Heap Big Prevaricator

Elizabeth Warren self-identifies as an Cherokee Indian at one of the most prestigious law schools on the planet and yet she denies knowing about Harvard reporting her as a quota-filling minority. It strains credulity to imagine that you might rise to that level without knowing what others, especially your employer, is saying and writing about you. True, Google hasn't been around forever, but this seems at least slightly implausible. Doesn't she represent the best and brightest? If so, how could she have missed this? At the very least it demonstrates a lack of professionalism and manners for Harvard to be touting her minority bona fides without seeking her permission first.

The Boston Globe reports:

US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.

How would this idea have sneaked into the heads of those bean counters at Harvard unless she had checked a box somewhere indicating her status. Have you ever had this happen or have you ever heard of this happening - that somebody's ethnicity or race had been misidentified - and that for six years? And that person was unaware? That she denies self-identifying as a Cherokee to gain favor at Harvard? After submitting recipes that were purportedly handed down  from her Cherokee ancestors to a cookbook of Native American cuisine called Pow Wow Chow? And who had justifying her self-identity because her ancestors had "high cheek bones"? Who was sufficiently unaware as to not have known that Harvard Law School identified her as their "first woman of color"?

Do the people of Massachusetts really want a person in a position of power who was that unaware?

And secondarily, why is a liberal Democrat running from this affirmative action discussion? Warren's spokesman said:

There is nothing new in this report.  Elizabeth has been clear that she is proud of her Native American heritage and everyone who hired Elizabeth has been clear that she was hired because she was a great teacher, not because of that heritage.

Why have affirmative action policies in place if not to create openings for people such as Elizabeth Warren to walk through? Isn't the intent of affirmative action to overcome the systemic and cultural bigotries that would preclude a thoughtful, intelligent person from entering an area that would normally be closed? Isn't this a finger in the eye of all who oppose quotas? Why isn't this held up as a success of affirmative action or used as a campaign gem to laud the benefits of policies Warren undoubtedly supports? Shouldn't this self-identified minority be hailing her successful bigotry defenistration? Why the embarrassment and disassociation by Warren? Was she cheating and that is why she would like some distance here?

Doesn't her claim that she was only evaluated on merit and not on her racial identity debunk the entire premise of affirmative action policies?

Given that the left is busy banning the use of Indian imagery as mascots, maybe there is some secret cabal afoot to scrub American Indian lore from the conciousness of America - or at least that is how it would be reported if the right was doing something similar.

Victor Davis Hanson, The Power of Cool

Identity is key here. In general, to win exemption from the left-wing critique of America, the affluent must construct cool identities as far distant as possible from the white Christian heterosexual male, who is most culpable for creating our present affluence from ill-gotten gains. The multimillionaire Elizabeth Warren and her husband make nearly $1 million a year. They live in a home beyond the reach of 99 percent of America. And she may well have plagiarized and been dishonest about her own heritage. No matter -- Warren washed away both her privilege and her sins by reinventing herself as a “Cherokee” who fights Wall Street oppressors.

Mark Steyn, Breaking! The House of Windsor is One of the Five Tribes

Two of the possibly plagiarized recipes, said in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook to have been passed down through generations of Oklahoma Native American members of the Cherokee tribe, are described in a New York Times News Service story as originating at Le Pavilion, a fabulously expensive French restaurant in Manhattan. The dishes were said to be particular favorites of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Cole Porter.

Maggie Haberman, Fordham piece called Warren Harvard Law's 'first woman of color'

The mention was in the middle of a lengthy and heavily-annotated Fordham piece on diversity and affirmative action and women. The title of the piece, by Laura Padilla, was "Intersectionality and positionality: Situating women of color in the affirmative action dialogue."

Asked to comment, Warren spokesman Alethea  Harney said, "There is nothing new in this report.  Elizabeth has been clear that she is proud of her Native American heritage and everyone who hired Elizabeth has been clear that she was hired because she was a great teacher, not because of that heritage.

Investigate JP Morgan

JP Morgan had a $2B loss. California just reported what is essentially a $10B loss. And who is going to be investigated?

Think Like a _______ Person

The right thinks that people should be regarded not based upon their ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, social status, skin color or other physical characteristic but on shared values and the content of their character.

It is the Left that argues that every gay person must think like a leftist.
It is the Left that argues that every black person must think like a leftist.
It is the Left that argues that every woman must think like a leftist.
It is the Left that argues that every Hispanic person must think like a leftist.
It is the Left that argues that every poor person must think like a leftist.

Taxation Without Representation

And there probably isn't any voter fraud either.

Julia - Cradle to Grave

Ross Douthat takes a look at the Obama campaign's Julia ad.

What’s more, she seems to have no meaningful relationships apart from her bond with the Obama White House: no friends or siblings or extended family, no husband (“Julia decides to have a child,” is all the slide show says), a son who disappears once school starts and parents who only matter because Obamacare grants her the privilege of staying on their health care plan until she’s 26.

Its all about her. Kinda self-centered, right?

He goes on:

In addition to ignoring the taxes that will be required of its businesswoman heroine across her working life, “The Life of Julia” hails a program (Head Start) that may not work at all, touts education spending that hasn’t done much for high school test scores or cut college costs, and never mentions that on the Obama administration’s own budget trajectory, neither Medicare nor Social Security will be able to make good on its promises once today’s 20-something Julias retire.

Would the ad be as effective if Julia's name were José or Shaniqua? Doesn't the Obama campaign care about minorities?

Ryan Plan Draconian?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If I'm hearing Ed correctly, and I think I am, he likes the phrase "grease the skids."

Yes Mr. Johnston, that's what the GOP wants. "Take it from the working people, and the poor and the disabled and the children so the rich can have more. And then everything will be great." I think he left out the elderly, women, blacks, Hispanics, babies and cute bunnies. Johnston really missed an opportunity to hit that one out of the park.

This is reminiscent of how the left generally treats the right. It is like when Howard Dean said: "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." Yes. Republicans want children to go hungry. Can we put on our big boy pants and discuss issues without demonizing everyone who isn't on the show?

Mysteriously, no talk about how working people, the poor, the children, the disabled, the elderly, the babies and bunnies will pay down the debt racked up by this generation. Any concern about the disabled in that regard?

Go ahead, stick it to the "rich". Take everything they have. Unfortunately, you could take everything and it wouldn't come close to solving the problem. See why.

If the territorial tax is a dodge, then let's get rid of it. Although it strikes me as similar to how Hollywood (just one example) conducts business by going where the taxes and wages are lower to make movies. The left does not practice what they preach. If they preached what they practice, they would be conservatives.

The piece of this puzzle that Schultz and Johnston cannot reshape is that businesses will gravitate to states/countries that are the most business friendly. You would do the same thing. Unmentioned is that higher energy and tax rates will push companies overseas too. Will Schultz hammer the left about their energy and tax policies driving jobs overseas? (No answer needed. It was a rhetorical question.)

