often missed by those doomed to suffer the consequences of those events.

The arrogant are attuned to the grandiose - if it is not a war, riot, flood, or some other world changing occurrence - if they are not central to the story, it simply doesn't matter.

Down here at worm level however, we aren't equipped to deal with the enormous. We are too busy navigating daily life to devote the effort to understand a trillion of anything, a debt crisis spanning a continent, or a meltdown in the real estate market. And even if we skipped changing the oil to spend time learning to read a balance sheet, it's not like there would be much we could do about it anyway.

Consequently, it is the more trivial abuses which weigh on the mind - a half billion in chump change to bail out a company whose CEO is a big democrat donor, a justice department raid on a business whose owner is too outspoken against the party, a little message coordination from the white house to the media to make sure they are all on the same page when it's time to slander the decent people who publicly protest the latest outrage - the steady, daily accumulation of insults which must go unanswered due to life's other commitments.

So, in response to Obama's latest, almost offhanded, bit of machine politics, I have an inconsequential reply.

I withdraw my consent. This is not my government, and the man sitting in the oval office is not my president - he is a tribal leader who has chosen to treat half the people of the country as enemies to be plundered to provide largess for his followers.

I know my withdrawal of consent changes nothing. I know that if I offer any meaningful resistance to the rulers of this country they will not hesitate to use force to compel me to bend my knee. I know our aristocracy sees me as less than dirt and views what meager wealth I have as a resource to exploit for their own benefit. I know they would not hesitate to take the food from my family's mouth and leave us to starve so that their dogs might eat. And I know they consider all these things to be right and just and proper because I am not of their tribe.

I know all these things; I am not stupid.

My withdrawal of consent changes nothing - almost nothing. It changes me, and I am not stupid. If I realize these things, so must others, and hopefully many others, and perhaps those who think of themselves as rightfully our rulers will be so fixated on the grand events of their making, they won't notice the crowd behind them until it is too late.

When Ignorance is Bliss

2011-10-22T12:56:00.007-04:00

Saw Breda's link to the story about the Occupy Folk and their problems organizing a society. At first of course, I laughed at their dilemma. Who wouldn't? But then I realized theirs is the problem of every age. And at the risk of sounding faux-philosophical, we all struggle to come up with a framework to explain the world we live in.

It is no small task - the consequences of where to live, where to work, whether to have children, and every other decision, accrue from our ability to establish a reasonably accurate mental map of our world. Nobody wants to be the one who spent a lifetime learning to captain a whaling ship - just as the world switched to gaslight.

The protestors are in that position. To judge by the number of them who demand student loan forgiveness, these spiritual descendents of the campus radicals of the sixties have gone deeply into debt to buy the magic beans offered by the education industry. But, where their forebears were at least exposed to the greatness of western intellectual achievement before consciously deciding to piss it all away, these poor fools have been steeped in nothing but empty platitudes tarted up as learning. This leaves them with nothing - they may reject the rejection-ism they have been indoctrinated with, but that is not the same as creating. Old ways of thinking cannot be abandoned if there are no alternatives available.

This is a generation which has been led into the wilderness and abandoned - I pity them and I fear for them.

You Know The Guy

2010-01-08T22:45:00.004-05:00

He's your supervisor. The control freak bully who tells you about the big project coming up, then puts off every decision about the scope and goals of said project. He doesn't reply to your emails, goes on vacation and can't be reached when you need answers, and loads you down with trivia instead of helping you clear your desk for the heavy workload you know is coming.

And finally, when the phone book sized proposal finally drops on your desk - months after it was promised - he has the gall to tell you the deadline has been moved up and it must be completed next week.

You know you're being set up, and there is an epic disaster fast approaching. You know when the hammer falls, your leader will be smirking and pointing the finger at you, and the itching you're feeling between your shoulder blades marks the spot where the knife is going to be.

What you can't figure out is if he is too stupid to see what is going to happen, or a sadist sacrificing the greater good for the evil pleasure of seeing someone crushed, or a just lunatic who fantasizes you are an enemy to be destroyed and damn the consequences.

This foul pustule now has a name... Commander in Chief.

I didn't think is was possible to hold this wart on the nation's ass in greater contempt.

I was wrong.

I have been trying...

2010-01-06T18:49:00.004-05:00

... for a long time to try and get a handle not on what leftists believe - that's not really a problem - they will tell you what they believe until you are ready to stick a soldering iron in your ears just so your screaming can drown out their ceaseless blathering. And not on why they believe what they do - spend time with any four year old, and you will understand an unshakable belief in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth Fairy is their default position. In fact, one could say the path to adulthood is is marked by the slow erosion of fantasy, and its replacement by something approaching reality.

No, what I have been unable to grasp is how an adult can cling, in the face of obvious and irrefutable evidence, to the utterly irrational leftist orthodoxy which prevails on every subject from economics to guns to global warming. It has always stumped me.

And then I found this...

It is not a perfect answer, but it does help with the problem of perspective - and that is a start.

Sometimes I Could Just Weep

2010-01-05T15:42:00.011-05:00

Over the past year, I have been discovering a little bit how they must have felt during the Stalin era:

Every day you are confronted with stark evidence the country is falling apart around you, and every day, some apparatchik stands up and says, "Glorious news comrades. The wheat harvest is five times larger (larger than what, they never say), unemployment is non-existent, and all that is keeping us from achieving world-wide socialist revolution are a few filthy reactionary wreckers and hoarders!"

After a while, it's just too much effort to dig the accumulated bullshit out of your ears, and you stop fighting against the never ending tide of people who insist you can shine your shoes with fertilizer and the great plains are a perfect place for hydro-electric dams.

People like Michael Bennet (asshole-Colorado):

... Sen. Michael Bennet says it will take new investments in education, energy and small businesses for America to fully recover from its economic slump.

In a discussion Sunday with about 30 people from southwest Colorado, the Denver Democrat said the American economy is still too reliant on consumption

Yes, we have been wasteful - what with spending our money on ourselves, and you know... consuming things. Because an economy based on consumption does horrible consumptive things like pumping oil out of the ground and consuming it instead of leaving it in place to accumulate interest. And steel. Us horrible consumers have spent years turning it into cars and washing machines - melting those pristine ingots into stuff we are just going to use up. Oh the suffering this has caused for the steel producers - just when they get a pile of steel made, a bunch of grubby consumers show up, buy it from them and make things with it, and they have to start all over again. Why, its like some kind of scam.

We must dedicate ourselves anew to making nothing, using nothing, building nothing - just like our pioneer forefathers did when they didn't build this country. Only that way will we save enough to...

...to make this democracy deliver on these big ideas like the new energy ideas we're talking about—and how you base an economy that is not only based on consumption and spending but also savings and investment

Savings and investment are great because when you save and invest you aren't spending which is bad because that is another word for consuming. So that cash you were going to waste on groceries? Don't. Save or invest it - that way when you need it, you'll be dead. Which is a double-good thing because dead people don't consume stuff.

Michael Bennet must have an Ivy League degree. You can't get this kind of retarded from a State U. Let's just check Wikipedia for his C.V. shall we? He worked for Dick Celeste? As a proud Ohioan, all I can say is - Colorado, you are welcome to every bit of this tool.

I don't feel sick at all, so rest easy comrades, the last line of the article threatens he'll be back at work in the senate on January 19th.

Oh joy.

Easy There...

2009-12-28T09:08:00.005-05:00

A lot of people seem to be upset that Barbar is soaking up the tropical sun while the nation collapses. But having worked in places where having the boss out of the office is considered something of a vacation for those left behind, let me be the first to say I'll donate a couple of bucks to keep the sonovabitch in Hawaii for the next three years.

Big Thought Saturday

2009-11-07T11:59:00.005-05:00

Occasionally, one of the voices of importance will say in effect, "We are going to have to accept the fact of our own decline. We must accustom ourselves to returning to being just one nation of many. We couldn't expect to be on top forever."

Is the American era ending?

Beats me.

But I can imagine some Roman Bigwig around the middle of fourth century saying the same things about the empire.

He was right, as in his prophecy proved correct.

Paradoxically, the words he used were wrong.

He should have said, "Pretty soon here, people will be coming to kick in your door, take your stuff, and burn your house. And we won't be able to stop them."
I wonder if he had said that, would the Romans have been more motivated to stand up for the idea of Rome? Or, had the men kicking in doors and taking stuff been their own government officials so long, that the people didn't see much difference between the new plunderers and the old?

Oh, by the way did you see the news?

Enough of this sort of thing and sharia law might start looking good to someone who just wants a little peace and quiet.

What's In The Box?

2009-11-06T08:35:00.021-05:00

Let's play a game called "What's in the box?" It works like this - imagine a box (duh... why do you think we named it that you big silly), inside is either: 1. A pile of gold coins; or 2. An angry venomous snake.

You play this game by reaching in and grabbing... wait for it... WHAT'S IN THE BOX. Amusing, no?

It's a good game for cutting through pretense and revealing what people are really like.

Some folks won't play no matter how much they stand to gain - the fear of being bitten outweighs any possible benefit.

Some will say, "Gold? I'm going to get me some of that!" shove their arm into the box, and start grabbing around.

Others, will balance the risks against the rewards: How much gold? What kind of snake? What are the odds, what are my chances? They may end up bitten, but at least are making a stab at critical thought.

Note the symmetry - two ends and a middle in a neat package. This represents the world we deal with. Motivations are, if not entirely rational, at least understandable.

But there is a type of person who does not reside on this continuum. They can watch you put a snake in the box, shake it up to get the critter good and irritated, and even write "Warning! Live Angry Poisonous Snake Inside!" and still they will reach in the box. They act as though they believe the snake will be turned to gold by the force of their will; that the world is what they say it is.

Admittedly, it seems to work out that way often enough that people will start believing it is true. Bernie Madoff appeared able to turn snakes into gold... for a time.

For the non-continuum people, I don't think it's a question of gain or loss, but of control. They must prove the universe conforms to them, and not the other way around. It's not about the gold; it's about the winning. All challenges are personal, and none are small. There is no difference between a coin flip for a dinner check and a world war.

They are Kieth Olbermann.

After watching this video, I was puzzled because I've been to a couple of tea parties, and from what I can tell, this is pretty much the identical group of people. There are Ayn Rand fans, Ron Paul Fans, Sarah Palin Fans, and a large contingent of "never protested anything in my life, but there is a trainwreck coming, and I want it stopped" fans. But if there were any racists present, they kept it well hidden. If you were to poll these people, you'd probably find they disagree on more issues than they agree on, but what they agree on outweighs minor quibbles about gay marriage, guns, and Iraq. What they agree on is stopping the trainwreck.

Over there on the continuum, the smart (at least smartish) members of the political class are watching and trying, bless their hearts, to figure out... What's In The Box. The democrats are hoping it's something that won't hurt them; the republicans are hoping it's something that will help them, and they're all hoping they aren't the one who gets pushed into the cellar with the candelabra and shovel to see what the noise is.

But Olbermann has decided the box is full of racists and hate mongers. Has to be - he has said so. By sheer force of will he's turned gold into snakes. He has a cable talk show, and the ear of The Ones Who Matter, and fans, and so on and on. The protesters are racists. Q.E.D.

Should you fall into one or the other of our broad political groups, you should be used to name calling (you commie, nazi, dimmocrat, republithug knuckle dragger). However, for those who are politically active for the first time, being reviled and, not always figuratively, spat upon, is probably a new experience. "Hi, I'm Kieth, and I'll be spitting on you this evening, we have a lovely little vitriol - a '72 I believe - goes with everything, and also some bile if you are in the mood. For dessert the chef his whipped up a little sneering condescension ."

Olbermann is not alone in turning gold into snakes. Similarly blessed are: the Washington Post, New York Times, the Speaker of the House, and the president along with his advisers.

In a democracy, a politician's future depends on finding and winning a constituency. And when one presents itself, giftwrapped in a box, a wise politician will at least make a pretense of listening to them. Hell, even an angry crowd is a crowd, and every politician needs crowd. Winning the crowd is how you stay in office - It's kind of expected.

Maybe, "win the crowd" means something different to non-continuum people. Maybe to them, it means, "In the next appropriations bill, we'll write an earmark for some bike path improvements, and a library." It is a time tested tactic for winning over even the crankiest voters. I'll bet Mr. and Mrs. Teaparty will go right home and shut up once they see the nifty new bike path they have been gifted. It really isn't a bad bet if you are the one doing the handing out. And has the added plus of letting you avoid mingling with, well frankly, the commoners.

The current crew in charge must figure, having once turned gold into snakes, the reverse is just as easy, and come next election, they are going to reach into that box and pull out handfuls of gold.

They think it's guaranteed.

2009-11-04T21:01:00.005-05:00

About last night...

I haven't see this mentioned explicitly, but the next big fear for the Democrats is if things improve economically in Va. and N.J. - an alternative to their plans will have been shown to work.

Now, honesty compels me to admit the economy might improve on its own - the business cycle is hard to repress - even by our current ham-handed-dolts-in-charge.

But people being what they are - firmly convinced post hoc ergo propter hoc, the new governors in those states will get the credit anyway, and the dems know it.

They are trapped into wishing ill on the citizens of New Jersey and Virginia to advance their own (never let a good crisis go to waste) agenda.

Would a Chicago lawyer and product of the Cook County Democratic machine be so low as to try to sabotage any recovery in those states to punish them for voting wrong?

I'd like to think not. But people being what they are, it should be watched for nonetheless.

As I recall, no one believed a king would order the death of an archbishop.

Um... except for the guys who did the cutting -- I guess they believed it.

But that type of sycophantic follower never ends up near the seat of power anymore, because only kings and czars , not presidents, have any use for blindly obedient hatchet men.

Uh-huh.

Jumping For Joy

2009-10-30T12:04:00.007-04:00

Hey! The economy grew at a blistering 3.5% last quarter. Pop the corks kids 'cuz were in high cotton. What ... are you just sitting there? Get up offyerbutt and go out and spend your windfall.

But, before you do, let's try a little thought experiment.

Suppose you had two thousand dollars in the bank. "Yay," you say, "I've got two large to cover my expenses until next payday."

Now suppose some scoundrel broke in and swiped a thousand of your dollars. "Boo-hoo-hoo," you say, "half my savings have just disappeared."

Further suppose your spouse went out and charged a hundred dollars worth of clothes on the old MasterCard, went directly to the pawn shop, resold them for fifty, and deposited that money in the bank giving you now a thousand and fifty smackers.

Would you...

A. Dance about yelling, "Woot, woot, my personal economy grew at a rate of five percent, I'll make up for that stolen dough in no time!"

or...

