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?

What Everybody Owns, Nobody Owns

Collective ownership didn't work at Plymouth Rock. John Aman shares the collectivist failure that occurred under a charter which imposed a seven-year period of joint ownership on the original settlers at Plymouth Rock.

Governor Bradford wrote that common ownership "was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort."

After much debate, Governor Bradford

allowed each man to plant corn for his own particular [for his own household] and to trust themselves for that ... so every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number ... this was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the governor or any other could devise.

When the incentive for personal gain is removed by collectivist economies, stewardship of the property does not occur as readily when one directly benefits from his/her own labor. It flies in the face of human nature to believe that a person will work as hard for the benefit of a stranger as he will for himself or his family.

The Pilgrims were much more successful when the political economy aligned with human nature and acknowledged that incentives do matter.

Mike Rosen often uses an analogy to demonstrate the differences in stewardship between collective ownership and individual ownership. He notes that public restrooms are often dirty and have graffiti on the walls. But have you ever seen graffiti on the walls of a private home?

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators inadvertently confirmed this idea with their stewardship of the public spaces they occupied. The destruction and fouling of many of the occupied areas is positive proof that when everybody owns it, nobody owns it. They are able to just walk away from the problem rather than deal with it.

Capitalism recognizes this tendency of human nature.

Right Wing Hate

Chris Matthews has figured out what animates the right. He's not pioneering any new ground however, since it is SOP for many on the left to demonize rather than be thoughtful about the many legitimate differences between the left and the right.

The utter confusion in the Republican presidential nominating process results from two discernible facts. One: they hate. That's the simplest explanation of the disastrous course of this selection process. They hate so much they are not in the mood to fall in love with a candidate or even fall in behind someone. Their brains racked as they are by hatred, they lack the like mode. They are in no mood looking around for a politician they like. The hating is so much more satisfying. Second factor: They aren't respecting experience. Each candidate has his or her time in the limelight yet out there in the audition stage, one after another, has showed they don't have the stuff.

Video at Real Clear Politics

This sums up how many on the left feel about thier ideological competition on the right. The right can't just have differing opinions. They can't just have a different view of how the world works. Nevermind the childishness of such analysis that pretends to not understand what a nominating process is all about. Is he suggesting that even before the primaries that only one favored candidate should remain? Normally Matthews' comments are mean and über-partisan. This is downright embarassing.

It is a characteristic of the left to not deal with substance or nuance and jump directly to dismissal via name calling. Matthews' screed is just that.

The right must be demonized and reduced to the following list of odious sub-humans:

• stupid
• ignorant
• mean spirited
• war-mongering
• selfish
• greedy
• hateful
• nativist
• racist
• sexist
• homophobic
• xenophobic
• Islamophobic
• bigoted
• intolerant
• fascist
• misogynistic
• hypocritical

Other references in this blog to the list here, and here.

And now, if Matthews has his way, we must add inexperience to the list. Did he have this same concern for lack of experience for the candidate that gave him a thrill up his leg?

GOP Naiveté

During an interview with Dennis Prager on 23 Nov 2011, Sen. Jon Kyl – who was described in a Dana Milbank column as "cold and ruthless", "destructive", "walking napalm" and a tool of Grover Norquist – seemed naïve and unaware.

While discussing the committee, Kyl was asked if he thought the committee was doomed from the outset. He responded:

In retrospect it might have been. We didn't look at it that way in the beginning. But as I look back on it the two sides approached this with totally different goals in mind. We thought that this was the second half of the ballgame – you know, the debt ceiling extension of 2.4 trillion was predicated on saving that much money. And so, we passed the budget deal in August that saved just about a trillion, not quite. And then the other trillion and a half was supposed to come from the supercommittee, and we thought, on the mandatory side of the budget where 2/3 of the spending is – and that's the out of control spending, the unsustainable spending on Medicare, Medicaid, the food stamps, ag subsidies, all those so-called mandatory programs. So we thought this was an opportunity to get a handle on those. The Democrats approached it totally differently.
...
I thought we would succeed. I knew it would be very hard.

Our view of this was to try to reform the mandatory side of the budget and reduce the spending there. From the very beginning the Democrats had a different view. Their view was this is the place to raise a trillion – usually about 1.3 trillion, sometimes they said 1.2 trillion in new taxes. And so the two parties started from very different goals and I didn't realize that that's what they were going to try to do. And I don't know if they realized that we would try to push the mandatory spending reductions, but in any event, that gap made it very difficult. When the two sides don’t agree on the goal to begin with it's hard to reach consensus.

How is it that Kyl has a view of Democrats that only a person who has lived in a cave or is hopelessly naïve could have? As Ann Coulter recently reminded us in her column on how the GOP was hoodwinked during Reagan and Bush the elder, "As long as no one knows the history of these "deals," the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule."