But hey, at least Ryan and the Republicans have offered a plan. It is a little odd that Schultz and Johnston aren't as concerned that a budget hasn't been passed for 1097 days even though it is against the law not to. And every Obama budget has been a voting blow out. Dems won't even vote for it. 414-0 on the last go-round. Why do you suppose that is? The President is a pretty smart guy. He should be able to propose something that at least one Dem would like. But the GOP will get blamed for not reaching across the aisle - partisan politics and all that. Even while Dems refuse to vote for the Obama plan and then don't pass something of their own.

As for the Obama budget - heretofore the only response to the Ryan budget - Mark Steyn sums it up thusly:

Have you seen the official White House version of what the New York Times headline writers call “A Responsible Budget”? My favorite bit is Chart 5-1 on page 58 of their 500-page appendix on “Analytical Perspectives.” This is entitled “Publicly Held Debt Under 2013 Budget Policy Projections.” It’s a straight line going straight up before disappearing off the top right-hand corner of the graph in the year 2084 and continuing northeast straight through your eye socket, out the back of your skull, and zooming up to rendezvous with Newt’s space colony on the moon circa 2100. Just to emphasize, this isn’t the doom-laden dystopian fancy of a right-wing apocalyptic loon like me; it’s the official Oval Office version of where America’s headed. In the New York Times–approved “responsible budget” there is no attempt even to pretend to bend the debt curve into something approaching reentry with reality.

As for us doom-mongers, at the House Budget Committee on Thursday, Chairman Paul Ryan produced another chart, this time from the Congressional Budget Office, with an even steeper straight line showing debt rising to 900 percent of GDP and rocketing off the graph circa 2075. America’s treasury secretary, Timmy Geithner the TurboTax Kid, thought the chart would have been even more hilarious if they’d run the numbers into the next millennium: “You could have taken it out to 3000 or to 4000” he chortled, to supportive titters from his aides. Has total societal collapse ever been such a non-stop laugh riot?

“Yeah, right.” replied Ryan. “We cut it off at the end of the century because the economy, according to the CBO, shuts down in 2027 on this path.”

The graph, in case you're interested.

The Ryan budget is demonized because it focuses on reductions in spending. Any sensible person knows that spending must be controlled in their own budget at home. However, even the supposedly horrific poor/children/disabled/bunny crushing Ryan plan doesn't "cut" spending - it increases it. From the Fiscal Times:

Neither President Obama nor Paul Ryan actually cuts government spending. Rather, both are playing the time-honored game of calling a reduction in the rate of increase a “cut.” Thus, the president would increase federal spending from $3.8 trillion in 2013 to $5.82 trillion in 2022. That might not be as big an increase there might otherwise be, but in no way can it be called a cut. Meanwhile, Ryan, who is being accused of “thinly veiled Social Darwinism,” would actually increase spending from $3.53 trillion in 2013 to $4.88 trillion in 2022.

The president warns that Ryan’s spending “cuts” would “gut” the social safety net. And, it is true that Ryan’s budget knife falls more heavily on domestic discretionary spending than does the president’s – but only relatively. Over the next 10 years, Ryan would spend $352 billion less on those programs than would Obama, an average of just $35.2 billion per year in additional cuts. Given that domestic discretionary spending under the president’s budget will total more than $4 trillion over the next decade, Ryan’s cuts look less than draconian.

$35.2 billion per year. That's only about 2.6% of the current annual deficit. Ryan's budget would have to cut another 38 times as much to even stop the deficit spending. It would be as if you were told that on your $50k income this year, you would only go in debt $24,500 instead of $25,000. I guess Ryan deserves all that opprobrium for proposing a draconian horror show of that magnitude, don't you think?

Both the Democratic option and the Republican options are on the spend more side of the equation. Ryan just spends 'less' more than Obama. But the GOP is painted as raping, pillaging and burning.

No cutting. Not extreme. Not Robin Hood in reverse. (Although a good case could be made that Dems are actually Robin Hood in reverse since Robin Hood took what was taken by the tax collector and gave the people their own money back. Remember Friar Tuck's exlamation: "Praise the Lord and pass the tax rebate!") God only knows what Republicans would be called if they actually proposed austerity measures and cuts in spending (instead of slower increases).

This all boils down to the different visions of the left and the right. One is unconstrained, redistributive and egalitarian and the other is constrained and libertarian. Neither is perfect. Each has its downside. It is unlikely that proselytizing will change one or the other's mind so the best we can do is strive for clarity. Clarity before agreement.

But maybe a consumption tax could fix this. End all prebates, rebates, exceptions, loopholes and deductions. Just pay a tax on everything that isn't food or utilities. Then those who earn and spend more will pay more. Although they currently pay the majority of tax anyway, so it is hard to imagine they could pay any more of the "fair share".

Is There Any Good on the Right?

Those on the right - no matter what their nationality or race - who dare to share conservative values are dismissed as stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical.

Those on the left are clear to let you know that they are none of these. The left views themselves as better, kinder, smarter and more moral than those on the right. And since they are, there is no need to talk to, be in the same room with or vote for such mean-spirited humans.

The left cannot ascribe good intentions to the right. If they do, then the ideas of the right must be seriously considered. Instead of dismissing Herman Cain as stupid, inauthentic, or mentally inferior, the left would have to explain how his positive attitude about America allowed him to transcend any lingering racism and be successful. They would have to explain what it is about leftist ideology that sees racism everywhere (here, here, here) while the right acknowledges pockets of racism while projecting the hopeful message that it can be overcome.

If conservatives are just racist bigots the discussion is over. If they are good people with different ideas, the ideas have to be addressed.

Decision: Vision

Ultimately the election comes down to which vision for America are you going to support. The vision that is for liberty, individual rights, independence, a market economy and all of its attendant risks and downsides or the vision that favors collectivism, group rights, dependence, statism and all of its attendant risks and downsides. One side understands that everything can't be perfect but given the trade-offs, we do the best we can. The other side seeks to undo every aspect of the pain, struggle and inequities of life on their march toward Utopianism.

If you vote for Ron Paul, you may feel pure and be able to morally preen in front of your fellow man, but you will be wasting your vote. A vote for him, although cathartic, may reveal a lack of understanding of our political system or an I-don't-give-a-damn attitude. We are not Britain or some other parliamentary system where coalitions are built after the election. In America the coalitions are built prior to the election which coalesce as the two-party system. You must vote with the system we have not the one you wish we had. (A valid retort is: "If you don't vote for Ron Paul, it may reveal that you have given up on correcting the slide away from Americanism.")

Come to a decision about which movement better represents your notion of the correct way to run a government.

If you think that the primary function of the government is to act as the social welfare agent that reduces virtually all risk and mandates that the country should operate largely as a collective commune by running our schools, healthcare, retirement and virtually everything else, then you have a choice.

If you think government should provide national protection, preserve individual liberty and protect private property, you have a choice.

If you think that the government should create a hostile business climate that drives jobs and business overseas forcing more layoffs here at home, then you have a choice.