B. Be very sad because, not only are you out a thousand dollars, you are also an additional hundred dollars (at 20% interest) in the hole and don't even have any new clothes to wear to bankruptcy court.

I do not know which terrifies me more, the thought that our overlords think we are stupid enough to believe a single quarter of borrowed-money-fueled GDP increase is good news, or that they might believe it themselves.

2009-04-09T12:25:00.004-04:00

Mr. Beck writes that the new U.N. proposals for controlling small arms make for some interesting reading.

I like this sort of thing because it lends it self easily to the game of "Internet Compare And Contrast".

From the report, comes a glowing review of the wonderful work they are doing in South Africa:

The Firearms Control Act (FCA) of 2000 replaced earlier apartheid-era regulations covering civilians and state arms holders. The parliamentary committee was directed to ‘produce progressive policy proposals which will contribute to a drastic reduction in the number of legal firearms in circulation in South Africa.’ Under the new law, civilian owners must be, among other things:
• a South African citizen or a permanent resident;
• be 21 years or older (previously the minimum age had been 16);
• a ‘fit and proper person’;
• of a stable mental condition and not inclined towards violence;
• not addicted to drugs or alcohol;
• not convicted of a violent crime within the past five years;
• in possession of an appropriate firearm safe; and
• in possession of a competency certificate.
To obtain the competency certificate, applicants must demonstrate knowledge of the gun laws
and demonstrate safe handling. The process also includes a background check and may include
interviews with intimate partners and/or neighbours. An individual may possess a maximum of
four licenses, with only one designed for self-defence. Licenses must be renewed on a regular
basis (every five years for self-defence guns, ten years for sports shooting, ten years for a private collection, two years for a business license and ten years for hunting licenses). The law also prohibits owners from lending his or her firearm to another person unless the borrower is ‘under his/her immediate supervision where it is safe to use the firearm and for a lawful purpose’. All of these regulations apply to civilians, private security officers, police and security force users.

So how is it working out? The magic Google eight ball finds a Sept. 2008 article from the Economist containing this nugget:

Police figures put the murder rate in 2007-08 at more than 38 per 100,000 and rape at more than 75 per 100,000. This marks a big fall over the past several years, but is still astronomical by international standards (the murder rate was 5.6 per 100,000 in the United States last year).

Gun free paradise to be sure.

It may be a stretch. But what the heck, I'll go out on a limb here: I don't think all the caring, sharing, morally progressive types who write this stuff for the United Nations give a rat's patoot about diminishing suffering; I think they are more interested in shoving their agenda down the world's throat so they can sit around telling each other how caring, sharing, morally progressive they are.

I wonder what the people who do the real work of helping those in need could do with the money that went into writing, researching, and distributing this report.

Doctor, it hurts when I...

2009-04-02T11:52:00.005-04:00

You read a lot of these types of stories, and you can almost fill in the blanks after the first sentence. The basic template of the piece is... After repeatedly hitting himself on the head with a hammer, Mr. Johnson couldn't understand the reason for his headache.

Here is a clue for Michigan, Ohio, California, New York, New Jersey, and every other state in need of, as French and Wilkinson write...

young, well-educated high-income earners -- ... the people the state desperately needs to rebuild.

... if you desperately need someone, don't treat them like a cash cow to be milked to pay for political goodies given out to buy the votes of the old, ignorant, low-wage earners who make up your political base. It's not that complicated; it's just hard for politicians to accept.

If it weren't so sad, I would laugh at the sheer pig-ignorant lunkheadedness of this...

Michigan's exodus is one of the state's best known but least understood problems. Long ignored or downplayed, outmigration has been shrugged off partly because it was assumed that those who were leaving were unemployed blue-collar workers and retirees, groups that, in economic terms, don't cripple the state with their departure.

Least understood by whom? Retarded wombats? Dead roadside animals? Walleye? Because by the time any human reaches the age of seven, they understand a few basic principles: People go where they are more likely to be rewarded rather than punished; if mom takes your hard-earned paper route money and shares it out with your lazy sibling, you're going to hide the fruits of your labor; the feckless and sluggardly have no incentive to get up and look for a better deal - the intelligent and ambitious do; and finally, people will go out of their way to get back at those who hurt them - if taking a net loss in a move to South Carolina lets them thumb their noses at Michigan... they'll do it in a heartbeat.

That's not so difficult is it?

Show Trials

2009-02-28T12:32:00.009-05:00

I noticed on Ace, a story about the upcoming investigation into the CIA - headline: "Senate to investigate CIA's actions under Bush". I see they are not investigating the CIA's actions under Clinton, though many of the same people were doing the same things. I also suspect they are not trying to discover who in the CIA leaked sensitive and classified information to the media, thus undermining the fight against muslim terrorists.

I don't know much about the CIA, but after thirty years of simply holding a job, I know a lot about how people in organizations act. I know the lessons I have learned are scalable - the same backstabbing that gets you ahead at McDonald's, gets you ahead at Microsoft, gets you ahead in politics, gets you ahead at the CIA. The difference is simply one of degree.

I know the CIA may always have been, but is certainly now, a political organization - the Church Committee used the crisis of confidence of the 1970's to give politicians in congress more control over intelligence operations. Whether done to make the CIA more accountable to oversight, or to carve out for the legislative branch a slice of power heretofore held by the executive, is irrelevant - the results speak for themselves, the CIA is both player and pawn in the Washington tug of war.

For the last eight years, some in the CIA were brave whistleblowers, exposing the excesses of the evil Bush administration, or they were sleazy double dealers selling their country down the river to curry favor with the leftist establishment - toe-may-to, toe-mah-to. For the last eight years, some in the CIA were dedicated civil servants doing their best under difficult circumstances to protect the nation from those who wanted to do it harm, or they were unquestioning fascist drones mindlessly following the orders of the sinister syndicate who controlled the White House - poe-tay-to, poe-tah-to.

The past doesn't matter, because what is being shilled as an investigation into the abuses of the neocon cabal, is really of course, a purge - the house, senate, and president want to make sure what was done to Bush is not done to them, so anyone who seems to harbor too much loyalty to the previous regime has to go.

There are a couple of things I know from watching innumerable city council, planning commission, and architectural review board show trials ... er, meetings: first, the issues are already decided before the show starts, and second, the first ones in the dock are the erstwhile allies of the new boss - every new boss with a modicum of sense disposes of old friends before going after new enemies. This does not bode well for last year's whistleblowers who are now looking to the new powers-that-be for rewards for services rendered. Any Joe Wilsons or Valerie Plames still working at the CIA should take note.

And finally, just to kill any optimism anyone might have - consider the implications of this snippet from the article:

The inquiry, which could take a year or more to complete, means the CIA will once again be the target of intense congressional scrutiny at a time when it is engaged in two wars and its ongoing pursuit of Al Qaeda.

That's certain to end well. Machiavelli put it best:

Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed ought drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.

Translation: if you are going to have a purge, do it quickly, completely, and if possible, in one night - if you drag it out for a year, expecting your target to wait passively for the ax to fall, you are a fool, or a member of the senate intelligence committee.

What do you do...

2009-02-26T10:57:00.003-05:00

when the lesser of two evils turns out to a totalitarian motherfu**er? Please note this bit of bipar***nship* found at The War on Guns.

New republican rebranding slogan: Hey! We can be just as intrusive, statist, and authoritarian as the democrats - plus with us, you get extra stupid sauce!

*it's more obscene than anything in a porn flick - hence the asterisks

I threw up in my mouth a little...

2009-02-25T12:10:00.005-05:00

at the headline of this bit of Obama fellatio (Obamellatio?). (Found, as are most of the things which cause my blood pressure to rise, on Lucianne)

In his first speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, President Obama warned that America faces a "day of reckoning" after years of trying to make a fast buck, but said the economic turmoil and ruination offer the chance to right the feckless ways of the past and reinvest in institutions and technologies that will ensure a prosperous future.

Is that what you heard Mr. Allison?

Because that's not what I heard. One of us needs to get their ears checked.

Probably me; I've spent twenty-three years on very loud construction sites - so I don't hear as well as I used to.

Over that time, I worked my way up from six dollar an hour grunt to white (ish) collar licenced professional. I make a buck, but you tell your messiah it isn't a fast or easy one.

I pay my mortgage on time, own two paid for ten year old cars, live within my means, and until things got really slow, put ten percent of my paycheck into a 401K and watched another thirty percent disappear down the bottomless gullet of the government. I had to cut back on the ten, but somehow the thirty keeps getting taken. I guess that's how a Chicago community organizer with a government job and a platinum parachute pension defines feckless.

So, you're all orgasmic that the president is going bring back hard work. My friend, it never left - it's just that you and your tin god wouldn't know it if you saw it.

We heard different things all right. You heard the siren song of hopeychange, I heard a whiny, narcissistic, man-bitch informing me I am nothing but a pocket to be picked so he'll have money enough to buy the vote of every bloated, tax-leeching four flusher in the nation, and I damn well better keep working because they don't come cheap.

You say road to recovery; I say road to serfdom - time will tell.

Empty Green Promises

2009-02-22T22:00:00.005-05:00

You knew it was so much fairy dust and unicorn farts, and I knew it, but apparently there are a lot of people out there who actually believed there were millions of jobs to be had in the forthcoming green revolution.

Not just any jobs either, but high paying, white shirted, clipboard carrying jobs. The kind of job a man... er woman... er person of diversityness can be proud of. Jobs requiring the monitoring of flashing lights while hovering about around machines that go "beep" in the sterile, renewable, non-polluting brave, green, science-fiction-ey new world.

The fiction part they got right.

How could anyone believe this crap in the first place?

My guess is many people have grown up with teachers, parents, and authority figures of all sorts telling them their dreams are not only obtainable, but that the world owes them the realization of those dreams. Further, they have been convinced that should their dreams not be delivered in a timely manner, it is not because they are lazy, or stupid, or unlucky, or those dreams were unrealistic, but the result of a conspiracy to cheat them of what is rightfully theirs.

I can understand how people who grew up never finding out there is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy can end up in a place where political fantasies seem real, but my question is, "In what universe does your womyns studies-underwater basket weaving degree, belief that stones have souls and conviction that mathematics is a tool of patriarchal oppression suit you to being anything but the floor mopper for the green, glorious, high tech industries run by all those Indian, Chinese, and Korean kids who have been grinding down on calculus, science, and engineering since grade school?"

For The Record

2009-02-21T23:57:00.003-05:00

One of them is a remorseless hunter, seeking prey without pity or conscience - a soulless monster operating on the most basic instinctual level - and the other is just a dinosaur.

Spine Chilling

2009-02-21T09:30:00.003-05:00

Story in the Atlantic via Lucianne about the U.S. Air Force's last Ace.

Colonel Rodriguez scored one of the few air to air kills in the first Gulf War and later a special forces team found the wreck and extracted the last few frames of video from the Iraqi pilot's HUD. The last frame shows an AIM-7 air to air missile about to hit the cockpit.

Missile to the face - the poor guy never knew what hit him.

A stimulus Now

2009-02-18T18:55:00.016-05:00

Commenter UTDave responding to this post:

Give me a break. No matter what your political persuasion is, I find it a stretch that a spending bill means the end of our country. The previous administration already spent more than this on the bank bailouts, not to mention the Iraq war. I agree this spending won't solve our problems, but I have to laugh at the drama queens on the right. We'll see I guess.

And again on this post:

It seems as though you're upset with at least the last 100 years of US govt policy. There was a constitutional amendment to create the income tax, which has always been a tax that fell mostly on the wealthy. (Originally it was a tax only on the wealthy). So the tax system is by definition constitutional, since it's in the constitution. I think our government has had the power to raise money and carry a debt more or less since the beginning of the country. You're very against Obama and this spending bill, but I think you should argue it on the merits rather than saying that the government has suddenly run amok, when there is really nothing fundamentally new here. Previous administrations for at least the last century have been doing the same thing.

Dave is making a couple of arguments: First, that a spending bill isn't the end of the world - we managed to survive the higher spending of the Bush years; we will survive this.

Here he makes a couple of mistakes. First, about the amount of spending over the last eight years - below is a graph from the Wall Street Journal posted by Greg Mankiw showing the nation's debt related to the GDP since 1980:

Granted, the last eight years haven't been great, but the stimulus debt for this year alone (and remember, the spending is projected for several more years) dives well into uncharted territory.

Dave's next error is blaming "the administration" when it is congress that controls the money. The president may ask, demand, beg, or cajole, but he doesn't get a penny unless the legislature gives it to him. And for the last two years, that would have been a democratic legislature keeping the money faucets open full blast.

And that money kept flowing because congress had no incentive to shut it off. Dave mentions the war in Iraq, but overlooks additional hundreds of billions spent on pork-filled agriculture, transportation, and prescription drug plans - all written in the congress not the White House.

Therefore, a more accurate, if less emotionally satisfying, way of phrasing it would be, "For the last eight years, the congress, whether controlled by democrats or republicans, and with the approval of the president spent the hell out of the economy."

The best thing however, about Dave's Tu Quoque argument is I can give the entire thing away and agree completely - you got me - George Bush used his mind control powers to subvert the constitution and trick the congress into giving him the keys to the treasury, then proceeded to bankrupt the nation playing high stakes Texas Hold'em with Vladimir Putin.

But it still leaves the question of how spending another trillion dollars we don't have is going fix things.

Dave next claims the stimulus won't be the end of the country - apparently because that's just what us right wing drama queens say will happen. I'm not sure about the connection here, but apparently it is some variation on the Cassandra theme where the truth of the message is contingent on the messenger.

Nonetheless, I agree - it doesn't mean the end of the country; it means the end of the Republic - different thing.

A republic can survive only so long as there is a clear line between the government sphere and the private one - the more defined that line the better, and as that line is erased, so also, is individual liberty.

To illustrate, here is another graph, this time from Fabius Maximus:

Every data point on that red line represents someone whose livelihood, whose mortgage payment, grocery bill, and car payment is provided by taxes. Add to that welfare, social security recipients, and the beneficiaries of all other federal largess and ask yourself what freedom can there be when so many are demanding the legislature pick your pocket to provide them their daily bread?

But there is more, because hidden within the thousand pages of stimulus legislation are the seeds of new and expanded bureaucracies - more and more people added to the payroll who create no wealth yet will require pay, and vacation, and medical insurance, and pensions - all on your dime.

And when it comes time for your congressman to troll for votes, are you so sure he won't find it easier to take more of what is yours and give it to them in return for those votes?

He won't if he is a man of the highest moral and intellectual caliber - Washington is just full of those types... right?