It is clear what the Dems are up to. This is not to say that what the left is up to is evil. John Edwards was right when he said there are two Americas. The left and right have irreconcilable differences. It is not that they have similar goals but different ways to get there. They have different goals.

But how is it that a key member of the GOP is unable to see or understand the conflict of visions that is so vital to understanding the path forward for our country? How could he have missed over the last three years of the Obama presidency that the left are Keynesians through and through? Is this irrepressible optimism or naiveté on stilts?

Paul Krugman understands what is going on. In his 17 Nov 2011 article he stated:

Why was the supercommittee doomed to fail? Mainly because the gulf between our two major political parties is so wide. Republicans and Democrats don’t just have different priorities; they live in different intellectual and moral universes.
...
So the supercommittee brought together legislators who disagree completely both about how the world works and about the proper role of government. Why did anyone think this would work?
...
But don’t we eventually have to match spending and revenue? Yes, we do. But the decision about how to do that isn’t about accounting. It’s about fundamental values — and it’s a decision that should be made by voters, not by some committee that allegedly transcends the partisan divide.

About this Krugman is right. There is a battle between competing visions in America today. And Krugman is clear about his vision.

Raising taxes increases revenue, and cutting spending while the economy is still depressed reduces employment.
...
Slashing spending while the economy is depressed destroys jobs, and it’s probably even counterproductive in terms of deficit reduction, since it leads to lower revenue both now and in the future.

He is against spending reductions. Only Keynesian spending splurges will do. All Kyl had to do was open the New York Times to discover what the left is thinking and how they were going to behave in the supercommittee.

Furthermore, Krugman is able to recollect GOP welshing on deals:

For one thing, history tells us that the Republican Party would renege on its side of any deal as soon as it got the chance. Remember, the U.S. fiscal outlook was pretty good in 2000, but, as soon as Republicans gained control of the White House, they squandered the surplus on tax cuts and unfunded wars.

Apparently the GOP had made promises to not allow terrorist attacks and subsequent military endeavors in exchange for something unnamed. This bogus recollection, in contradistinction to the real Democratic promises to reduce spending that never materialized, is used by Krugman to warn against making any deals with Republicans. Who's the do nothing party now?

Republicans are often dismissed as RINOs or Democrat Light because of a softening of their views and actions once in office. Sen. Kyl seems to have conservative bona fides, so if he does not prevail against liberal ideas, it apparently is not because he is a RINO. But his comments to Prager reveal a soft Pollyanna underbelly and/or naiveté that is anything but cold and ruthless and may produce similar results as a RINO. If he is unaware of the positions, values and vision of his intellectual opponents, whether RINO or orthodox conservative, he will lose to their ideologically driven agenda.

Affirmative Action Obama

In this article by Matt Patterson, he looks at President Obama's unimpressive resume.  Patterson quotes Norman Podhoretz:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Patterson then notes, "Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:"

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Manufacturing

There is a lot of concern about sending jobs overseas. And not keeping manufacturing jobs here at home.

Why is oil production not considered manufacturing that could keep jobs here in the US? Canada seems to keep a lot of people empoloyed manufacturing petroleum products. Couldn't we bring those jobs home?

Notable Quotable

The left lives like the Tea Party people, but they preach like the Occupy Wall Street people. 

~Dennis Prager

Cain, Infidelity and the Right

It has been pretty difficult to get the slumbering media masses to do in-depth reporting on sexual indiscretions of Democrats such as President Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Barney Frank, Alcee Hastings, John Edwards and others. Digging up licentiousness on liberals can be tough. A guy pretty much has to sext nude photos of himself before the media will take notice. But even then it takes a bit of coaxing.

And maybe the women who target Democrats are gold diggers and don't deserve to have their stories heard. Maybe this is what you get when you "drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park." (Why the leaders of the party of compassion and nuance are dragging hundred-dollar bills through trailer parks is another question for another day.)

Although, when you have allegations against a Republican, you need to run with the story - no matter how vague it is. Even if you don't feel you are on firm ground. As James Taranto noted:

Anonymous sources told Politico that unnamed women alleged that Cain said unspecified things and made unspecified gestures to them sometime before the turn of the century. The only available fact is that the complaints led to a legal settlement, which included a confidentiality agreement, so its details are unknown.

Of course the media is biased. Only unquestioning zealots and manipulators feign shock at the idea. But, the media would not make a big deal out of these allegations if there wasn't an audience. And the audience they are playing to is the religious right.

When those on the right ask questions like "If a man cannot keep his marital vow, then how can we be sure he'll keep his oath of office?", the left leaning media knows it has lethiferous gold in a story like Cain's.

The question posed above presumes that infidelity is indicative of governing. It is a silly notion, but many on the right believe that dalliance is the litmus test that precludes any good or decent governing. The trouble is, reality just doesn't comport with this test.