If you think a government should have limited powers, duties and responsibilities and think that government is best when it governs least, then you have a choice.

If you think government should make decisions based on a grievance culture that is always angry and must constantly agitate race, gender and class issues to maintain power, you have a choice.

If you ascribe to the idea that everyone should be free to pursue their happiness, you have a choice.

Utopians and fundamentalists flagellate and complain that none of the candidates suits their purpose. Well, the only candidate or party that you will fully agree with on every issue is candidate 'you' and the party you head. Otherwise, life is full of compromises and voting is just one such compromise. Believers in an afterlife can put off Utopia for another time. Athiests are just stuck with sucking it up and realizing that Marx was right that human nature would have to change radically in order for us to enter the land of milk and honey any time soon. And 3000+ years of documentation of human activity suggests there isn't a lot of evidence that human nature is making any sweeping changes.

But there are clear differences between the two parties in America. And neither is perfect. If you want perfect, go to church. But candidate Obama was very clear that he was none too happy with Americanism and wanted to make fundamental changes to the fabric of America.

So go ahead, cast your vote.

Silver Spoon

The LA Times reports on a speech by the President at a community college. He proudly announced that he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. So how did he afford the elite schools that he attended?

Apparently if your parents have worked hard and are able to pay for your education you are 'born with a silver spoon in your mouth' and you are 'out of touch'. But if you take that money from others you are 'given a chance' and 'making the economy stronger'.

Why is one necessarily viewed with suspicion and contempt while the other is unquestionably ennobling?

What is it about taking - not just receiving, but taking via taxation - money from others that makes this an ennobling act that elevates an individual in a way that receiving voluntary charity from one's parents doesn't?

How is getting money from the state less of a silver spoon than getting money from your parents? The result of each is the same.

Job Killer

Is there ever a condition where laying off staff is a good decision? What if you owned a company and the market changed and you had to lay off people? Could we all point to you and blame you for firing people for your own gain? After all, saving the business would accrue to your benefit. Heck, you might even be paid a bonus for keeping the company afloat so that it can hire again some day.

Should buggy whip companies still be employing people? Should Kodak not be able to adjust workforces because their share of the market has diminished? Do you have the same level of anger for the lost jobs at places like Solyndra? And do you ascribe those cuts as Obama slashing jobs for his own gain? Was giving Trade Adjustment Assistance money to each employee buying votes or could it in any way improve his political aspirations? Should elected government officials be giving money out to potential voters? Did Obama gain by getting $1.09 Million worth of lobbying out of Solyndra? Since money allocated to the company from government loans was paying the bills, did Obama and fellow Democrats gain from the campaign contributions of Solyndra employees?

We could tit-for-tat all day long. No policy or plan will be perfect. That is where spiritual people who believe there is an afterlife have an advantage over the secularist. The believer postpones utopia to the afterlife. A person of the left and secularists are compelled to create Utopia here on earth. Everything will not turn out perfect for everybody. Sometimes companies have to lay off staff. There are many left-wing Obama-philes who lay off people all the time.  And sometimes they are not very nice about it.  Heard of Hollywood anyone? It is just that they don't get demonized and drug out in front of the world by the right because the right act like grown ups and understand that sometimes businesses have to adjust to real life conditions.

The left's paper of record, The New York Times, is struggling with this right now. The company is having to make hard decisions about whether they can afford to continue with their current pension scheme. Of course, the dogmatic Utopians are wailing about how this means the management is a pack of wolves that is trying to make a killing on the backs of the proletariat. So not only is Romney a job slashing dog, but so is the NYT when they are faced with the financial realities of running their business.

Is the Tax System Fair?

In 2009 the top 1% of earners (those earning more than $343,927) paid 36.7% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% of earners (those earning more than $112,124) paid 70.5% of all federal income taxes. That leaves only 29.5% of the tax burden for 90% of the tax payers to pay.¹ Is that unfair?

If this was a ten member bowling club that had to pay a $1,000 lane rental fee, it would be as if one guy paid $700, the next four guys in line paid $275 and the other five split the $25. This might be desirable based on their income or ability to pay – that is, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need – or some other concept of spreading the wealth around, but is it fair?

Let’s look at it a different way. Let’s say you and a coworker are paid the same. But what if your boss decided that he was going to take $300 out of your paycheck and give it to your coworker because he had children and therefore had greater needs. Would you be satisfied with your boss telling you that you just need to pay your fair share? And that if you don’t, you are selfish or mean spirited? Giving this charity may be a moral thing to do, but should it be coerced? By a government?

It might be a nice thing to do. It might be charity. It might be giving to one person based on his need while taking from another based on what he has. But it is hard to argue that it is fair.

The different visions of the role of government are at the root of this contention over the “pay your fair share” stuff. The left hates inequity in results more than it loves liberty. It views the role of government as the gatekeeper that should make sure outcomes are the same. And when the left uses the word fair, they often mean equalized.

Obama has said many times that he is not interested in whether things like the Buffet Rule actually increase revenues or help to reduce deficits. As he told Joe the Plumber, he – and by extension government since Obama was running for the top government position in the nation – needs to “spread the wealth around.”

Where this becomes demagogic is when Obama says things like the Buffet the rule "could raise enough money" so that we "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade." As has been demonstrated, and as is confirmed by Obama’s Treasury Department’s own numbers, it does little to nothing to stabilize anything. Obama is trying to have it both ways. He wants to make it seem like this is some sort of fiscally responsible thing to do when he knows that it won’t do anything to stabilize deficits. It seems more likely that it is intended to be part of the fundamental change to the American fabric that was promised during the ’08 election.

This was confirmed by White House aide Jason Furman when he clarified the President’s comments by saying that that the tax was never intended "to bring the deficit down and the debt under control." It is “a basic issue of tax fairness.” Well, if having the upper 10% of income earners pay almost 3/4 of the taxes collected isn’t “fair”, what is? Could this be a euphemism for egalitarianism? For political, economic and social equality?

This notion of “fairness” proffered by the left makes no sense in any other venue. But if we understand it to be what Obama himself has said he desires, a fundamental change, then it makes sense. Americanism, in large part, places liberty higher on the list of values than other things such as equality of outcomes. Those that established America valued liberty above other things and they said as much in the Declaration of Independence by identifying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They also identified individualism and small government as important values.

Unless one thinks that the authors of the American founding documents were a bunch of uninformed, ignorant dunderheads, surely they understood the tradeoffs inherent in valuing individualism, small government and liberty above other things with respect to the role of government. And we know they did by their writings. They leaned heavily on a religious people who were elevated by decent moral codes to handle the areas of life not handled by a lean government.

Much of the fundamental change being discussed and implemented today, however, seems to seek to have the government take on the role of churches and charity. Why this isn’t seen as the ultimate breaking down of the wall of separation between church and state might be a mystery until one understands the different visions that motivate the left and right.