Finally Dave argues, that all reservations aside, the government is acting with its constitutional scope, so whatever we think is academic, because the rules say the government can do what its doing. That worked so well for Dred Scott didn't it?

Funny thing that constitution - it has a letter and a spirit, and depending where you are standing and which way the wind is blowing, you are an advocate of one or the other.

Schools in the south still segregated? Just send in the troops, and if the constitution doesn't explicitly say you can, It certainly implies it - so says the supreme court. Abortion, death penalty abolished and reinstated, Miranda warning... same with all of those. And all were accepted because the people generally agreed that in order for this to be the country they wanted, those things had to be.

But can you think of any means short of violence whereby they could have been imposed had the vast majority been adamantly opposed? In the end, what is constitutional is not what the congress passes, or the supreme court decides, but what the citizens will accept.

The usual recourse when the government has pushed too far beyond what the people will accept is to vote the bums out. The problem with the stimulus package is many of its provisions exist specifically to insulate the government from that possibility.

If you can vote every November, you have a democracy, but if the government is immune to fundamental changes because too many are dependent upon it for sustenance to allow that change, you no longer have a republic.

Dear Anonymous

2009-02-15T09:17:00.006-05:00

Normally I don't do a lot of replies to comments, but this post prompted anonymous to comment:

I love that the republicans are so quick to resort to treason when things don't go their way.

So anon, I've got a couple of questions for you.

Was it treason when the New York Times to disclosed the agreements between the United States Government and the corporation running the SWIFT program, thereby alerting terrorist groups there finances were being watched?

When Sean Penn, a private citizen to meet with Saddam Hussein the head of state of a country which was an avowed enemy of the United States, was that treason?

When protesters attempted to block the port of Tacoma to keep equipment from reach United States military personnel engaged in combat operations... treason?

It's alright if you argue that none of those cases were treason, that every American citizen is a free and sovereign individual, and has a God-given right to stand up to what they see as a tyrannical government - I would agree with you.

Anonymous, you are aware that above individual liberty exists because the men who wrote the constitution didn't just cobble it together out of scraps found in history books. They all agreed on certain bedrock principles - principles which were inspired, radical, and almost untried in all the bloody history of the world. They could could have played it safe - created a king, and a peerage, and a parliament like every other nation of the time, yet chose instead to sail the new nation into uncharted waters.

The most radical of their ideas was the concept of enumerated powers - unless an act was on the list of things the constitution said could be done, the government could not do it. If everyone in the country wanted something not otherwise allowed, they would have to amend the constitution to allow it, otherwise it was not within the power of the government to do.

No one had tried it before, and really, no one has tried it since. Yes they compromised on the evil of slavery, near fatally as it turns out, but that doesn't change the fact the founders of the United States began by forcing the people to be free. They said right from the start, "No king, no overlord, no great leader, no emperor, this government is your servant and is limited to defending the borders, treating with other governments, and collecting a few tariffs to sustain itself - other than that, you are on your own - succeed or fail; you are on your own."

A couple more questions then:

What enumerated power gives the congress of the United States the authority to mortgage my future to the tune of a trillion dollars?

What enumerated power gives the congress of the United States the authority to enforce debt obligations on generations not yet born who cannot possibly have agreed to them?

What enumerated power gives the congress of the United States the authority to hold sway over the commercial life of the nation by taking money from all of us and distributing it those they deem worthy, and withholding it from those not do deemed?

And finally, anonymous, even if you are so clever as to unravel the skein of sophistry, double talk, and back room dealing which led to here, and then place even a thin gloss of constitutionality over this execrable mess, do you believe Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et.al., would look upon this law, this government for that matter, and be proud to claim it as a descendant of their work?

I await your reply.

Treasonously yours etc.

Mike

Well, they did it.

2009-02-13T23:55:00.004-05:00

Friday the thirteenth - appropriate. Mark the tombstone that this was the day the United States officially fell from being a republic, into a feudal oligarchy. This was the day the final frayed chords snapped, and the dream of limited government - long fading - was finally extinguished.

Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?

I. Do. Not. Consent.

I do not consent to being a serf tending the land of a lord to pay off a feudal obligation I did not agree to.

I do not consent to having one third and more of the wealth I earn taken from me and distributed to those who hold me and my beliefs in contempt.

I do not consent to live under a system where wealth and power are distributed based on proximity to, and support of, the ruling party.

I do not consent to being told what liberties I may or may not have because a glib and empty man convinced 51 percent of the populace to deliver my birthright and freedom to him in return for his glib and empty promise of security.

And I do not consent to having the fruit of my labor stripped from me and distributed to the ignorant and lazy so they may escape the consequences of their own bad choices.

I do not expect liberty has gone forever, and I hope that when next a free people charter themselves a government, they look back on this day and learn from our mistakes.

News From The Cold

2009-02-13T13:44:00.004-05:00

One of the blogs I check frequently it "In From The Cold" whoever writes it knows things I want to know, and the information is always appreciated.

Recently, the proprietors posted about a Time magazine article profiling the last draftee still on active duty in the U.S. military - Army Command Sergeant Major Jeffrey Mellinger. I remember reading the article and being amazed and humbled by the man's story.

But after reading the post about the article, I feel nothing but contempt for Time, and the rest of the paleo-media. Especially this part:

Also missing from the Time account is Mellinger's standing offer to members of the press corps. During his long tour in Iraq, the CSM repeatedly invited journalists to get out of Baghdad and ride with him, to get a better feel for conditions in the country and the work being done by U.S. troops. Only one journalist took Mellinger up on the offer, a guy named Michael Yon.

After reading that, I feel no sympathy, for media types whose newspaper jobs, t.v. gigs, and magazine assignments are disappearing. All I can say is I am glad hard times have come to you because you are scum, and you work for scum, and I hope the rest of your lives consist of nothing but hardship and travail.

WHAT!!!

2009-02-12T15:34:00.004-05:00

Normally, I read the news and spend a lot of time shaking my head at the folly of it all. I know I am stupid about some things - everyone is. But I guess knowing that, at least gives me a leg up on those who don't.

I try not to adopt the facade of world-weary cynicism common to teenagers, Europeans, politicians, and the rest of the mentally immature. Sometimes however, I run across items of such monumental stupidity, paleo-ignorance, bedrock knuckle-headedness that I am left gasping.

Our hairy-assed ancestors came in two flavors, those who felt large carnivores should be poked, and provoked, and those who felt they should be avoided. The former did not live to reproduce, while the latter did. Face it, "cave bear tag" is not a pastime for those who want to have kids.

Apparently however, some of them were frozen in ice before the consequences of their idiotery (Hey, I made a word!) were suffered. The are called democrats, and many of them ended up in the New York general assembly.

From Greg Mankiw, Harvard Economist and someone who should be in charge of things, comes the following:

Assembly Passes Rent-Regulation Revisions Opposed by Landlords

Maybe, "Assembly Passes Rent-Regulation Revisions That Will Bankrupt Building Owners; Leave Hundreds Of Vacant, Deteriorating Structures Filled With Vermin And Crazy People; Create A Black Market In Housing; Stimulate Political Corruption; And Help To Further Wreck The Economy" was too long.

Or maybe in bizarro New York Times Land, forcing someone to charge less than the market rate for their products is considered a good incentive to get them to produce more. You, know, the "You're losing money on every sale, but you'll make it up in volume" theory.

According to the story anyway, that's seems to be the idea:

Democrats in Albany cheered what they said was a step toward making living in New York more affordable for working families. Then adjourned to cover themselves in Alpo and go wrestle the tigers at the Albany Zoo.*

*That last sentence might have been a little garbled - I was dizzy from banging my head on my desk.

I try not to lose hope, but sometimes it is hard.

Stiuulus package IV

2009-02-09T20:54:00.002-05:00

Okay, just about everybody who isn’t bound by an oath of fealty to the democratic party knows the stimulus won’t do any good. But over at Powerline, they are asking if, even aside from the wasting of a trillion dollars or so, and burdening future generations with today’s economic idiocy, it will do actual harm. I suspect the question is rhetorical, because they probably know the answer already, but in case they really are perplexed about it -- hell yes it’s going to hurt the country now, and in the near and long term.

Ignoring the inflation resulting from the printing of mountains of new money, aside from financially strengthening the most regressive, doctrinaire, and thuggish democrat special interest groups, leaving out the moral destruction of forcing a free people to become vassals of the state in order to feed their families, the true damage of this massive transfer of treasure from private hands to the public coffers, will be the sheer destruction of wealth it represents. It is as though every home, car, computer, or book which might otherwise have been purchased, were thrown into a fire and burned. Worse – at least if they were placed on a pyre and set alight, we could warm ourselves at the flames. This way all those goods and services, and the jobs, paychecks, and creative human potential they represent, become phantoms – things which might have been, but never were.

Wealth is destroyed because Marxists, leftists, liberals, democratic politicians, and other childlike beings all love the labor theory of value. It’s easy on the brain, forms the basis of most of the courses they took in college, it's theoretically tidy, and the fact that it is completely wrong and generally leads to totalitarianism is no deterrent. Marx believed there was this stuff called raw material, and this stuff called labor. If the two were combined, iron ore became ships, wood became furniture, and cows became steak. The democratic party believes we have labor to spare, and raw materials lying around unused, and all that is necessary, is to take money from people in the form of taxes (and trust me, inflation is a form of taxation), give it to workers in the form of wages, and turn them loose to build roads, ships, and bridges – and instant recovery.

Let’s do a thought experiment: On my drive home today, I saw some guys digging a trench to install sewers. Tomorrow morning, I’ll come over to your place, dig a hole in your backyard, dump a bunch of pipe into it, and send you a bill. I have performed exactly the same tasks as the people I saw on the way home – have I created any wealth?

No fair you say. There has to be context – a third factor must be involved. The material and labor must come together at the right time and place.

Right. How about this, there are shipyards in New England that are underutilized. Give me all your money and I will give it to the workers there to build ships. Barks, brigs, clippers, schooners, cogs, and caravels, we will build thousands of them, providing good paying long term jobs to the men who build the boats. Hell we will build enough boats so, end to end; they will let us walk to Europe. Better? The nice tax collectors will be by in the morning to pick up your share.

Look, you say, no one wants that many boats. It doesn’t do any good building stuff nobody wants. You have to spend the money on things people want.

Okay then, I want a Corvette, a red one with leather interior (as if there was any other kind). And building high-end sports cars is just the kind of skilled labor job we are promoting – pony up.

Not a chance you reply, If you are footing the bill, it has to go for something you want.

Then why can’t you and I just agree to an exchange – I’ll give you something you want in return you give me something I want, and we’ll leave the government out of it. We appear to have left the labor theory back at the boatyard.

It’s funny, tell some leftwit gender is a social construct, and whatever type of plumbing you have results from the secret plots of the patriarchy, and he will take it as gospel. Tell him words mean the opposite of what they say, and the declaration of independence was really a coded call for slavery, and you will receive instant agreement. Saying the personal is the political is to speak an indisputable truth. Every one of history's huge slobbering abstractions is swallowed whole without thought, but tell the poor fool that all wealth results from the voluntary movement of things from where they valued less to where they are valued more, and he will give a look like a chimp that has just been handed a bowl of wax fruit.

The corollary is also true. Wealth is destroyed when things are moved from where they are valued more to where they are valued less. And our new aristocracy is about to involuntarily move an unfathomable amount of money from our wallets, where we value it highly, and give it to their friends and supporters who don’t think enough of it to even count it before they spend it.

Be careful what you wish for

2009-02-09T18:32:00.009-05:00

From Hot Air.

Peter Beinar t thinks congress should hold us down and force the crap sandwich down our throats.

Hmmm... where have I run across that theme before?

British cartoon depicting the fate of Boston customs officer John Malcomb, who was tarred and feathered and forced to drink tea, 1774

The check is in the mail...

2009-02-09T13:32:00.006-05:00

... I'll respect you in the morning... and the newest biggest lie in the world (via Lucianne)

Biden to Iran: US will talk, but is ready to act

Uh Joe, if you can't convince a lazy, overweight surveyor in Ohio, who really wants it to be true, do you really think you're going to convince the frothing lunatics who run Iran?

Maybe we can get his name to be no.1 on Google

2009-02-09T12:02:00.004-05:00

I see Uncle has linked to a story about some alleged authoritarian douchebag's attempt to change libel laws to include more oversight of blogs.

For the record, I do not live anywhere near State Senator Steve Gross' district, so I cannot say with certainty that he does not have frequent carnal knowledge of dead farm animals.

If every blogger does a post assuring the world of something we cannot possibly know about Senator Gross. I'm certain the good politician would be overjoyed at the attention.

How to put this delicately.....

2009-02-08T09:30:00.002-05:00

John Kerry can go sodomize himself with a chainsaw.

Stimulus Package III

2009-02-07T20:21:00.007-05:00

The camera fades in: We behold the steerage section of a great Transatlantic liner.

Outside a storm rages, the howling winds and towering waves toss the ship about as though it were a toy in a tub. Mothers, their faces rigid in terror, clutch crying babes tighter to their breasts as the frigid seawater rises around them. With each pitch and roll of the foundering vessel, suitcases, bedrolls, and stuffed animals slosh back and forth across the flooding deck. Somewhere, hidden from view in the shadowed recesses of the compartment, a voice, high pitched and quavering on the edge of panic, repeats over and over a prayer for deliverance.

Suddenly, a shaft of light falls from above as the hatch separating the poorest passengers from the more refined sections of the ship opens - revealing First Officer Nancy.

“Don’t worry folks,” she calls down in her best imitation of a command voice, “Captain Obama, Executive Officer Harry, and I, have a plan to save us.”

At the mere mention of the captain’s name the frightened men below stand taller, as though a tingle of some sort had just run up their legs, and the women sigh, many unconsciously adjusting their hair.

Captain Obama! How handsome he is, how calm and charismatic. True, he has never commanded so much as a row boat, and a quick jaunt on Lake Michigan in Tony Rezko’s yacht is the total of his seagoing experience, but just to behold the man, standing trim in his uniform, his eyes twinkling and his smile bringing light to a dreary world is to have confidence in his abilities.

First Officer Nancy’s voice interrupts the reverie of the huddled masses in the dim bowels of the great ship, “The problem is, were taking on too much water and if we don’t find a way to get rid of it, we’re going to the bottom like a stone.”

At the mention of sinking, fear returns to the faces of the reeking mass of waterlogged humanity.

“Get a grip on yourselves,” continues the first officer, “Like I said, we have a plan. What we’re going to do is knock a huge hole in the bottom of the ship – back over there somewhere.” First Officer Nancy gestures vaguely toward the shadows beyond the reach of the few working lights in the steerage hold and continues, “That should let the water start to run out.”

“A plan, a plan, Captain Obama has a plan.” The grateful wretches began whispering among themselves.

“But wait,” replies the smiling first officer, “Ours is a long term plan, so there’s a next step - after we knock a big hole in the bottom of the ship, were going to steer for the big rocks off the coast which should provide a soft landing, so the Union Leaders, Environmentalists, and Movie Stars in first class can walk ashore without getting their feet wet. Isn’t that great!”

With that, First Officer Nancy slams and bolts the hatch sealing the steerage passengers in their iron tomb to await whatever fate has in store.

Walking away, she can hear their pathetic cries that the plan will leave them to die horribly.

“Maybe you didn’t understand,” she murmurs under her breath, “I said we had a plan to save us.”

Stimulus Package II

2009-02-05T12:58:00.014-05:00

I was looking for a hook on which to hang the next part of my post, and behold it is provided to by none other than the president himself - hope and change indeed.

To its credit, the Washington Post, left the comments section open, but rather than have my reply lost among thousands of similar missives, I shall post it here to be lost among millions of similar blogs.

I read the president’s letter in stunned disbelief. He can’t be this dumb, can he? He doesn’t really believe this crap – no one could. The Russians never took the fullest advantage of Obama’s spiritual mentor, Jimmy Carter, because the culture of the politburo was such that the dumb ones died young, leaving only the most cunning predators to run the show, and they were constitutionally incapable of believing Carter was as stupid as he seemed. They felt his clueless demeanor must have been a mask for deviousness of such subtlety that even they could not fathom its depths.

Therein lies a historical axiom for those so inclined: Both geniuses and idiots overestimate the intelligence of idiots.

It must be the same with Obama’s stimulus - a trillion dollar crap sandwich so obviously doomed to failure you’d need a PHD in political science not to see it. It must be a deep conspiracy to sink the country into socialism by wrecking the economy and making a once free people dependent on government handouts – there can be no other explanation.

But what if there is? What if the seat warmers in D.C. are simply bloated tax leeches sitting around whining, “The plan has to work, if it doesn’t, I’ll have to get a job! Hey, push that button, maybe that will get things started!"

The theory gains some merit based on the president’s prescription of what is required:

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

Uh, Mr. President … Americans with over room temperature IQ's know that actions from Washington are the primary cause of the urgency they feel in their daily lives - and swiftness, boldness, and wisdom – from you guys? You're kidding, right?

Could it be that simple? Does out national leadership consist of a bunch of Peter Principled numbskulls willing to sell the whole thing down the toilet because if they admit they haven't the faintest clue about what to do, they won’t get to stay in Wonderland-On-The-Potomac playing grabass with the interns?

I’m feeling a little queasy.

Stimulus Package I

2009-02-03T17:34:00.005-05:00

I can’t help it; it sounds pornographic. I suppose that's because every time the phrase comes up I automatically say to myself, “Oh boy are we gonna get screwed.”

It won’t work- a few moments with any economics text will assure you of that. So why are we doing it?

Let’s be honest here - we are doing it, not congress, not the president, not the government – us. We the people are going to pick our own pocket, then pay our masters in Washington to give us our own money back – after they take their cut.

And we’re not just letting it happen; most of us are cheering for it to happen, hoping, pleading, and begging that it be done. There are a lot of people who know just how big a monstrosity this thing is, yet when they went to the polls last November, there was no ballot choice for them. Neither major party candidate offered any indication they were possessed of the political will to go against the tide of populist entitlement. And no, this is not some “We are all responsible for the genocide in Rwanda” collective guilt trip. It is just a simple statement of fact: if you are among the hundred million or so voters who cast a ballot for a major party candidate last election, you, and I for that matter, voted for the raping of the American economy, and with it American liberty.

The dismal failure of political will on the part of the elected, is matched by an equal failure of civic will on the part of the voters. We, and the fact of the existence of the two nonentities we accepted as candidates on the most recent ballot stands as proof, are now as convinced that the government is a cause of, rather than a result of good, as any medieval serf was of his king. We have allowed ourselves to become a democracy rather than a republic. And if you have to ask what is so bad about that, there’s no help for you.

Bernie Madoff is a piker

2009-01-31T12:14:00.003-05:00

I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a joyous Ida May Fuller day. Thanks to The New Editor for the hint.

A twenty two thousand return on a twenty dollar investment? Not even old Ponzi himself would have tried anything so brazen.

We are so screwed.

On this day in history

2009-01-30T22:13:00.003-05:00

The trick to life is knowing when to take the long view, and when to concentrate on the short term. Driving in heavy traffic is a short term project - what is miles ahead or behind is of less importance than the car ten feet in front of you.

Over the last week, I found myself locking ever tighter into the short term, watching this day's action in the legislature, or the hourly update on various news sources, my scope of attention growing ever narrower.

It is, I think, a symptom of the instant communication which is available to us, and is unavoidable. That is not to say it should not be recognized and resisted.

That is why I took great comfort in this news I came across after an internet wander I would detail, but that I can't remember.

The Pope is preparing to offer the Traditonal Anglican Communion, a group of half a million dissident Anglicans, its own personal prelature by Rome, according to reports this morning.

"History may be in the making", reports The Record. "It appears Rome is on the brink of welcoming close to half a million members of the Traditional Anglican Communion into membership of the Roman Catholic Church. Such a move would be the most historic development in Anglican-Catholic relations in the last 500 years.

I am not very religious, and the comfort I derive from this news does not have its source in my feelings about the church. Indeed, many people would read this article and dismiss it as trivial compared to the monumental events of the day.

They would be wrong.

Like the white noise remnants of the formation of the universe we can hear in this story, if we care to listen in the right way, the echoes of passions, and events unleashed half a millennia ago and a half a world away. Events which have not been played out completely even yet.

Trivial? Not by any measure. To study history, is to follow the tracks of the human spirit back across the sands of time and to take comfort in the continuity of human affairs.

One wonders how the acts of our preening politicians, who flatter themselves that they are making history, will resonate as loudly as the hammer taps of a skeptical German monk.

Riddle Me This

2009-01-29T12:51:00.003-05:00

From "The Hill" via Lucianne...

Dems: GOP will pay political price for stimulus vote

So, the democrats won the vote handily, and will be the sole beneficiaries of the political rewards when the economy jumps up like Lazarus on meth.

Hey, the thing is done - it will happen, and there will be great rejoicing. Nan, Harry, and Babar can stand around waving like homecoming queens basking in the adulation of the little people. So, what's the problem? Why are they so upset about the republicans bowing out and leaving them the full measure of glory?

Perhaps the headline should read, "Dems: GOP will pay for leaving us to take the blame when this thing goes belly up"

Just sayin.

DeMint

2009-01-28T12:35:00.008-05:00

It's an odd thing about politics - a hundred million voters, each one convinced the fate of the republic depends on their choice at the polls. I guess this is what Plato's noble lies were all about.

Funny thing, I'm a registered democrat - only for this year's primary though. I did it so I could vote for Hillary to keep the lefty bloodletting going since McCain was already the republican nominee and it didn't matter on that score. (and no, I'm not a Rushbot - I decided on my own to do it - mostly as a lark)

In truth, I've been a republican since I was old enough to vote (for Reagan in 1980). I grew up in a political family of old school, union democrats. How I ended up as the lone rightwinger, I'll never know. But after reading this from Politico about how the party's leadership is treating a guy who is trying to come up with a winnning strategy, I think it may be time to admit the Reagan revolution began and ended with its namesake.

They say generals are always fighting the last war, but usually this refers to complacent, winning generals. The losers have incentives to think outside the box, and innovate so as to win the next war. But for some reason, the party that's had its ass handed to it in the last two elections seems to feel doing the same things over and over again will eventually work. (Note to republican bigwigs: see Haig, Douglas).

I don't really know that much about Jim DeMint, but if he is really trying to reform things and the atricle is correct in noting:

...Senate Republicans doubt his fiery tactics can lead their party out of the political wilderness when the public is seeking an end to legislative gridlock.

They should understand clearly that legislative gridlock is their duty, and bi-partisanship really means they're just helping to hold us down while the democrats go through our wallets.

Yes, trying to stop the sinking of the country when so many seem to want it sunk, will get you scapegoated as an obstructionist; it might even cost you your seat. But going along to get along won't work either, and if you are going down, it might as well be fighting.

Sigh

2009-01-26T20:19:00.003-05:00

From the BBC: (via Lucainne)

President Barack Obama has called for the US to become energy independent, saying its reliance on foreign oil and global warming posed threats.

I am afraid.

I do not fear Obama is selling the snake oil of energy independence to the economic retards of the country in a cynical attempt to get them to turn over more of the free market to the likes of him - that would be bad enough. No, I am afraid that the fool actually believes the goal of energy independence is possible or desirable.

Twenty years or so back the government conned us into believing universal home ownership was a good thing - that turned out well.

We can burn every, foreclosed house, standing tree and shrub, and then huddle in the freezing dark wondering what happened to our lives, but what the hell, at least the Saudis aren't getting any of our dollars for their filthy oil - mostly because we burned all those too. Ah, energy independent at last.

Satellite Image of energy independent North Korea at night. (for you public screwl kids, that's South Korea at the bottom with all the shiny lights)

Old Hopey Change sees the bright side however...

"We will commit ourselves to steady, focused, pragmatic pursuit of an America that is freed from our energy dependence, and empowered by a new energy economy that puts millions of our citizens to work."

I can picture all the jobs now: rickshaw ambulances, mandatory turns on the treadmills to power the generators at the Obama House, wood chip gleaner to fish the last burnables out of the muck where the redwood used to grow - who needs doctors, engineers, and software designers, when the new green economy offers so much fulfilling labor. The work will make you free (sounds better in German).

I thought that last bit was a little unfair until I thought it through to its logical conclusion: When this is tried and inevitably fails because it is based on economic policy theories which would not pass muster with a group of drunken Barbary apes, the true believers will either slap their foreheads and say "How could we have been so stupid?!", or they will go looking for scapegoats to blame for thwarting the will of the glorious leader.

Anyone out there with a nodding acquaintance with history care to hazard a guess which one it will be?

Why Can't We All Just Get Along

2009-01-25T12:43:00.014-05:00

Here's Adam Brodsky of the New York Pos t thinking he is making a point. The times are bleak, he tells us, and we must listen to the better angels of our nature because unity is our only hope.

Horsecrap.

The times are indeed perilous, and our only hope is to fight like mad to keep our new president and his cohorts from wrecking the country even more. It's going to be an uphill battle, and today at least, things don't look so bright.

Brodsky does edge into a truth - sideways and blind squirrel like, when he says:

Republicans, in particular, will have to resist temptations for revenge, after Democrats savaged George Bush - and by extension, his party.

I agree with him here, but not for the reason he gives:

Because hope and support can be self-fulfilling - much as gloom, despair and disaster can be. And at the moment, so much is at stake.

We have to refrain from slanderous, bad-faith attacks on Obama, because those things only work for the left, not us.

The same guy who spouts spittle-flecked accusations about George Bush, and the Masons, Skull and Bones, or Enron, rolls his eyes if asked about William Ayres or Jeremiah Wright. Point out the creepy cult of personality vibe of Obama's little blue book, (I hope it's a hoax, but it doesn't seem to be) and the adoration shown to a guy who is, in the end, just a politician, and be met with the same look my cat gives me when I start explaining calculus.

Lies, therefore, will not work - we do not have ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, the Washington Post, New York Times, Hollywood, and just about every public school, university, and probably pre-kindergarden to boost our message along on its way. We do not have the institutions necessary to make lies seem like the truth. All we have is the truth - it might work, if repeated enough, shouted enough, whispered and screamed enough.

So, Brodsky is right, again for the wrong reasons - to fall back on the tactics of the deranged left is to fall into despair - the belief that the house is better burned to the ground than run by someone other than us.

But as far as his belief in the efficacy of hopey change, a little anecdote is in order.

In October 1864, there was a battle at a place called Cedar Creek in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. At first, the Confederates drove the Union from the field, but then Phil Sheridan, the Union commander, led a counterattack to save the day. During the fight, Sheridan, who was one of the most inspiring of battlefield leaders, came across a young bluecoat bleeding on the ground. "What's wrong with you?" asked the general.

"I'm shot through and dying," replied the trooper.

"Nonsense, you ain't hurt a bit. Now get up and charge," was the reply.

With that, the young soldier rose to his feet and ran forward.

Only to collapse and die a few steps later.

The lesson here is fine speeches, and piles of glorious good feeling only get you so far. Someone who is bleeding out needs real help of the right kind, or all the good feeling in the world will accomplish nothing.

animal house

2009-01-22T17:06:00.016-05:00

I've spent the last few months and the first few days of the new Obama era trying to get a fix on what the appeal of the guy is, and all I could figure was people just wanted to sit with the cool kids; and I figured they were bound to be disappointed. In time, they would wonder what the hell they were thinking.

I thought to myself, "It's like that scene from Animal House...

Thanks to the magic that is Youtube, I watched it again, and was absolutely struck by the symmetry of the thing.

Langland's Plowman could not create a more apt allegory than those few minutes of of old film.

They're all there: the fat, blubbering, albeit earnest, everyman, desperate to be liked, to fit in with the cool people. So desperate in fact, that he will give them free reign with his treasured possessions. Also there, are the glib, careless, clever people - the ones who will never have to suffer the consequences of their actions, offering instead, to commit fraud rather than face the music. I have no doubt who would be left alone holding the bag should the bit of larceny described in the conclusion of the scene be found out.

And the line, "When I get done with this thing, you won't recognize it." If that isn't Barney and Chris talking about the economy, I don't know what is.

If I were a republican strategist, I would have the theme for the next half dozen election cycles...

"America, I know you want to hang out with the beautiful people, but Ashton and Demi made their pledge, dusted off their hands and went on to other acting projects leaving you with the tab. Bruce sings a wonderful song about how tough the blue collar life is, but he doesn't actually have to live it. And guess what? Bill and Hillary are only faking it when they say they feel your pain. America, you're a little overweight, your hairline is receding, and and you sag a little bit - the pretty people want your stuff and your adoration, but please, use the servants entrance when you deliver it."

I see a big sign with Obama's benign face... Hey America, you fucked up; you trusted us.

Lets Review

2009-01-20T18:22:00.002-05:00

From Dr. Helen comes this article in Forbes about the great college bubble of '09. For those with difficulty in economics... allow me to explain.