The left appears to see its role as that of church and state: the work of the Good Samaritan is the work of the state; charity is to be fulfilled by the state; ensuring that nobody does too well or too badly is the work of the state. It is not that these endeavors are to be shunned or left undone, but one must ask whether charity should be the role of a secular government?

As a recent example of this inclination, Justice Ginsburg, a SCOTUS Justice of the left, told an Egyptian interviewer that she likes South African Constitution (SAC) better than the US Constitution (USC). The SAC claims numerous “positive rights” such as housing, healthcare, food, water, and Social Security. In contrast, the USC has a concept of rights which takes the form that government and individuals will not prevent anyone from taking various actions. That is, the USC defines rights as things that are not an imposition upon others and do not limit the rights of others whereas the SAC defines rights that necessarily must be monitored and provided by the government, that infringe upon the rights of others and require taxation for the provision of certain goods and services. It is a clear example of the differing visions of the left and right; of collectivism and individualism; of dependence and liberty.

So just because the right sees limits to the role of government does not therefore mean that they are craven, hateful and mean-spirited. They just have a different vision about what the role of government is. That it should be limited. That it should honor individuals. That it should champion liberty. They share this vision with many of those who established America in the first place. And that is pretty good company to keep.


¹ http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Representing Anger

Should leaders who speak on behalf of a group elevate rather than debase?

On the one hand there is Martin Luther King Jr. who was a man who inspired and elevated mankind. On the other, Al Sharpton who unapologetically acted as the mouthpiece for a black teenage girl who falsely claimed that she had been raped by white men, who called a Jewish landlord a “white interloper” that resulted in an attack on the landlord’s store that left eight people dead, and who was the focus of a 67-count indictment over financial problems.

Which of these men makes an impression that is elevated? Aren't those for whom Sharpton purports to speak for concerned about the lack of dignity and elevated behavior? When the black community compares and contrasts those that speak on their behalf, are they equally proud of having MLK and Sharpton speak for them?

Is there a point where one's unapologetic past so sullies one's reputation that they no longer can represent a group? Shouldn't the group be proud of the person speaking on their behalf? Doesn't it seem that a spokesperson should make a distinguished impression on others? Wasn't this one of the great characteristics of MLK who concerned himself with the content of his and other's character?

Apparently the more angry you are, the more authentic you are as a leader of a group. Only angry women, blacks, hispanics, poor, etc. seem to be qualified to speak on behalf of their group. Why aren't Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Juan Williams or Clarence Thomas considered 'leaders' of the black community? Why aren't Sarah Palin, Ann Romney, Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachmann or Laura Ingraham considered spokespersons for women?

Because they are not angry. Which also means they aren't on the left.

Notable Quotable

Capitalism teaches people to work harder.
The welfare state teaches people to want harder.

~ Dennis Prager

Race Baiting?

Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson deal with the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

Hanson notes that President Obama has interjected himself into many issues over the years - Trayvon Martin, Sandra Fluke, Gabrielle Giffords, Professor Henry Louis Gates. His interventions are more in the fashion of a divisive commentator than an above the fray President.

Hanson writes:

In other words, the president waded into an ongoing investigation, in which the facts of the case remain murky and in dispute. And instead of playing down the racial component of the tragedy in polarized times, he seemed instead deliberately to have emphasized it.

The president seizes on a local issue, editorializes, and ends up sowing more division.

Yet in every case, further evidence, more information, and subsequent events suggested that the president had offered either incomplete or misleading commentary to the nation, predicated not on a desire for healing or truth, but on a wish to gain partisan advantage.

There is a rush to judgement that is characteristic of the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world. Where is the tempered, measured, presidential response?

Thomas Sowell concludes:

We do not need Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the president of the United States spouting off before the trial has even begun.

Can Federalism Work?

Jonah Goldberg expresses a great sentiment in his article The Federalist Solution. Whether you call it home rule, federalism, or something else, it appears to be a solution to the problem of everyone wanting to force their values down the other's throat: let groups live and legislate how they see fit with a few exceptions.

Goldberg ponders a potential positive outcome of a federalist system:

And federalism would let them all live by their mistakes as well. In San Francisco, which Gerken touts as a haven for “dissenters,” they translate their values into law. I think much of what passes for wise policy in San Francisco is idiotic, but it bothers me less than it would if Nancy Pelosi succeeded in making all of America like San Francisco.

However, our society won't let them "live by their mistakes" because ultimately somebody will have to pick up the pieces of failed policy and irresponsible behavior. Just as the junkie will get treated at the local emergency room - with or without insurance - so will the irresponsible legislative body be bailed out of a sticky financial mess by Congress. It has already happened in small doses with the stimulus and it would likely happen in large doses with federalism. If personal (or local) responsibility for one's actions were a reality instead of just wishful thinking, this might work.

This is a problem for the libertarian and conservative. Just as a Marxist must acknowledge that human nature would have to change dramatically to accommodate the musings of Marx, so the conservative must acknowledge how federalism fares alongside human nature. That is, unless societies are willing to refuse treatment to junkies or let communities collapse under the weight of their own financial irresponsibility, this will not work. As alluring as Galt's Gulch may be, it only works if everyone is playing by the same - or largely the same - set of rules.

As John Adams noted, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." He is speaking about a shared set of rules by which the game is to be played. A certain degree of values unanimity is required for the Constitution to work and he is acknowledging that much of what makes the Constitution work is shared values. In an age when there was widespread cultural unanimity¹, Adams could make that statement with little qualification because the assumed moral code was Judeo-Christian and the religion was Protestantism, its work ethic and personal responsibility included. And unless human nature is altered or overridden to mirror the resolve of those in Galt's Gulch, real societies will not turn their backs on the rest of the world no matter how reckless or irresponsible they are. The EU's handling of Greece is such an example.

Toleration of differing moralities also presents problems to federalism. Social norms that cross lines established by the current ethos are not easily overlooked or tolerated. Tolerance is probably only possible when the disparities are not too great. Communities may be able to tolerate certain proclivities (nude beaches and naked dining in San Francisco; liquor laws in Utah) and be satisfied with dismissing the differences as "that's just how they do things over there," but the greater the disparities the more likely that adjacent societies will feel the need to intervene.

Neither the right nor the left is willing to stand by while their values are offended. It is hard to imagine that if somebody really believes that abortion is the taking of innocent human life that they would disinterestedly live their lives in a neighboring community without trying to impose their will through legislation. Similarly, if somebody really believes that anthropogenic global warming will ruin the earth, is it reasonable to think that they would sit idly by while the folks down the road choke the planet with CO₂ by burning fossil fuels? Or would liberty aficionados live quietly next door to the state that embraces Sharia? As oxymoronic as it sounds, some degree of homogeneity is probably helpful for federalism to succeed - especially in how the role of government and political economies are viewed (i.e., statism v. capitalism). But given the irreconcilable differences between the visions of the left and the right, it does not seem that they can coexist without moving beyond moral suasion to compulsion. The Union and Confederate armies attest to this.