Imagine a busy intersection - cars zooming by day and night, zoom, zoom, zoom. On each corner of this intersection is a gas station, each selling gas for a dollar a gallon (bear with me it's just an example). One day, one of the gas station men thinks to himself, "Hmmm, if I charge two dollars a gallon for my gas, I'll double my profits. I better hurry and change my sign before those other guys think of it. Hoo boy, I'm gonna be rolling in it!"

Do you think the gas station man really doubled his profits?

Of course not - everybody just went to his competitors to buy their gas.

But then the gas station men got another idea. They said to themselves, "We would sell a lot more gas if we could convince the suckers, err... consumers, that our gas is the key to a better life, and without our gas, their lives will be empty and miserable."

So they hired a pretty girl to sit in a fancy car and say to the men, "I will like you if you will buy gas for my car." And they hired a stern girl in a sensible car to say to the women, "You can be independent like me if you buy your own gas for your car."

And behold, the suckers, err... consumers bought it and believed that in order to get the life they wanted, they must have the success gas.

But there was a cloud on the horizon. Many people who wanted the success gas could not afford it, or really didn't want to do the work needed to earn the money for it, or just felt the success gas was something they were entitled to, so they whined to their congressmen for something to be done.

And the congressmen heard the whines of the suckers, err... consumers, and set up a gas loan program whereby the suckers, err... consumers could get loans from friendly loan men who wanted nothing so much as to help the suckers, err... consumers tap into the supply of success gas.

The gas station men were ecstatic, because now they could charge as much for gas as they wanted since the suckers, err consumers would just get a loan from the friendly loan man to cover the increase.

But there was another problem, even though some of the gas buyers actually used the gas to get somewhere, most of them simply filled up their cars and drove around in circles - never really going anywhere or doing anything. So when the friendly loan men asked for their money back, the suckers, err... consumers didn't have any to give.

Then the friendly loan men stopped being friendly and told the suckers, err... consumers to pay up, or else.

And the suckers, err... consumers whined to their congressmen saying, "We were lied to; the success gas didn't bring us the success we were entitled to, and now we owe a lot of money to the friendly loan men, but cannot pay - you have to do something."

And the congressmen said, "We feel your pain, and it is unfair that you should be burdened with these debts, so we will start a program....

It's In The New York Times; it has to be real

2009-01-10T10:47:00.002-05:00

Scrolling through Lucianne this morning and I came across this. Nothing special till I checked out the name of the article's author. Tee Hee Hee.

Interesting Times

2009-01-09T14:39:00.009-05:00

So you’ve paid off the credit cards and torn them up. You’re driving a ten year old car that gets thirty mpg, and you change the oil and do the maintenance yourself. The only real debt you have is a mortgage, and you can afford that because you get your butt out of bed every day and go to work.

You selfish bastard – don’t you know there are people out there with no visible means of support and half million dollar mortgages who are going to lose their homes – you owe them. There are car companies out there who have been forced to make cars no one wants and to employ union guys who have sweetheart deals with the government – you owe them. There are public employee unions whose platinum parachute pensions are going down the toilet because their agreements with the politicians they supported basically came down to, “Don’t worry, we’ll make the taxpayers cover the difference.” You owe them. Them and every other tax-sucking parasite with a lobbyist and a political action committee.

And you're going to pay too. The legislature is going to get all bi-partisan you see. I read it in the Washington Post - Pelosi has streamlined the rules so none of that pesky debate can get in the way of saving your hide. Nationalize the banks – check! Healthcare? We are the government and we’ll just pass a law against being sick. Auto industry? Hey those new green, run-on-fairy-dust cars aren’t going to build themselves. Your 401K? What do you mean your 401K? You don’t want grandma to have to eat cat food now… do you? Fork it over. Global warming? Real or scam? Whothehellcares! We’re going to save you from that too. A trillion bucks to have people dig holes and fill them back in? That’s what we call infrastructure baby.

What, you don’t want any of the things we’re buying you? Who died and left you in charge? Just pay the bill and shut up.

Over on the senate side, Chris Dodd is making statesmanlike noises:

"There's something transformational happening here," … "It's the kind of year historians will write about. . . . Can this institution deal with it?"

For the last two years, Dodd and his ilk have been treating the American economy the same way someone with Munchausen by Proxy treats their kids, so he should take a moment to consider whether that historian is going to be more Doris Kearns Goodwin or Bruce Catton.

In her gloved hand she had a .25 automatic...

2009-01-07T09:46:00.013-05:00

Breda has the picture and story here.

When we were at the range, I had the opportunity to run a couple of magazines through a Baby Browning. Truth to tell, I kind of liked it. The little thing shot pretty much to point of aim at 15 feet, and kept all the rounds in a 2" to 3" circle, and for me anyway, experienced no failures to feed, fire, or eject.

Both Breda and her mom had trouble even getting the thing to run - the first problem is the slide requires considerable hand strength to operate, while the pistol itself offers very little area for getting a good hold. The next problem is related - there is only room for one finger on the grip, and unless you really bear down, the gun will shift in your hand dissipating enough of the recoil impulse to result in failure to reliably eject. Finally, making the whole thing worse, is the fact that if you try to hold higher in the frame, (a natural reaction to try to get a more secure grip) the slide will ride back across the top of your hand creating your own little set of railroad tracks.

~~I think it's a case where the design of the gun was so successful that it ultimately failed.~~ (See Update)It was made small enough to hide anywhere and then deployed in a hurry, but if you don't get a perfect hold it's going to jam on you, thus defeating the purpose of a back up gun.

If "smallest possible" is your goal, you would probably be better served by one the the NAA mini revolvers, but when a dangerous dame gets the drop on Phillip Marlowe this is what she's holding.

"Reach for the sky, shamus."

Update: James Rummel Takes exception to my use of the word failure.
Actually, he is correct, I was writing without thinking, and failure, was not the word I should have used.

What I was trying to convey, albeit clumsily, (hey, it was afternoon at work, and I was in the torpor stage of my day) is that all firearms - all machines actually - consist of a series of trade offs. With hand guns, you are balancing size, weight, capacity, power of cartridge, ease of use, cost, and many other factors.

Hideout pistols trade capacity, and in case of the .25 autos, stopping power, for concealability.

The Baby Browning I shot was a finely crafted pistol - well designed and a pleasure to look at, but I think in this case, too much was traded off for size.

It obviously wasn't a failure commercially, but a gun that you are likely to need "right here, right now" had best be as close to 100 per cent reliable as possible, and the Browning because of its small size (not design flaws) is susceptible to jams caused by improper grip.

It is not fair to compare a pistol designed in the early part of the twentieth century to modern designs, and if I had a chance to buy one at a decent price I would - It's a very cool gun, but I would not carry it for defense.

So, no, the Baby Browning was not a failure, and the dangerous dame from the above would just not be the same holding a Kel-Tec.

Assumptions

2009-01-03T20:33:00.006-05:00

We’ve taken Breda’s mom shooting a couple of times, and on her own, she took the basic gun handling course at the range we belong to. She really seems to like shooting, and my Ruger Mark II is her current favorite. A couple of weeks ago, a friend from her work, loaned her pair of pistols, and for Christmas, we had the odd reversal of roles of buying ammo for her instead of the other way around.

We got her a box of .32 acp, and took a trip yesterday to Gander Mountain for some .25 acp (you'll just have to stop by Breda's place for the range report on the mystery guns).

Since she's started shooting, I've watched my mother in law do the math on guns. In general, I think for women, guns occupy a different symbolic status than they do for men. There is of course the shooting Zen of grip, breath, front sight, and mindfulness that is universal among gunnies - the physical mastery of a machine, but there is also the realization for women that the gun is a final argument for when someone is trying to make you do something you do not want to do. When they are trying to make you let them rape you, rob you, kill you, there is a tool which says, "Not this time, not me, not mine, I win, you lose." It’s a powerful argument, and men with their greater physical strength don't really have to come to terms with. But for women, a gun truly is an equalizer.

The lady is no wallflower - been married, had kids, lived overseas, weathered good times and bad, and generally made her own way in the world longer than I have, so there is not much I can tell her. I'll give her my opinions if she asks, my advice if she requests, and point out if I think she's about to do something dangerous crazy just like I hope someone would do for me, but beyond that, she doesn't need my permission or approval for anything. Hell, next time I buy a car, I'm bringing her with me to do the negotiations - she's that good.

Is she looking for a gun for around the house? I think she's considering it. If she asks me, I'll say if she is willing to train to reasonable proficiency with it, and has examined her own mind enough to know she would use it if necessary, then yes, I think it’s a good idea.

So we were up at Gander Mountain for the ammo, and under the glass was a Beretta Bobcat. She’s asked me about these, and I’ve given her my opinion pro and con. She knows a .22 pistol is not an optimal choice for self defense, but she liked the little gun. She knows a more powerful round is preferable, but she can handle the recoil of the .22 and is comfortable shooting it, and knows that on a cost per round basis, she can shoot a lot more of it, and a .22 auto works basically the same as every other self-loading pistol, so it’s good training if and when she wants to move up.

The guy behind the counter looked to be in his early twenties, and the first thing he asked is if this is for concealed carry. He made no attempt to find out what she knew or didn’t; assumed her preferences were inconsequential and generally assumed an air of Olympian Authority no one under thirty without a closet full of gold medals should.

"Maybe," answers Breda's mom.

"You don't want that for concealed carry; you want something that will do more damage."

At this point, I thought, but did not say, "Let me load up a mag full of those CCI stingers from that shelf over there and tell me if it hurts when I shoot you with them, sonny boy."

Anyone familiar with gunshops knows what happened next.

Yep, out came the Smith and Wesson Airweight snubby.

“This is what we recommend for concealed carry,” he did not add “ma’am” but I think he thought it.

I like snubbies; I carry one; I practice with it a lot. Breda’s mom has shot it and does not care for it one bit.

She knows she could learn, not that Gander Mountain boy thought to ask, to keep the entire contents of the Beretta, on center mass, at night, in her house, half asleep. She also knows that with a .38 snubby she probably would not be able to do that.

I realize Gander Mountain is in the business of moving sporting goods, and guns are just one part of their equation, but I think they could train their staff to put a little more thought into what they are doing – the life they save could be someone’s mothers.

Happiest of New Years

2009-01-01T11:17:00.004-05:00

I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy, safe, and prosperous new year.

Ours began in the best possible way - a small group of dear friends and family, some delicious food, and a glass of bubbly at midnight followed by hugs and kisses all round... then home to bed safe and warm. I hope yours was as satisfying.

Burn The Witches!

2008-12-30T12:54:00.004-05:00

The wonderful thing about Lucianne is it only takes a few minutes of scrolling to find something that makes me want to punch the monitor. Easy-peasy inspiration for a post.

Now comes one Robert Smith Jr. writing in the Detroit News Political Blog, and offering a no nonsense approach to the violence plaguing the communities of America - Burn The Witches!... I mean ban the guns... whatever.

Combining historical illiteracy with an utter disregard for logic, and wrapping the whole in a thick sheath of hysteria, Mr. Smith concentrates more dimwittery in four short paragraphs than most pro-crime hacks do in forty.

I encourage you to read the entire post, but a few excerpts are in order...

The right to bear arms is killing all of us. In 2005 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,006 children and teens killed by gunfire, most of them young, black men in inner-city neighborhoods.

Uh... that's not all of us, and I do not think it's the second amendment that's down in the hood bustin' caps. Some of us even use that pesky right to bear arms as a means of not being killed.

Then there's this head scratcher...

We need to ensure that those we elect to public office are not so stuck on protecting us from another British invasion that they cannot enact legislation that will limit the number of guns in our country.

Yeah, those perfidious Brits, still hanging around waiting for their chance to come in and take over. A limey peril is what it is, and if we're not armed to the teeth it's tea and crumpets for us buddy.

The country's urban centers are loaded with stupid, violent people, doing stupid, violent things, and the decent people who live there are the ones to suffer. Human brutality does not have a cause - it is a default position. It is decency and civilization which have causes, and when those enabling causes are suppressed, the result is a Hobbesean dystopia.

For decades, our politicians, public intellectuals, and community leaders have been actively undermining the causes of prosperity and decency for their own short term gain (bailouts anybody?), so it should come as no surprise that the rising tide of barbarism thus enabled is swamping the vulnerable first.

Mr. Smith, those who encourage false solutions, obscure truth behind rhetoric, and appeal to magic instead of reason are helping kill people more surely than lack of worthless gun laws.

Vegetarian Chili

2008-12-29T08:50:00.009-05:00

In my opinion, the most important ingredient in vegetarian chili is meat. Yep, that's what makes it good - the more the better. Now, Breda is a purist and does not consider it chili unless it has kidney beans and ground beef as a base. I made this last night, and in deference to my lovely wife, I call it Mexican Stew (but really it's chili).

Ingredients:

1 lb. chorizo cut into slices

1.5 lb. boneless beef chuck short ribs cut into small cubes

5 slices of bacon

1 large green bell pepper - diced

1 poblano pepper - diced

1 large yellow onion - diced

1 15 oz. can of pinto beans - drained

1 15 oz can of chick peas (garbanzos to you fancy types) - drained

1 12 oz can of tomato paste

2 cloves of garlic - minced

1/2 tablespoon of salt

1/2 tablespoon oregano

Now the important part:

1 dried chili pepper - seeded and minced

2 dried Jalapeno peppers - seeded and minced

2 dried chipotles - seeded and minced

1 large fresh jalapeno - seeded and minced

1/2 teaspoon dried chili powder (I like the chipotle, but ymmv)

The above produce a sting on the tongue, some sniffles, and slight perspiration, but no permanent damage - I would say a 4 or 5 on a scale of 10 - feel free to add more heat to suit your particular pain threshold.

Fry the bacon in your chili pot till crisp (why dirty a skillet ?). Take it out and crumble it, but don't pour off the drippings.

Fry the sliced chorizo in the bacon fat (this is a healthy recipe after all, and nothing says cardiac goodness like bacon fat).

After the sausage is brown, remove from pot, and drain off all but 2 tablespoons of drippings.

In the reserved drippings, cook the green pepper, poblano pepper, onion, garlic, diced beef and all the dried peppers until the meat is browned. Do not pour off the juices.

Add 2-1/2 cups of water and everything else, save for the beans, and bring to a boil.

Reduce heat and simmer for thirty minutes and add the beans.

Let it bubble away for another thirty minutes plus however longer it takes to achieve the thickness you like.

Pour everything on the floor and let your family fight for it like wolves.

Alternatively - spoon it into bowls and serve with fresh bread and a nice lager.

The good thing about this recipe is that it serves as a starting place for all sorts of variations - add some corn, or potatos, or use Italian sausage - the sky is the limit.

Econ 101

2008-12-23T12:22:00.005-05:00

Today's question comes to us from one Jacob Leibenluft via Slate via Lucianne: "Are carbon offsets worth it?"

Well Jacob, the simple answer is no. The less simple answer is ... what are you, some kind of idiot !?! Of course they're not worth it. Any nine year old could tell you that.

No that's not quite right, carbon offsets are worth it to a certain species of sharp operator of the type common to street corners offering Rolexes for cheap, and also often seen in the private offices of legislators offering to brighten re-election prospects for not so cheap.

But for the rest of us?

Jacob, try this test: Go up to the above mentioned nine year old and tell him that his farts are fouling the atmosphere and causing much distress among the gentry. After he finishes high-fiving his buds, offer to offset his crude humor for the small cost of one dollar... "Say kid, yeah you, come over here a second. That was some rancid fart you just made, but I'll tell you what... for just one thin dollar, I'll see to it that a professional comedian in the controlled setting of a real comedy club does an entire routine that mentions deadly methane not once, and that will offset your fart. One dollar kid, how can you go wrong?"

Bets on whether you get the dollar or a GPS enabled ankle bracelet?

Jacob, if you can't get a nine year old to fall for some magic bean scheme, what adult is addled enough to fork over their hard earned dough on a cheesy con like carbon offsets?

Wait a minute let's see what you wrote...

Above all, use common sense. The whole rationale behind carbon offsets is that worthy efforts to stop global warming cost money, so if you find a provider selling at a cut-rate price, be careful. The Lantern would be very cautious about spending his own green on a provider who sells offsets at much less than $10 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent. You may be able to buy atonement for your carbon sins, but it won't come cheap.

Oh dear...

Since you won't by carbon offsets for less than ten bucks a ton- (no... no.. Mr. Used Car Salesman, no way will I give you fifteen hundred bucks on this Yugo you're selling, you'll take five thousand and not a penny less! Alright, six thousand but only if you flatten the tires... heh, that'll teach you to mess with me.)... tell ya what I'm gonna do Jake - I'll offset tons and tons of the frightful greenhouse gas, and not for ten dollars a ton, not for twenty, nope.. I'll do it for one million dollars a ton - cash, small bills, non-sequential serial numbers, sent to P.O. Box...

So this guy jumps into a cage with a polar bear...

2008-12-22T15:46:00.004-05:00

If you are waiting for the punchline, it is provided by the growing stranger by the minute Associated Press via Lucainne.

Police say he told them that he felt lonely and that Knut also appeared to be lonely - but he did not give the impression of being mentally disturbed.

Aside from jumping into cages with a polar bears, he gives no impression of being mentally disturbed that is.

Health Of The Nation

2008-12-21T09:27:00.007-05:00

Imagine yourself a doctor, one who specializes in the treatment of addiction - all addiction - drugs, booze, gambling, whatever.

For your efforts, you are well compensated. In fact your salary places you above ninety-five percent of the rest of the country. Not only that, the perks that go with your job are nearly unlimited: no commercial airline travel for you - private jets are your conveyance. Someone else picks up the tab for your five star meals, and five star accommodations, three day work week, six month vacation, and diamond-crusted, platinum parachute retirement package.

But wait, there's more. Along with your fantastic pay and benefits, you also have power- real power. You can make rules and have them enforced by armed men who answer to you. You don't give advice, or make suggestions, you make rules, and can make people follow them. Of course mistakes are sometimes made, and people die, but, and this is another benefit of your position, the rules you have made say you cannot be held liable for the results.

Better than that, you are mostly immune to the rules you make. Sure, if you are caught robbing a bank, or killing someone, there will be trouble. But for the most part, you are insulated from the consequences of your own misdeeds.

Best of all, the number of other practitioners in your field is limited by law - that's right, there is no chance someone will set up a competing practice next door to you, so you're the only game in town. If the addicts need help, you are their only choice.

There is only one problem. Your position is not a lifetime one. Periodically, you must be re-elected, and since your job is so lucrative, there will always be contenders trying to take it from you.

But here again, the rules you have made give you the advantage. The set up is brilliant in its simplicity, and nearly foolproof - make sure the addicts you treat are the same voters who decide your future.

Oh it is delicious: to the heroin addict in your examination room, "China white baby! Free, free to you just put your X right here on the ballot next to my name." To the drunk, "Twelve year old single malt - all yours. Ice? Splash of soda? Freshen that up for you? Don't worry, I've got this round...vote for me?" "Compulsive gambler? There's a plane leaving for Vegas in an hour; here's some chips, and there's more... lots more where that came from. Who loves ya? Remember me at the polls."

What addict is going to vote to cut off the source of his supply? And what competitor is going to try to fight for your position considering the advantages you hold?

Treating addicts by catering to their addiction? What could go wrong with a plan like that?

Irony that slices like a hammer.

2008-12-20T10:56:00.002-05:00

Mark Felt has died. If you didn’t know it, he was better known as “Deep Throat”, the anonymous informant who helped bring down the Nixon Administration.

Like many of his kind, he didn’t run to the press to tell his story out of ethical considerations, but from a violated sense of entitlement. He was a frustrated place seeker who blamed Nixon for his lack of advancement and used the Washington Post to get his revenge.

Now comes that same Washington Post with a strange sort of eulogy for the old whistleblower…

Deep Throat's death comes as no shock to the nursing-home atmosphere that sometimes looms over American newspapering these days, where we tend to log on each morning and ask, while chewing soft food, who's dead now? (Or, who's been laid off? Who's stopped subscribing? Who's stopped delivering? Who's decided to close their Washington bureau?)

Is this a commemoration of the passing of a snitch, or of the industry who depended on his sort?

A couple of lines later the question is inadvertently answered…

Without a single byline he inspired thousands and thousands of campus misfits to get journalism degrees, each one of them in pursuit of bad haircuts, smoking habits and the next Deep Throat, the next huge story. Any "-gate" that followed or may yet follow feels incomplete without its own Deep Throat.

Write the truth as best you can? Bring a sense of order to chaotic events? Quietly and humbly perform a service for your community? No way baby; we’re looking for heads to hang on the wall. Journalism morphed into a blood sport, and while the great hunters were out stalking their prey, the locals with webcams, and internet connections were back looting the camp.

Deep throat was aptly nicknamed. He was man with no animus toward the administration he brought down, and no love for the instrument he used. He was an out of town businessman hiring a call girl for something he felt entitled to.

Like a self-destructive habit, the client the call girl relied on is the thing that killed her. Live by the rat, die by the rat. Those in power might not be very competent at any useful job, but know how to leak a story and knife a rival without leaving fingerprints. The misfits with bad haircuts and willingness to self-deceive met with fake whistleblowers as well as real ones and didn’t care about being used because they were getting the story.

That’s the problem: The hooker as a business model only works until someone younger and better looking comes along. Then the choice becomes leave the trade or lower your standards hoping to hang on for a little longer.

The news industry is doing both.

The article ends an admonition that Mark Felt shows us what is truly important in the newspaper business…

The best way to appreciate Mark Felt is to work the phones, take notes and figure out how to get that which is off the record, on.

Kind of like someone on the deck of the Titanic saying, “Build ships with more lifeboats.”

The Green Revolution

2008-11-17T11:59:00.002-05:00

I have been converted. I used to think “environmentalist” was synonymous with “totalitarian weenie who wants to run my life but doesn’t have the balls to try taking my liberty on his own, so he’ll get the government to do it”, but now thanks to Mr. Derbyshire, via Lucianne, we can see the green future and it works.

Wow! Here’s a tour of a major city with plenty of green space, and populations of wildlife normally not seen in urban environments. The best of both worlds - after reading that, sign me up for the auto industry bailout.

If a public/private partnership (think Freddie and Fannie, but with union thugs instead of acorn types pushing you around) between the auto unions and the democrat party can provide this type of enviromental utopia for Detroit, what can they do for (to) your neck of the woods?

I for one, welcome our new Obamalords.

Who Could Have Forseen?

2008-11-13T12:35:00.002-05:00

Six Meat Buffet is just plain funny, particularly when gems such as this piece of unintended consequences come to light. The innovative business plan of letting the customers set their own price at your restaurant may have something to recommend it, but not in a staying in business kind of way.

According to the paper, "Inexperience seems to be the main problem" in causing the collapse of the trendy eatery. Uh... not so much.

Hint for all - experienced as well as inexperienced business owners must consistently take in more money than they spend, or they go out of business. I know many want that to be no longer true, but there's life in the old Adam Smith yet.

On the bright side, watch these people; they have a future in the Obama administration.

Modern Worries

2008-11-11T12:10:00.003-05:00

I hope the sudden surge in gun buying results in an overstock and price drop before the bans finally come down the line. My bank account tells me I’m in no position to be forking out for black rifles of any variety. But if a credit card has to be maxed out in order to get what I need, I guess there are worse things in the world.

Over at Sebastian’s place, he links to some folks who think I’d be crazy to worry about what THE ONE is planning regarding my civil rights, because didn’t he pinky swear to not try to go for more gun control unless he can get big majorities in the house and senate, or it’s Tuesday, or he feels blue, or he needs an issue to give him the illusion of doing something about something.

How can one fail to be reassured by that level of commitment to the second amendment?

Personally, I think it’s just jealousy – here we have an industry which is booming (tee hee hee) in response to the ascension of His Messiah-ness, and the poor ink and pixel stained wretches of the media can’t even get a reach around after the massive knee pad party they just threw.

Hey ABCCBSCNNNSNBCNYTWAPO et.al., here’s is a hint: Make a product that people consider valuable, and they will go out of their way to buy it.

No Amount of Money Is Too Much...

2008-11-10T11:50:00.003-05:00

...to spend to give people the illusion of safety. From War On Guns comes this bit of official legerdemain. Seems one of the more tech-savvy burgs in Massachusetts spent a dumptruck load of dough (actually the last time I priced construction equipment, I think it's two dumptrucks worth) on the vaunted Shot Spotter anti crime system.

The first thing I noted was the disconnect between the headline and the body of the story:

Headline: "Police use ShotSpotter technology to combat gun violence"

Actual story: "Police used the ShotSpotter system to locate a shooting victim Oct. 14th near this intersection of Pine St. and Cedar St. in Springfield."

Lets review-- a $450,000 doodad that lets you quickly locate a perforated corpse, is not the same thing as one which prevents said corpse from becoming perforated in the first place.

Next is the admirable restraint shown by the reporter in refraining from editorializing when the police spokesflack said that in the four months of operation the system has netted an impressive zero arrests but it was only a matter of time till it did so.

Were I in in the reporter's place, the sentence after would read approximately ,"The department spokesman let it be know that the data from the new system would be sent directly to the bat cave, and soon, evil doers all over the city would be left neatly tied up and labelled with pithy notes describing the particulars of their crimes, so this whole crime thing was licked like a stamp."

Citizens, you can rest easy; your bullet-riddled corpses will no longer go unfound - Shot Spotter is on duty.

Thanks For All Your Help

2008-11-08T10:05:00.005-05:00

Found this on Lucianne this morning. It seems now that the messiah is in, the Washington Post is doing a small version of the "mea culpa" waltz hoping to win back some of the 50 million or so Americans who didn't think their boosterism of ol' hopey-changey was quite cricket.

Right there in the story was a link encouraging you to respond via email - so I did...

Saw an on-line version of your column about the titled election coverage - read the first paragraph - especially the bit about "The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage" right there in the first sentence - started laughing - stopped reading and moved on to other things, but I'm still giggling. Thanks for the humor.

The on-line thing should be a clue; I haven't purchased a paper newspaper in about a decade. Hope your buyout offer comes soon - looking for a new career over fifty is tough.

I thought I made my point in a nice way.

If a dead tree falls in the forest...

2008-09-11T10:36:00.002-04:00

Mr. Rummel describes his encounter with a buggy whip salesman, and he was very nice to the misguided soul - I usually just laugh out loud an shut the door.

Strangely, he does consider the Plain Dealer to "energetic" compared to the Columbus Dispatch - perhaps in the same way live sloths can be called energetic compared to dead sloths.

There are many reasons

2008-09-11T08:22:00.001-04:00

I am in awe of Xavier, this is one.

Immigataion Reform

2008-09-10T08:47:00.002-04:00

Via Hot Air, I found this piece of hyperventilating, panty bunching, giggle fodder from some euro-type who, when the inevitable demographic shift occurs, and England becomes an islamic country, should not under any circumstances be given refugee status. Make the twerp stay in his own fouled nest.

Department of not getting it department

2008-09-08T06:30:00.004-04:00

So I was listening to the local talk radio on the way to the store for extra bacon for the pig candy and there is this fellow - a serious lefty lawyer who gets a couple hours of rebuttal time on Saturdays to balance the Medved/Prager/Ingraham blabfest from the rest of the week.

He was one of the "Bush -worst- president- in the- history- of- the -U.S." sort of people and all that implies, and he's livid- sputtering, and stomping his little feet over the Palin pick. From what I could gather - between bouts of spittle-flecked microphone biting, he felt that MaCain chose the Alaska Governor in a cynical, underhanded attempt to turn the simple country folk, what with their cow milking and hay making, against their dazzling urbanite betters and thus drive a wedge between these heretofore natural allies in the battle against the Darth Vadars of the Republican party. He was shocked that a political organization would stoop so low as to pander to different demographic groups. Any political organization other than the democrats that is.

Apparently, his thinking goes, if the party of Lincoln wins with a strategy like that, it puts at risk gender norming, race-based college admissions, minority only business enterprise zones, taxing the successful to ease life for the stupid, hate crimes legislation, and sending global warming deniers to re-education camps - you know, the things that bring us all together in one big warm hopey-changey group hug.

With all due deference to anecdote not being data and all, I would beg to differ.

I do not have many acquaintances amongst the Bumpkin-American sector, but my travels to today's gun show did reveal a surprising number of people who were excited about the prospects of a Palin/McCain administration (yeah, I know she's not supposed to get top billing) ... old guys.

I hear your objection. I was at a gun show, and gunnies are a target audience for the republicans, but I was paying attention to the people who were visibly, and volubly happy; people who would go out of their way to bring up their love of the vice presidential nominee, and the ones who stood out from the crowd were the codgers.

One guy - a wrinkled, gray haired vet, was telling everybody who came to look at his wares that he was switching from Bob Barr to McCain because of Sarah Palin, another (full disclosure: father of a friend of mine) who could best described as a 77 year old anti-authoritarian populist who wasn't going to bother voting this year, sees her Governorship as a Harry Trumanesque figure. Hell, even Breda's 80 year old uncle (more than one purple heart from Korea) is dancing little jigs because Sarah Palin reminds him of his own wife.