In lieu of homogeneity and a relatively narrow band of tolerance, a heretofore unknown kind of tolerance that allows for broad moral and economic latitude might suffice. But is this possible? Unless anomie overtakes all members of society and they willingly slide toward moral anarchy, it is not likely that great disparities in social norms can coexist in a federalist system.

Add to that the apparent flexibility of morality and the problem worsens. What seems obviously immoral now, may not have been so obvious ten, a hundred, or a thousand years ago. Who in medieval Europe could have imagined that killing a whale or smoking in public would have garnered the level of moral outrage as it does today.

So even though federalism is a great idea in theory, can it ever become reality? Probably less likely than implementing a flat tax or a consumption tax.

---
¹This is not to imply that there weren't significant disagreements during the founding of America. However, economic realities tempered much of what is obsessed about in modern times.

Notable Quotable

The left is very libertarian in the areas of sex and drugs. Other than that, they are not much interested in liberty.

Are Speculators to Blame?

Speculators operate in a market where for every buyer there must be a seller. If someone is speculating on the long side, there is someone speculating on the other side. Speculation can drive up prices in the very short run if buyers outnumber sellers. Similarly, prices can drop if sellers outnumber buyers. Over the long haul, these bumps and dips tend to level out.

But speculation isn't bad in and of itself. Imagine a farmer who's livelihood depends on him selling his wheat after harvest. Because he doesn't know where the market will be when the harvest comes, he wants to lock in a price now. It may be less than what he could get at harvest time if the market price moves up between now and then, but he figures a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. By buying a futures contract now he can lock in a price and insulate himself from the risk.

If the price of wheat goes down, he made a good move by locking in the higher price. If it goes up, then he will be stuck with the lower price in his contract. In either case, for the farmer to reduce his risk he needs someone on the other side of that transaction to speculate, or, if you wish, gamble.

A similar transaction occurs when an airline locks up a certain quantity of fuel with a contract. Airline ticket price volatility is reduced (at least inasmuch as fuel affects the price) through speculation.

If you purchase a CD in order to lock in a rate you are speculating. You are saying you prefer a known rate to the unknown or the volatile. Buying gold is also speculation.

There is nothing evil about this transaction and it does a lot of good for the farmer, airline or investors because it allows them to plan with less uncertainty.

I'll Show You Mine If You Show Me Yours

Alexandra Pelosi's videos highlighting the difficulties in each of the parties came with some predictable commentary from Maher. However, the keeper was not that Maher couldn't excuse and apologize for the riff-raff in his camp fast enough, but his assertion that he or Alexandra could not possibly be racist.



Who can know if they are, but to suggest that giving money to the Obama Super PAC or that being the daughter of Rep. Pelosi somehow obviates racism is silly - no stupid. Has there never been a son or daughter of anyone who had different views than their parents? Would he sit in wonderment if an upstanding northerner had a child who had racist beliefs?

Maher didn't seem to think that contributing to or voting for Herman Cain undid any racist tendencies of Republicans.

14 May 2011: "Republicans say they love [Herman Cain] so they're not racist - right"
11 June 2011: Gingrich is Republican 'Polling Behind a Black Guy'
7 Oct 2011: In Modern Republican Party ‘Denying Racism Is The New Racism’
21 Oct 2011: Panel discusses denying racism resists is the "new racism" and how "stupid" Herman Cain is

And one must wonder, for all of the sniffing at the idea that he or she could possibly be racist, isn't his open admission that he has lower standards for blacks clear evidence the he may in fact be racist - his protestations notwithstanding. For as we know from the links above, when a Republican says he is not a racist, it is proof positive that he is.

Just another classic example of the stunning lack of self-awareness on the left.

Gimme, Gimme

Student says free birth control would make her happy.

Notable Quotable

The ability for an individual to do evil is infinitely greater than an individual's ability to do good.

~ Dennis Prager

Competing Religions

The Judeo-Christian mindset is, "What do I owe my fellow man."  The leftist mindset is, "What does my fellow man owe me." 

Another way to say this is that the religious are concerned with obligations and the leftist is concerned with rights.  One is outward facing while the other is inward facing.  One is selfless while the other is selfish. 

Neither group is absolutely one or the other, but these are more an undercurrent and guide the externalities of each group.  Each group's view of governance is informed by these tendencies. 

Voter ID

The voting ID issue is paradigmatic of the left/right difference. The right wants to elevate the citizen to standards and the left wants to obliterate standards and bring the citizen down.

It also shows the contempt that the left has for their constituents. Are Hispanics in Texas less capable than a white? Does the left have the same set of standards for whites as Hispanics, blacks or the young? And because it is difficult for somebody to obtain ID, the left then abandons all standards for everybody rather than dignify those who struggle by making sure they can rise to the standard.

There is dignity in achieving a minimum standard for voting that ALL citizens must meet. Among other things, this fight against IDs abolishes dignity.

Also, isn't it insulting for other Hispanics who can figure out how to get an ID to have leftists lump all Hispanics together by race? An individual may struggle to get an ID. But that doesn't mean all members of a race have difficulty. Why isn't this thought to be as racist as one can get?

One must legitimately ask whether those on the left believe that a white person is somehow more capable of getting an ID than those groups they say have difficulty. If they say, "Yes, whites can get an ID to vote, but it is difficult for group x," then they must hold whites in higher esteem since they believe that whites can achieve a higher standard. How would the left finish the sentence, "We can't expect a Hispanic to get an ID because..."?

You won't get what you don't expect.

It is repugnant and shameful.

Notable Quotable

The left doesn't come to a debate to debate or have a discussion about ideas. The left comes to a debate to end the debate.

Misogyny of the left.

The DC helps ferret out the respectful thoughts about women from the left.  Not a great testimony on their behalf.

Oil Companies Earn Billions. No S#!%.

Think Progress posted a threadbare canard of the left - "big oil" is reaping obscene profits. The ideas posited in the article are so hackneyed as to be wearisome. Yes "big oil" makes big profits, because they sell billions of units of product. Apparently simple math is not the strong suit of the authors. And they show contempt for the reader when they assume the reader won’t see through the demagoguery or that the reader is too stupid to do the math for themselves.

To ensure that we are all on the same page, a review of some basic mathematics may be in order. In case the authors are unaware, a mathematical concept has been developed that may help the authors understand what is going on here – it is called percentages. And it is percentages that can help us to understand what to make of the "outrageous profits" – that is, if we are really interested in understanding the profits in context.

If a manufacturer builds 50 TVs per year and it costs $300 in parts, labor and overhead to build the TVs and he then sells them for $600, is that an outrageous profit? If consumers are happy to pay $600 for the TV because of the perceived added value to their lives, then whether it is outrageous or not, they may pay that amount. However, that is a 100% profit.

If that same manufacturer sells the TV for $323.70 is that an outrageous profit? Is 7.9% fairer? Less outrageous? 7.9% is about what "big oil" makes on average in profit. This is less than periodical publishers (53.1%), software companies (23.2%), cigarette makers (22.5%), beverage brewers (20.3%), railroads (15.5%), agricultural chemical manufacturers (15.2%), soft drink canners (15%), makers of toys and games (9.7%) and specialty eateries (9.2%). (Source: Yahoo!, 12 Mar 2012)

(For scale, it is worth considering that he would have to make over 4,200 units, or about 2 per hour working 8 hrs/day, in order to see his first $100k in profits – that comes after paying salaries and benefits to employees, rent/mortgage, light, heat, property taxes, maintenance, etc., etc., etc. and before reinvestment in new equipment, research, et al.)

But if the TV guy (who at some ordained quantity, only known by leftists, stops being a decent producer of needed goods and becomes demonic, "big TV") sold ten million TVs – which assumes he can even produce ten million – at 7.9% profit, he would report an obscene profit of $237 million. These enormous earnings would translate to $2 billion in profit over ten years. "That’s right, a profit figure with" 9 "zeros – count them:" $2,000,000,000. This demagogic slight of hand employed by the authors might be humorous if it weren’t so contemptuous and tendentious. It assumes the reader is too stupid to understand or too partisan or care that no matter what the total dollar amount of the profit, the percentage is well below many other industries. Only those lacking a basic high school education or the Kool Aid drinker would be taken in by such a specious presentation of the data.

Any company that is producing something will necessarily maximize profits for the shareholders. However, this is limited by how much a buyer is willing to pay. Oil companies, like most companies, are price takers, not price setters. If a TV manufacturer decides to include a 100% profit in the price of its TV, the buyer may decide that the added value of having a TV in the home is not worth the price. This desire to price 'set' is mitigated by the market when another company sells the product cheaper – maybe deciding to produce the product with less profit. The second company can undercut the competition and gain a larger portion of the market share. This will have the effect of driving down prices at the first company if they want to stay in business. The business then 'takes' the price that the market allows.

If the consumer sees sufficient self-benefit in the exchange, he will pay an additional sum that is profit for the business because he acknowledges that the business is able to provide the good or service in a more efficient manner than the consumer could. This is the tacit acknowledgment of comparative advantage. The cost of a good or service can be lowered because of specialization, economy of scale, division of labor and other factors that lower production costs and increase productivity. Profit is not necessarily bad. It can be an indicator that the consumer is willing to pay for efficiently produced, low-cost goods and services. And barring corruption, large profits are likely the result of someone, or some group, finding a way to increase production in a way that reduces production costs thereby increasing the profit margin. It is quite simplistic and utterly lacking nuance to think that profit equals theft.

So even though you might be able to build your own house by doing the framing, plumbing, electrical, roofing, concrete, heating and air conditioning, window installation, insulation, cabinetry, sheet rock, texturing, flooring, landscaping, etc, by yourself, you also might be willing to pay each of these specialty trades a bit of profit to do the work because you may not possess the skill, tools, time, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the tasks. And even when paying them the profit you may still conclude that it is advantageous because they do it so much more efficiently than you could. And when larger companies do this on a larger scale they make larger profits. This is really all the article highlighted, albeit smugly. Well, duh.

Oil is a fungible product and its price is largely determined by the world oil market. However, additional supply can bring down prices just as increased demand can raise prices. The former is acknowledged by leftists when they propose that prices would drop if supply is increased via the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The article laments that a certain oil industry leader "opposes selling a small amount of reserve oil from the nearly full U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gas prices, which would provide some relief to drivers." So, apparently, even small increases in supply can create downward movement of prices to the tune of 18 to 72 cents per gallon. But when conservatives expand this idea to "drill baby drill", it is debunked as the cackling of simpletons. To the leftist mind, a "small," one time infusion from the SPR have miraculous effects on price while large infusions from ANWR or the Keystone pipeline wouldn't change a thing.

The article states, "It makes absolutely no sense to remain susceptible to a volatile global oil market. Instead we need to reduce our dependence on oil, which is priced globally and partly set by the OPEC cartel." I think most Americans would agree to that. But many think that bolstering domestic production might be a sensible part of a larger solution. And that doesn't make them a bunch of wackos.

As for speculators, they speculate based on their assessment of the future markets and geopolitical conditions. They assess conditions and speculate on the future – it is a risky business. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Why doesn’t anybody cry for them when they lose?

The futures market isn’t necessarily a bad construct. It can moderate the price and risk of commodities and reduce uncertainty. An airline can reduce risk by locking in fuel prices with futures. Otherwise, ticket prices would jump around in response to the spot market. Would that be better?

And then there is the oil lobby. I bet the authors couldn't muster so much as a yawn when thinking about the amount of money labor unions spend on lobbying and campaign contributions. But who can blame them. It would undermine their demagoguery. 

Misogynists of the Left Unite

Good point Kirsten Powers:

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh.  But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

Jonah Goldberg compares the comparison to Joe the Plumber as well.  "The Democrats were unrestrained in their efforts to ridicule the man."  He continued:

When average citizens are thrust into the political debate, they are heroes -- if they confirm prevailing liberal arguments. When they run against the grain of the preferred narrative, they are ground down, caricatured and treated to corrosive media skepticism.

Only the left is unaware of the lack of self-awareness on the left.

Linzen on AGW

The Telegraph reports on Linzen's presentation to the House of Commons.  

One of the zingers by Linzen:

Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.

Who's extreme?

Jonah Goldberg poses a great question: Why not Santorum? 

The right is often rebuked for being a party of uncompromising ideological zealots.  Terms like extreme right and right-wing Christian are effortlessly used by many.  And yet, the Democratic Party elected a man who is arguably one of the most leftist presidents in history who vowed to transform America.  Maybe, as suggested by Goldberg's question, right-wing extremists are fairly moderate. 

Is there such a thing as the extreme left?  Left-wing secularists?  Can anyone be too far left?

God and Science, Faith and Reason

Prager conducted an interview with Eric Weiner (author of Man Seeks God: My Flirtations with the Divine) based on Weiner's article in the NYT. Listen to it at: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bx5BfG19Ggh3NmNiODI5OWItNGYxMS00MzhkLThiNGQtZTkzYzM2ZGEyNmY3

Weiner presents lucid, intelligent, well thought-out critiques on God and atheism. But I was reminded of a quote by Paul Johnson while reading his article and listening to the interview:

The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.

It strikes me as a bit unaware of the larger world to assume that because some organized versions of a religion present an unyielding absolute version of God that all of the disciples are equally as puritan. Just as many atheists may wonder if something other than physics and evolution are behind the world that we see, most who believe in God are, as he stated, "a combination of conflicting, competing emotions and thoughts." Even Mother Theresa had doubts about her motives, behaviors and faith. It is inconceivable that most of those attending religious services cartoonishly march in lock-step with every edict or precept.

Since our past informs our current opinions, it appears that Weiner has seen a particularly stern strain of religion. Although Weiner has encountered many adherents that are apparently awful advertisements for a loving, caring God, I wonder how much of Weiner's antipathy for religion is a function of his dislike of standards. Many religions are necessarily collections of standards that are enforced by a judging God.