I can't believe this represents any kind if intent on the part of McCain, but I think it does show there's votes to be won in the unlikeliest of places, and if this till now marginalized constituency
has become energized- there's no telling who else the democrats - a party who practically specialize in sneering condescension - have pushed past the point of no return.

Funny thing happened on the way to the coronation.

2008-09-06T13:07:00.006-04:00

Now where was I? Oh yes, McCain, Palin, Biden, Obama, and Sun Tzu. Old Sunny was hell on wheels in his day, so much so, that a lot of modern folk think he has the skinny on winning at any endeavor from hostile takeovers of companies to getting the girl of your dreams to go out with you instead of Bob down in accounting.

I've read "The Art of War" and it contains much good, hard common sense distilled down to easy to apply aphorisms, the whole thing larded with a healthy dose of fortune-cookie pablum. But like the Greeks with logic, Sun Tzu gets credit for thinking of it first, and creating what is THE baby step, must read, start here, study of strategy.

The most famous of his dictates reads more or less, "know yourself and know your enemy and you will never know defeat". This is true as far as it goes, so long as one ignores luck and happenstance - having the high ground, the best army, and best plan is for naught if god decides to drop a piano on you before the fight starts.

Nonetheless, if you can apply the rule (there's the rub), your chances for victory go right up.

I'm sure there is also a political version of the book - Machiavelli wrote one, but unless one has the option of putting enemy's heads on stakes, it's not too useful for practical politics in 21st century America. Still, if there some version of "The Art of political War" available, recent events show the democrats haven't read it, because, boy did they get caught flat footed.

Our brethren on the left are running around in circles and screaming to any sympathetic ear the the filthy republicans are actually trying to win the election, that they don't understand the rules, they're... they're... fighting back.

Uh, guys it's an election contest - if only one side tries to win, the whole competition idea goes out the window.

And herein lies a little insight into the mind of the democratic party (know your enemy... remember) - they are so confident of their own rectitude they cannot conceive of someone not wanting what they are selling. It flummoxes them that given their natural superiority in this contest, that the other side would would actually even want to go through with it. They are great, they are pure, they are destiny's children, they do not know their enemy.

If failure to know thy enemy is a dangerous conceit, failure to know yourself is a fatal one. And here again the democrats fall into a trap of their own making. It is difficult to have a clear sense of self when everybody from the New York Times editorial page to the flakes at MSNBC is telling you how great you are. Barack Obama is a nancy-boy, metrosexual amalgam of white guilt and black sense of entitlement, and to call Joe Biden dumber than a box of hammers is to risk insulting the intellect of of blunt objects, yet the watch poodles of the media have convinced a good portion of the voting public that these two are the god-like harbingers of a new politics. Worse still, it seems they have convinced Obama and Biden of this too.

Now, if the Palin pick is analogous to the battles of Lexington and Concord, where the British learned the colonists would indeed fight, I would suggest the next stage should be a good old Trenton sneak attack: Send every organizer, and speaker to the innerest of the inner cities with pictures showing the fully one in ten democratic convention delegates who are NEA members; arm them with lots of quotes from education folk saying that if the people are given school choice, they won't choose the public schools, and then ask how the democratic party thing is working out for their kid's futures.

Will it change any minds in urban America? Doubtful, but howls, and screams of the Obama campaign, at even the merest possibility he could loose the hold over his people, certainly might push some of the undecideds to McCain.

And, besides as a spectacle, watching the wheels come the Obama bus would take some beating.

9-7-08 Update: I wrote the above before I found this from Caroline Glick - I'm some kind of psychic apparently.

This Just Might Be Interesting

2008-08-22T10:16:00.004-04:00

We were in the backyard yesterday, celebrating my birthday with Full Sail Pale Ale (their slogan is "Ridiculously Tasty" - they ain't kidding), and some turtle watching, when Breda says she can't wait for the democratic coronat... er... I mean convention in Denver.

Personally, I prefer something less scripted, like pro wrestling or a Soviet show trial, so I asked why.

"For the fireworks, the protests, the blood in the streets, Chicago 1968 all over again" she answered (approximately).

"But", I countered, "these are democrats - you know, all marching in lock step. A vast sea of identical diversity worshipers all demanding freedom for themselves and people who believe exactly what they believe - why would they eat their young like that? Especially since they are this close to ultimate power, to having the means to build a kinder, more caring world where their enemies can be ruthlessly crushed and their heads placed on pikes in a kindly, gentle manner."

In reply she spoke but a single word... "Hillary."

I have my doubts, but they are not as absolute as they once were. For today I found via Instapundit, via Slate... a last ditch Hillary site.

I don't know what is going on here, or if these folk are serious, or influential or what. But it's enough to give a reactionary troglodyte such as myself a good case of the schadenfreude giggles.

Here is a sample from the schedule of events

Beautiful Protest and Rise,

Cheesman Park, 4-10pmIn Commemoration of Hillary Clinton’s Historic Presidential Campaign! What makes this historical event special, isn’t just that it’s named after the Maya Angelou’s famous poem “Rise,” but that it will also close with the lighting of candles to pay tribute to Hillary and all of her achievements, while also symbolically reigniting the flame to America’s great Democracy and Lady Liberty’s torch. Hundreds of participants are expected to attend, and candles are planned to Rise across the nation, community by community, in one harmonious gesture of participation. There is no doubt that this will be a marvelous occasion for everyone who has worked on behalf of Hillary Clinton, as well as all her supporters/fans who just believe and appreciate our Liberty and Democracy will all have an opportunity to come together and enjoy an afternoon and evening of festivities. This is a free event and all Hillary supporters/fans are welcome. PumaPac activities in the park will begin at 4p.m. and run until 6 p.m. The Rise speakers and entertainment will begin at 7 p.m. and end at 10 p.m., with the national “Rise” candle salute to Hillary, Democracy and Lady Liberty to Kickoff in Cheesman Park at exactly 9:45 MDT.

She might not get the White House, but she gets the "national candle salute"?

I just might participate in that... I'll have my own lovely librarian figure out what 9:45 MDT works out to in flyover country, and go outside and point something in the air in a Hillary-ward direction to express my true feelings too.

Pretty Girls

2008-08-18T21:43:00.003-04:00

I'm long out of high school, but after listening to Barrack Obama for a couple of months, all I can think of is Pretty Girl Disease. You know the blond cheerleader who got her books carried home, and test answers slipped to her, and every door opened by a willing suitor. She may have ended up in the big house with the pool and the convertible, but unless she was a person of the highest character, she is also shallow, self-centered, ungrateful, and endowed with a colossal sense of entitlement.

And, frankly, much as I dislike McCain, I can at least sense some character there - Obama, nothing.

His entire life, the guy has been graded on the curve by people who saw in him validation of their own beliefs... "He's good-looking, glib, and fashionably dark, and he's going places! Oh boy aren't we just the grandest for supporting programs that made him possible."

And the press, and worshipful followers, are like the ugly kids who flock around the pretty ones hoping some of the glamor will rub off.

I hope I'm not naive, and I know you search the closets of any politician at your peril, and character is not the sole criterion for casting a vote, but when one candidate has some and the other guy has none, it becomes difficult to ignore.

Why I Read Ace Everyday

2008-08-05T14:41:00.002-04:00

Because the folks who write there are capable of insight and recognize real irony. I feel a little happier for having read this.

In My Darker Moments

2008-08-05T12:08:00.003-04:00

I'm looking for suggestions. After the little explosion of last week, I spent some time sorting through my thoughts, and I couldn't make the needle swing to the positive side. It's hard to watch the Mayor of DC acting like any old Jim Crow loving good old boy defying the Supreme Court, American terrorists offering the standard rationalizations their crimes, all while the news media want us to pretend not to notice they have given up all pretense of objectivity.

Now Sebastian writes that he has some doubts about the legality of putting his political opinions down on paper and handing them out.

In America for God's sake, you now have to be afraid that it might be against the law to publish an opinion.

I'm looking for glad tidings, and not finding too many.

So, I'm asking for suggestions - what candle do you light? What star do you steer by? And which way do you turn to scent something good on the wind?

It's The Guns

2008-08-01T08:44:00.003-04:00

The next time some slimeball politician spews the old "more guns leads to more crime" canard, send the S.O.B. a copy of this story out of Albany, New York and found at Of Arms and the Law.

Short version: Woman accuses the police of misconduct, and in order to prove her wrong, and charge her with the misdemeanor of filing a false statement, the prosecutor offers a violent felon a plea deal to reduce his 15 year armed robbery sentence to 3 years if he will testify against her.

In 4 years when the now free felon kills, or beats, or rapes someone, at least the victim's family can take comfort in the fact that the cops drawing the chalk outline around the body have untarnished reputations.

More guns don't lead to more crime; giving light sentences to violent felons for selfish reasons leads to more crime.

P.S. I wonder if they would offer the same deal to a guy to testify against the police should the situation warrant it.

Bliss

2008-07-31T08:36:00.002-04:00

Today is the 18th anniversary of our marriage my love - 9 years of bliss and joy. Thank You for putting up with me.

I am the luckiest man in the universe.

Just In Time For The Big Show

2008-07-30T07:14:00.002-04:00

I do not know if Mr. Rummel is a religious man. Heck, I’m not, but you don’t have to be religious to recognize when someone is doing the Lord’s work – and Mr. Rummel most assuredly is.

A day or so ago he posted an insightful piece about America’s pistol – the .45 ACP government model of 1911 its heirs and assigns.

And now the Gun-O-Sphere has once again gone up in flames with .45-vs-Glock-vs-who all knows what fever.

I have thought back, and to the best of my imperfect memory, I don’t believe I have ever fired John Moses Browning’s (PBUH) masterpiece. I’ve shot a fair amount of forty five auto – through Glocks, XD’s and other polymer wonders, but never a 1911.

I don’t feel a void in my life for this lack of experience, but nonetheless, one should own and fire this quintessential firearm – it’s a kind of duty which has been laid upon us by history.

So, when one of these showed up at my local gunshop, I felt it was time to do my duty, and make America proud. I realize it is not a Colt or Kimber, but it was half the price of their compact models, all steel, reasonably small so it could serve as a carry pistol, and with the right magazines and tuning, reliability wouldn't be a big issue.

So, without further ado, allow me to introduce my newest boomstick…

You’ll notice it doesn’t really look like a government model, and there’s a story that goes with it. I was saving up the money for the .45 and lining up all the stuff that needs to go with a new gun, and making frequent visits to the store to commune with my future purchase. When I noticed the Smith Model 19 in the rental case.

It just kind of stood out among the Taurus, and Glock, and Springfield Armory offerings, so I asked to see it, and it felt GOOD. So I put it back - I was buying a gummint model.

Next time at the range for a little practice with the J-Frame, I asked to see it again. It had been in the case for two weeks and I don't think anyone had rented it, or if they had, they had only put a few rounds through it. I asked for a bore light... the inside of the barrel was like a mirror and the rifling was sharp and distinct.

Nope, I've got revolvers, and I'm buying that .45 auto, I said to myself.

I happened to be at the range a week later, and since I was definitely buying the High Standard, there was no harm in renting the Smith, just, you know, to see how it shot...

It shot good. Real good.

I took another turn with the bore light... the forcing cone was clean and showed no evidence of cracking. The finish was black and shiny, without scratches, or wear at the muzzle or cylinder face, and she locked up tight. Hell, there wasn't even a visible drag line around the cylinder. I actually believed Mike, the merchant of death behind the counter, when he said the guy who brought it in claimed only ten or so rounds had gone through it.

So forgive me John Moses. I meant to buy a forty-five, I really did, and there is no excuse but the weakness of my soul for I have been possessed by the allure of the Smith and Wesson.

When The History...

2008-07-29T14:18:00.002-04:00

of the collapse of the repuplican party is written, the failure of the leadership to take this man into a dark corner of the Capitol and beat him with a sack of oranges until he bled out of his ears will be listed as a major cause.

Just One Thing

2008-07-28T12:24:00.002-04:00

My favorite Librarian confirmed that Illinois does have constitutional provisions for citizen initiatives on the ballot. And since Mayor D...d.....d.....duh....Daley is so frightened of guns, he surely wouldn't want them near him. So how about a petition drive to make it illegal for any public employee of the State of Illinois to have an armed security detail?

Thoughts

2008-07-28T10:02:00.002-04:00

I am a bad gunnie. I admit it… lived in Ohio all these years and yesterday was the first time to Camp Perry. We had a blast, and will definitely be back.

On the trip out, I saw one of those things that sends the wheels spinning.

We were driving west through the farms and fields of Erie and Ottawa Counties, when a car passed us – not surprising, I drive by setting the cruise control at the speed limit and staying in the right hand lane. On the back was a sticker with the word “CO-EXIST” formed out of letters shaped from the symbols of the world’s religions.

My first reaction was irritation, but I stopped to think about why it was irritating – and a few things came to mind:

First of course was the incredible shallowness of it. Humans have been struggling with the existence of evil for as long as we have been on the planet. Plato, Augustine, and Hannah Ardent all confronted it. Their answers differed on the source of evil – conflict among the gods mirrored on earth, or original sin, but they all agree people are often vicious animals, and that will never change. I don’t think they are sitting in philosopher heaven slapping their foreheads and saying, “Coexist, why didn’t we think of that!”

Next, the sheer, stumbling, childishness it shows– there are places in the world where simply having that bumper sticker on your car is cause to be dragged down the street by your heels and stoned to death – legally. Those are the people who need to hear your message, not me, but I don’t see that you have any plan for getting the message to them.

Finally, the arrogant presumption of it. Friend, you’re preaching to the choir; you live in a place where coexistence is a way of life. In fact it’s enshrined in our founding documents. But here’s the ugly little secret… do you know how we got to this place? We got here by killing the ones who didn’t want to coexist with us. The freedom you enjoy to drive on down the highway with your opinion displayed on your bumper was paid for in blood – the blood of soldiers who surely would have rather been anywhere else than Yorktown, Fredericksburg, or Baghdad, but also the blood of innocents in places like Dresden, and Hiroshima – where children who died screaming as fire rained down from the sky.

There is nothing you can do to alter the fact that your liberty is a bloodstained thing. And there is nothing you can do to alter the fact keeping it will require more blood be spilled.

What you can do is live in such a way as to redeem that blood. Think long and deep about your life and freedom, learn what it really costs, and realize though that may be high, the cost of regaining it once lost would be astronomical.

Finally accept that the freedom you pass on to your children, though it won’t be pure, can be less bloody, but a bumper sticker slogan won’t help.

Gavin Newsom Is...