Judgment in and of itself is not a bad thing. Anybody who believes that maintaining laws and law enforcement concedes as much. And some sects are more focused on a system of standards and judgment by a God that is interested in such things. Maybe Weiner has only been proselytized by the fire and brimstone crowd. But let's not therefore do away with proselytizing. As Penn Jillette has noted,

I am a huge fan of proselytizing. I am a huge fan of speaking your mind. The only way we can share the universe...is by talking very strongly about what we believe.

In spite of Weiner's experience that suggests a God that is "constantly judging and smiting, and so are his followers," what would he prefer? (Apparently he hasn't spent time with people who appreciate such things as Jesus Laughing.) That they remain quiet on the issue? That they keep it personal and solitary? If they really believe that there is a God that has standards and that not following those standards will result in bad outcomes in the afterlife, is it not the height of love, compassion and caring to at least inform those with whom they have contact?

Again, it seems somewhat myopic for Weiner to act as though the world has only now begun to wrestle with issues of doubt. Certainly he may be wondering how he fits into the larger picture, but the vast majority of those who call themselves believers question their beliefs, faith, commitment and understanding of their chosen sect or denomination. In this he is not alone.

This is true for professing atheists as well. Just as with politics, the vast majority occupy the mushy middle. Acolytes tend to become the leaders precisely because they are passionate about the purity of the institution (e.g., ministers, scientists, politicians...)¹. The rest of us muddle around on the continuum that defines the distance between the absolutism of True Believers and Angry Atheists, to use Weiner's terms. Just as there are few hair-shirted religious fanatics, there are very few actual atheists.

Weiner concludes that "I think you can be a man of reason and you can be a man of faith." I wonder if Weiner's inability to consider this previously is a function of the insularity of the American university ghetto. To note that "Its good to know that I am not the only one out there who sort of falls into this category without a name, where you consider yourself rational and reasonable but you also believe intuitively that there is more to the world than meets the eye," suggests that heretofore he has not encountered such people. However, my experience is that most "believers" fall squarely in this category. His comment probably says more about his journey than it does about the existence of rational, reasonable believers.

Getting beyond Weiner's apparent 'glib assumption' that this is a somehow a new phenomenon, it is refreshing to hear an intelligent defense of 'seeking' by a self-identified secular intellectual. He notes that the current ethos in "secular, east coast, elite liberal American tribe" is to think that it is not cool to believe in God and that the religious are narrow-minded and not as bright as the secularist.²

Weiner questions the smugness of secularism by noting that "saying now that we have science there is no need for religion, is like saying that now that we have the microwave oven we have no need for Shakespeare." This gets to the notion that many secularists are quite dogmatic and see the two concepts, science and religion, as mutually exclusive. Again, to follow Johnson's admonition, history does not bear this out. Many religious thinkers, from Newton to Einstein to Copernicus, did not share the idea that science and religion are not compatible. And it is equally as unlikely that the current perceived exclusivity is anything other than the current generation's awareness of the issues. When viewed in light of history, the science-in-place-of-religion non-sequitur has been around as long as science and religion. It is a fairly arrogant idea to think that it is only now, in this generation, that we are smart enough to contemplate the coexistence of science and religion.

Weiner went on to note that "reason makes a wonderful servant, but a poor master." He concedes that science has little to say about how to live our lives in morally significant ways. "Science doesn't help us live our life. It doesn't help us get through a nasty divorce. It doesn't help us get through an illness." Ultimately, as Prager noted, "It doesn't help us know right from wrong." "Science doesn't say 'Do not murder.' Science says survival of the fittest." Hitler may have been the ultimate example of what science may have to say about treatment of others. So one might easily conclude that science is necessary, but not sufficient.

---
¹ This is not intended to suggest that all of those who move toward leadership of the identified groups are unyielding zealots. Again, as with the rank and file of religions or politics, the vast majority enter those pursuits for other reasons.

² It is always easier to dismiss the worth, humanity or intellect of the opposition. It allows the accuser to dismissively look down his nose and not deal with the arguments. One does not argue with the morally or intellectually inferior. And neither side has a monopoly on this behavior. The religious and the secular left are just as likely to dismiss others out of hand.

Nobody good on the right

Nancy Pelosi had this to say about Republicans:

This is a Congress that has done such a disservice to our country,” Pelosi said. “Bless their hearts. They do what they believe, these Republicans. They do what they believe. And they do not believe in a government that has any role in clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public health, public education, Medicare, Medicaid.

She can't just disagree with conservatives. They have to be bad people. The theme is well established. Kind of like when Howard Dean said:

Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.

Racist Right

You are a racist if you use a moderator's first name.





You are a racist when you say that people should work a job rather than take food stamps.



You are a racist if you talk about food stamps and welfare.



You are a racist if you are against the President's policies.
You are a racist if you support a black man for president.



And if you talk about problems that afflict certain communities, you're a racist.
And if you don't talk about problems that afflict certain communities, you're a racist.
And if you use racist language, you're a racist.
And if you don't use racist language, you're using code and are a racist.
And if you don't hear the code, you are a racist.
And if you deny you are a racist, it is proof positive that you are a racist.

Is there such a thing as a racist liberal or leftist? One wonders.

Racial Reactionaries

Victor Davis Hanson addresses the race card, race baiting tactics of President Obama and others in the Democratic Party.

President Obama and his supporters insist that they deemphasize matters of race, but their record in just the last four years reveals a veritable obsession with it...

It will be an ugly campaign.  But saying that is probably racist.

Non Apology Apology

The firestorm that followed Eugene Robinson's comment about how weird the Santorum's grief for their baby culminated with Joe Scarborough confronting him on the issue.



What is remarkable about this exchange is how concisely Robinson demonstrated a couple leftwing tactics: the non-apology apology and the 'some people' ruse.

Let's review the happenings. When initially asked "Do you think you may have gone overboard a little bit in your criticisms of Santorum?", Robinson was shaking his head no.  His body language seemed to indicate that he did not think that he went overboard. Then the first words out of his mouth were, "What I actually said was I thought some people would think that was weird."

There it is. The ubiquitous 'some people' canard. This allows Robinson to play Pontius Pilate where any questioning of Santorum is concerned. This device allows him to distance himself from the comment while simultaneously inserting it into the conversation. We are to believe that he does not believe such inflammatory rhetoric, but that some may. Just as Pontius believes he is relieved of the responsibility of his action, so to Robinson can wash his hands of the responsibility for the comment.

He then goes on to explain "that obviously was not the right way to say what I was trying to express. And I certainly didn't mean to offend anybody, especially Mr. Santorum," followed by a labored, strained explanation reiterating that "some people, I think, are going to be, if not surprised by, at least want to more about" Santorum's faith.

No apology here. He only says that he did not articulate his thoughts well and then restated his original thought without using the word weird with a statement that he didn't mean to offend anybody separating the two.

If Robinson didn't think that his comments would offend, then he either A) really believes that it is 'some people' and not he who thinks Santorum's actions were weird, or B) he doesn't think calling somebody who is mourning the death of their newborn infant a weirdo is offensive. If B, he is a vulgarian.  If A, he really doesn't think he has anything to apologize for since he is not the one who believes the things he reported. He is no more responsible for others thinking Santorum is a weirdo than he is for reporting that 'some people' might think that Hitler did a good thing when gassing the Jews.

But I suspect he thinks Santorum is a weirdo.

Leftwing Love

Mark Steyn deals with the mean-spirited comments of Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson. They felt it necessary to kick at Rick Santorum for mourning the loss of their still-born child in order to gain some political ground.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

One could weep at the inhumane viciousness. And this from those who fancy themselves to be kinder, wiser and more compassionate. As Steyn notes:

In 1996, the Santorums were told during the pregnancy that their baby had a fatal birth defect and would not survive more than a few hours outside the womb. So Gabriel was born, his parents bundled him, and held him, and baptized him. And two hours later he died. They decided to take his body back to the home he would never know. Weirdly enough, this crazy weird behavior is in line with the advice of the American Pregnancy Association, which says that “it is important for your family members to spend time with the baby” and “help them come to terms with their loss.” 

And as Peter Wehner of Commentary stated:

The second point is the casual cruelty of Robinson and those like him. Robinson seems completely comfortable lampooning a man and his wife who had experienced the worst possible nightmare for parents: the death of their child. It is one thing to say you would act differently if you were in the situation faced by Rick and Karen Santorum​; it’s quite another to deride them as “crazy” and “very weird,” which is what commentators on the left are increasingly doing, and with particular delight and glee.

These comments by Colmes and Robinson were cruel, vicious and so profoundly mean spirited that it is almost unfathomable.  But such are the times we live in.

Biofuel Bust

Ethanol is not working out so well. This WSJ piece concludes:

Congress subsidized a product that didn't exist, mandated its purchase though it still didn't exist, is punishing oil companies for not buying the product that doesn't exist, and is now doubling down on the subsidies in the hope that someday it might exist. We'd call this the march of folly, but that's unfair to fools.

And cronyism is alive and well as the Navy buys $16/gal fuels that normally sell for less than $4/gal to enrich Big Cellulose as highlighted in this article. But we should all feel good that "the Great Green Fleet Carrier Strike Force" will be protecting us.

Iowa Nice. And smart. Condescending. Smug. Intolerant. Well, you get the idea.

Scott Seipker has posted a video entitled Iowa Nice.

Along with sharing some nice Iowa accomplishments, he concludes a few things about the viewer that aren't so nice. He is clearly not addressing like-minded Democrats because after an introductory f**k you, he lets us know that Iowa isn’t a bunch of “kneejerk Republican reactionaries” because “Iowa went Democratic the last five of six presidential elections.” So knowing that his intended audience is the misinformed Neanderthal who votes Republican, what are his impressions of his audience and Iowa Republicans? Well he gives a few clues in his video:

• Kneejerk reactionaries
• Hillbillies
• They look like they like to eat.
• After asking “How tough is your job?” he quips that “You look like you could use a break.” So they are maybe fatigued by their un-tough jobs.

Scott has a lot of contempt for Republicans. He’s not alone. Democrats often paint Republicans as buffoonish, unenlightened, non-intellectual, knuckle-dragging dullards. Why is this so? If you don’t share their views you live in darkness. You are a benighted ignoramus. You are stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical. And not just naively so. This all comes about because of horrible motives.

It is understandable then that the Democrat may think that the legitimate institution of intellectual debate could be sullied by allowing discussions with ugly, hate filled imbeciles. Why would an intellectual have a legitimate conversation with a reprobate? Why cast pearls before the swine? Just dismiss them and move on. And if along the way you can heap on humiliation, so much the better.

Democrats know they are finer, better, smarter, more compassionate, more civil, more decent humans than Conservatives. That is some self-esteem. Or maybe arrogance. Or maybe low self-esteem since they demean, condescend, belittle and humiliate instead of just disagree. Instead of disagreement about issues, mean-spirited smugness is brought to bear. Why? Why isn’t compassion and a soft heart used to try and lift up the lost soul? Why is ridicule the way to enlightenment? If a child does not understand the lofty prose of the learned scholar, will demeaning and humiliation lead to enlightenment? Is the condescension ennobling? Does it elevate rather than debase?

Or maybe those they disagree with have thought about the issues. And maybe they aren’t kneejerk reactionary hillbillies that look like they have slack-jawed jobs and like to eat. Maybe they are decent people who share many of the same motives but simply have some differing opinions. Maybe Scott has nothing but ridicule to enter the arena of ideas with.

Bush Tax Cuts

The current tax rates are what they are. Why is changing the current rates referred to as removing the Bush tax cuts rather than calling them the Obama tax rate increases?

Climategate 2.0

James Taylor looks at the some of the shenanigans in the AGW story.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

So the science is not exactly settled.  But it is settling.  

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds. 

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

Not sure why the NYT and others aren't crowd sourcing this to get to the bottom of the settling science.

Unemployment Woes

I am not sure that a GOP campaign ad writer could have come up with a better way to communicate the left's idea of Keynesian intervention in the economy. The Onion may have been able to come close.But U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis did it better than any of them could have.

Failing to extend the length of time that unemployment workers are eligible to receive federal unemployment payments “will mean an increase in the unemployment rate.”

Before you do damage to your scalp trying to figure out if this makes sense, rest assured it is true. Just as no longer borrowing or printing money to pay people's grocery bill increases hunger, and no longer borrowing or printing money to pay people's car loans increases immobility, and no longer borrowing or printing money to pay people's house loans increases homelessness.

A finer example of a tautology you will not find.

The argument rests on unilateral demand side thinking. If the demand is not maintained by giving people money that is either borrowed or printed, the businesses who sell goods and services will go out of business. If this works so well, why not just print money and send a pallet to each and every person in the US? Wouldn't this sort of stimulus expand the economy and create tremendous demand?

Ugh. Yes, an increase in borrowing can be a stimulus to demand. But at what cost? Is there a limit to how much borrowing can occur before the debt is overwhelming? Is this wise

Down With Capitalism

Chris Carrado has a great article that examines some of the motivations behind the Occupy Wall Street movement:  the left hates inequity in results more than it loves liberty, they hate profit more than they love freedom in markets.

If a company earns millions in profit because it develops a revolutionary medical device that saves thousands of lives, has it not paid its fair share? If a company produces a chemical that kills 99.5% of bacteria in farms, has it paid its fair share? If Ford creates a car so safe that it prevents 80% of otherwise fatal auto accidents, has Ford not done enough? If a grocery chain brings us a bounty of diverse, healthy foods we can purchase without the cost and effort of growing them ourselves, do we think we're also entitled to the profits it brings that chain?