2008-07-23T12:50:00.002-04:00

A lying, foul, scum-sucking coward; a scurvy, base, sniveling, fornicator with dead farm animals.

If he were on fire, I would not piss on him.

Things That Work Right Up Until They Don't

2008-07-22T12:21:00.006-04:00

From a thread at OFCC, we find this. Yes indeed, Virginia Tech was a completely safe, gun-free place... right up until it wasn't.

Naturally, the editorialist gives us the police view on the matter:

Gene Ferrara, chief of police at the University of Cincinnati, had this to say to CNN not long ago: "I don't think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying. My belief is we ought to be focusing on what we do to prevent the shooting from starting."

My question to Mr. Ferrara is: If sending more bullets flying isn't the answer, when you arrive at the scene of an active shooting (assuming you are in time to do anything other than identify the bodies) what are you going to do to stop it, use harsh language?

Civil Society

2008-07-21T12:55:00.003-04:00

Powerline has done a follow up on the Star Tribune’s follow up of this incident. I’m not from Minneapolis, so don’t read the paper regularly, but if their hectoring, supercilious, and self-parodying response is any indication of the quality of their work, I doubt very many read it.

Aside from their offhand "Obama can save us" endorsement, they offer this laser-like insight:

We share the anger and outrage caused by bands of young thugs. No family should have to endure the loss or injury of a loved one in this way. Yet in the search for solutions care must be taken to properly punish offenders and address the root causes of violence -- without giving in to fear, ignorance and racism.

Let us for a moment pretend that the root causes they speak of are not simply progressive code speak for white people not paying enough taxes and cutting enough slack for the social pathology of others.

What were the root causes which made these stellar citizens decide to gang up and sexually assault a twelve year old girl then dance on top of her father’s skull when he tried to stop them?

Poverty? There doesn't seem to be a mention of robbery, and if robbery was the intent, wouldn’t they attack before the family went into the park, rather than when they were leaving, after having spent their money?

Racism? The paper doesn’t give the race of the victims, but if they also were black, calling the attack a response to racism would make no sense. And if they were white, is the Star Tribune suggesting these sort of attacks should be viewed as a spontaneous overflow of rage at the injustice of society?

The latter, at least has some logical consistency, but ignores the inevitable conclusion: If I must consider every black person I meet as a potential time bomb ready to explode into random violence, I am going to stay away from them as much as possible – that’s not racism; it’s just common sense.

Since promoting “racism equals root causes” leads to a dead end, perhaps we can consider other root causes: Nihilism for example – to a stunted imagination, empathy is an unknowable concept, and “it seemed like a good idea at the time” is all the justification needed for any act. Based on the available evidence, this particular root cause seem more likely than many others.

The good news is that barbarous nihilism is a cause which can be addressed – it is difficult, and uncomfortable to point out and oppose those things which cause a culture to degenerate, but it can be done by someone with good faith and desire to shed their preconceptions. The bad news is that description does not apply to the editors of the Star Tribune.

Why You Little Scamps...

2008-07-17T08:15:00.002-04:00

From Powerline:

Suppose Garrison Keillor can find a way to fit the antics of these modern day Hucks and Toms into a segment of his radio show?

Normally, I try to avoid commenting on stories like these - many other people do it better, but occasionally the antics of the Feral-American community make me too angry to remain silent.

Personal favorite? Scott County Attorney Patrick Ciliberto laying down the law:

"This type of violence cannot be accepted in our community," he said. "We had a family at the fair enjoying the holiday. Behavior like this is personal to our community."

That's telling 'em sparky. I bet every violent criminal in a hundred mile radius is looking over his shoulder now. "Whoa dude, stay outta Scott County-they take it personal!"

The suspects, charged with a third degree felony(?!?!?!), are out on bail right now, and the victims are in hiding. But not to worry, if the father who was stomped trying to keep his twelve-year-old daughter from being gang raped is found to have permanent injuries, or takes a turn for the worse, or dies or something - then these guys are in real trouble yah-you-bet-by-gum. Because according to Patrick "Law West of the Pecos" Ciliberto:

Valleyfair has had "no assault of this magnitude" since he took office in 2002. He said the father was taken to Ridges Hospital in Burnsville for a fractured eye socket bone and other injuries. His office was told Monday that doctors were waiting for the man's swelling to subside before checking for permanent injuries, which could justify more serious charges.

Look for extreme punishment in that case - perhaps an extra day of community service, or if it survives the eighth amendment challenge - taking away their gameboys.

These Minnesota prosecutors could teach the English a thing or two about dealing with violent crime.

The Things You Do Hear

2008-07-16T20:10:00.003-04:00

Please note: My Wife Is The Awesome.

I just had a chance to listen (the meanies at work expect me to produce completed projects instead of listening to podcasts) to Ahab's brilliant podcast and gosh I'm a lucky guy.

Also remember Vote Ahab for Everything - we will bend the universe to our iron will and he will rule the world.

That is all.

And another One

2008-07-15T21:02:00.002-04:00

Seems the local constabulary in Ohio have a little problem figuring out the whole open carry thing. Please Visit Ohioans for Concealed Carry and follow the thread for More Info. I know some disapprove of open carry except under controlled circumstances, and feel that it is somewhat exhibitionistic and wont to draw unfavorable attention - in short it "scares the white people".

I can see this point and, in truth, would be taken slightly aback if I saw a gun on the hip of the guy next to me in line at the Giant Eagle. On the other hand, I don't think I'd call the police.

That having been said, I think the times have changed somewhat, and open carry is no longer beyond the pale, so we should at least refrain from criticism even if we cannot lend support.

Interesting Thought You Got There Steve

2008-07-15T20:41:00.003-04:00

From Thirdpower we find this. My only question about Steve Herr's self-proclaimed "best solution in the world" is, once he has decided who he's not going to let have any guns, how is he going to take them away?

Seriously Steve, take me for example, I'm not really a joiner, so I'm certainly not part of any militia you would recognize, therefore you withdraw your consent for me to own guns - so be it. I've still got them what's your plan now genius?

Stevie boy - don't keep these things to yourself... share with us your next step.

Pravda

2008-07-13T22:03:00.001-04:00

Uncle asks a question.

I went here and searched for "Pro-Gun Rally In Chicago" and several permutations thereof. Maybe you can find something, but I didn't.

Then I found this and wonder if there is some connection.

When a newspapers go from deciding that news is important to deciding only news they agree with is important, they've joined the ranks of Pravda and the Peoples Daily, and are no longer worthy of the heritage and protection that so many gave their lives to secure for them.

A little fuzzy

2008-07-12T07:44:00.003-04:00

Happy hour at the Willoughby Brewing Company gets a little crowded - especially on Friday. So when we plan a get together with our friends, I usually try to arrive early to get a table in the bar area.

Yesterday, I got there extra early just to make sure we would have a place to sit, and naturally felt a little guilty taking up a table for six all by my lonesome. I tried to make up for it by giving the very nice waitress lady something to do. And she, bless her heart, answered the call like the pro she was.

Two hours later, when Breda, her mom, and our friend Nicole arrived, I was feeling decidedly mellow. Perhaps mellow is not quite the right word, but I did keep a table secure for our little group by putting my body, well liver anyway, on the line. Yep, I took one (six*) for the team.

Ain't I something.

* 1Lost Nation Pale Ale (...mmmm hops)
1Wild Irish Red (very tasty)
1PDG Porter (very very tasty)
3 Willoughby Wheats (light, refreshing, and low, well lowish, in alcohol)

Need coffee now.

Who Is Who

2008-07-11T12:15:00.003-04:00

Linked to by Instapundit, the story of how our elected representatives, in order to suck votes and support from the public employees unions, gave our tax dollars to investment managers who promised way more than they could deliver, and now we are going to get stuck with the bill to pay for some bureaucrat's retirement home in the Outer Banks because the investment return was "guaranteed".

Sort of like having a pimp come to your house and beat you for money to pay back a client whose wallet was stolen by a hooker. Except in this case it hard to tell exactly which one is the pimp, the hooker, and the john with the missing billfold.

We do however, know who is going to get screwed.

Don't Drink Anything Before Reading Further

2008-07-11T09:29:00.002-04:00

Just found Blackfork via Uncle, and this post made me giggle-n-snork.

So true, if I had to go to the nightstand at four-inna-a-blasted-m, I'd be as likely to come up with a plastic slinky and a handful of Canadian Two Dollar Coins as a gun. I'll take it as a warning - a little house cleaning is in order.

Too Fun

2008-07-11T09:02:00.002-04:00

Found this at AOSHQ - make your own Obama Poster. Quick, easy, fun - here is mine. Everyone can play.

Gun Fetishists

2008-07-11T06:25:00.002-04:00

It has been an ongoing theme since the supremes handed down the Heller decision - every gun hater, and grabber, and suckler at the teat of state power is trying to make their case that the court got it wrong, and the country will now descend into a hellish pit of animal violence.

I have guns, most of my friends have them, and no one I call friend would advocate forcible disarmament. But for all those guns, not one owner believes them to be anything but inanimate chunks of metal and plastic. They may think of them as elegant machines, means to defense, or artifacts requiring skill to master, but never a thing possessed of power in itself. The true fetishists are the Bradys, and the Sugarmanns, and the Helmkes, for they are the ones who see what is essentially a mundane tool as a magical idol which can take over the mind of whoever holds it.

This isn't to say there is not a philosophical aspect to the decision to go armed. I think about it every day, and more eloquent people than I, have put words to the thoughts of everyone who carries a firearm for defense. But a philosophy is a human thing, and my firearm does not have one. In truth, it would make things easier if it did - we could simply prohibit the possession of evil guns and limit people to owning the good ones.

It is commonplace to note the use of projection by the gun controllers - even that term implies that guns are capable of independent action - it is obvious that many of of them distrust themselves and cannot conceive of people who think differently than they, thus everyone should be disarmed for the good of all.

I think there is some validity in the projection argument, but in the end it leads nowhere - as true as it may be, it is still a form of name calling and will convince neither the anti-gunners nor have much affect on the uncommitted.

But there is a corollary argument: While Paul, Sarah, and Josh, do not go home every night filled with rage and glad they do not have a gun handy, they do lie, misrepresent, and slander. They do those things because they believe their means are justified by their ends, and believe, or have convinced themselves, that their opponents do the same.

It is this projection which is the most egregious and makes them most vulnerable, for it can be countered most effectively not only by letters to the editor, or comment thread flame wars, but simple everyday actions - every time we take a new person shooting, or engage in community service, we give lie to the claim that gun-owners are bitter knuckle-draggers one step away from being mass murderers. Lies and slander consist of words, and should be responded to with truth and goodwill, but they are also actions, and can be defeated by actions.

Holy Crap

2008-07-10T14:45:00.006-04:00

This causes the anger to rise and the black thoughts to crowd around, rattling the doorknobs, and tapping at the windows of the mind, asking to be turned into actions.

Who do these people think they are? How does it come to pass that a person may come to believe they are in the right by terrorizing those who are dedicated to improving life.

The prize for irony-proof mind goes to some human weedpatch named Jason Black:

"An animal has as much of a right to life as we do. To take a life without provocation is immoral, it's violent, there's no excuse for it,"

Uh Jason, no. An animal doesn't have as much of a right to life as I do, and if you or any of your worthless sack-of-crap friends come near my home with a firebomb - I would consider it provocation enough to shoot your ass.

It's happening in California, so the authorities probably consider these idiots to be heroes.

Coffee, Tea, or ...

2008-07-09T09:44:00.003-04:00

Someone tell me this is a joke - some early April Fools deal that got published because the editor hadn't had his coffee. On the other hand I found it on Instapundit and Mr. Reynolds is not usually so easily fooled.

Dear God has it come to this?

Must Read This

2008-07-08T20:27:00.002-04:00

I apologize for the lightishness of postage, but I'm more or less in the construction industry in Ohio of all the overtaxed, economically under performing places, and any upturn in business is met enthusiastically by me grabbing as much overtime as I can, so not a lot of spare time is left to me.
But I do notice Mr. Lawdog has a critter report of a very instructional nature posted - hie thee hence and be amazed and amused.

Election

2008-07-08T12:24:00.005-04:00

To be an effective president one must be the master of many skills, but getting elected in the first place requires mastery of one - appealing to the middle while not pissing off your base. The one who does it best wins.

Lets recap: The anointed one has the nuts, flakes, old media, and permanently offended in his pocket, and is making a strong hopey-changey appeal to the mush minded middle who aren't sure what they believe, but believe it passionately.

Meanwhile, Colonel Tigh is spending his time telling conservatives to kiss off, all the while making clumsy advances to the undecided and unthinking, and having about as much luck as the average fifteen year old boy with the head cheerleader.

Just my hunch but, "I'm John McCain and I don't even nearly completely suck," is not a world beating message.

He seems like a guy who's stolen a Ferrari, but doesn't really want to go anywhere.

This is going to be painful.

Geekery? Geekishness? Geekerosity?

2008-07-07T08:20:00.002-04:00

I missed my chance to post yesterday because I had to get ready for the bi-weekly gaming session. Okay, I'll admit it, I am a geek. not quite an uber geek, but up there.

Almost fifty, and for the last twenty-nine years, at least a once every couple of months, and usually more often, I've spent some time drinking beer, rolling dice, arguing that, "Of course I can steer the horse with the reins in my teeth, and use a battle ax in both hands..." and drinking beer.

I have two copies of the original D&D players handbook (the one with the guys prying the gems from the eyes of the idol on the cover), and for those of you who are really in the know, the original boxed set of "The Keep on the Borderlands". Oh yeah, I've got it pretty bad.

For the last ten years or so, our particular poison has been "Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay".

Set in the world vaguely analogous to late fifteenth century Europe, but with all the standard elves, dwarves, and hobbi... sorry, halflings (don't be fooled, Sauron wasn't destroyed - he's an intellectual property attorney for the Tolkien estate), and with an exceedingly grim back story - life is nasty, brutish, and short - except for us hero types.

Anyway, I've been game master for the last six months or so, and yesterday I hit the jackpot.

You have to understand, the guys I play with have also been doing this as long as I have, and are hip to all the tricks. They are all voracious readers of history, sci-fi, and Shakespeare, and I will guarantee you any movie or tv show with a twist - they saw it coming a mile ago.

So when I maneuvered them into a situation where they are trapped in a village, deep in the forest, miles away from aid, with only a disparate group of farmers, and outlaws for allies, and surrounded by legions of blood-thirsty creatures whose only desire is to feast upon their flesh ... well I just gotta pat myself on the back.

Yep it's "Night of the Living Dead" tee-hee-hee.