It would be hard to argue that all the good that was done by Martin Luther King, Jr. should be dismissed because he had extramarital affairs. To dismiss all of his goodness because he was - shock of all shocks - human, is stupid. As noted at thegrio:

A great man is not defined by his weaknesses, but by his strengths. Regardless of what Dr. King may have done during the course of his marriage, those actions are almost completely disconnected from the manner through which he inspired billions with his courage and led people of color to the life we share today. It is our fault, not his, that Dr. King has been placed on a pedestal so high that we've forgotten that he was human.

(Of course, this is a generalized statement and there are "weaknesses" that are so significant as to overwhelm any "strengths" a person may have. A man who kidnaps, rapes and kills a 9 year-old girl and buries neighbors alive can spend as much time as he wishes at the soup kitchen. His actions are so reprehensible that they cannot be undone by random acts of kindness. These are all matters of degree. A serial philanderer is quite different than a person who is flirtatious or who had a one night stand.)

Clearly, philandering did not affect MLK's moral compass on matters of racism. Can we be happy that in spite of his own humanity he lifted the rest of mankind on his shoulders and carried them to a better place?

Similarly, did Rudy Giuliani handle the tragedy of 9/11 expertly in spite of his wolfishness? Should Jews have refused Oskar Schindler's help because he moonlighted?

The idea is preposterous and those on the right do a disservice by using this as a litmus test. All adultery tells us is that these men were sinners and far from perfect. However, they did some pretty good things in spite of their fallen nature. Even God allowed King David to continue after his Bathsheba episode where he even went so far as to send her husband off to war to be killed.

It fails in the other direction as well. By all accounts, President Carter was a sterling husband. However, his leadership and policy decisions were about as far removed from the religious right's values as one can imagine. And his post-Presidential behavior has been boorish at best and borders on racist.

And where does this stop? Should a candidate be eliminated because he didn't honor the Sabbath or his mother and father? How about coveting the neighbor's house? If a Jew should eat bacon, does that render him an economic imbecile and therefore unfit to be President? Clearly smoking marijuana no longer precludes presidential aspirations. (Again, a matter of degree. A nightly doobie roast is rightly judged differently than a college foray. And whether marijuana is a gateway drug or not, it is not heroine or meth. Nobody worries whether their airline pilot smoked pot in college. Irresponsible behavior in the past does not necessarily prevent critical thinking, decision making or responsible behavior when one is older.)

The religious right needs to realize that they are not voting for pastor, rabbi, monk, priest or pope. They should be voting for a man or woman to govern the nation in accordance with its Constitution, certain values and with a particular economic vision.

Of course we all expect decent and honorable behavior and nobody is asking to throw out all expectations. But there is no reason to demand that a presidential candidate be as pure as the wind driven snow. Many good and decent people have stumbled or engaged in youthful or imprudent pursuits. And this moral myopia will only prevent many good people from seeking the nation's highest office and will result in a far worse nation for all.

FOIA Feint

One of the most disappointing attributes of the Obama administration has been its proclivity for secrecy.

This was how the LA Times described the Obama administration. They continued:

The president who committed himself to "an unprecedented level of openness in government" has followed the example of his predecessor by invoking the "state secrets" privilege to derail litigation about government misdeeds in the war on terror. He has refused to release the administration's secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, which two senators have described as alarming. He has blocked the dissemination of photographs documenting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. service members.

The double standard of the left should be clear to all. Where is WikiLeaks now? Where are the howls of outrage? The protests? The OWS crowd could move to 1600 Pensylvania Avenue. They could retain their acronym but they need a slight adjustment in the focus of their protest: Obama Withholds Secrets.

Given the collateral damage that has occurred with all of the drone strikes and the administration's desire to, as the LA Times put it, provide "a license for the government to lie to its own people," couldn't it truly be said if this rule is implemented that Obama lied, people died?

Obama should reread his pronouncements about transparent government.

He might be shocked by what he reads.

Right is evil

It is not that the left has such great ideas. It is that the right is evil.

The left are nicer, kinder people than those on the right. Or so you would think if you listened to the likes of Karen Finney.

And I think they like him because they think he's a black man who knows his place. I know that's harsh but that's how it sure seems to me.

What exactly is that place? Conservatives want to put him in the White House. They are so racist they want to put a black man in charge of the country.

Where was all this absolution talk when the left was voting for Obama? It was out there but was dismissed as poppycock.

The left must maintain the myth of racism on the right. It is a despicable charge that should only be leveled seriously and carefully. And to throw it around loosely as a lazy argument against those you disagree with only cheapens the word. Just as redefining rape to sex a woman wishes she hadn't had cheapens the term rape, shouting racism when what one really means is "I disagree with your policy" cheapens the term and drains it of all meaning.

But grievance and victimization are necessary for the success of the left. Without it, there is little remaining to sell. On the day that blacks, women, minorities, union members, teachers and trial attorneys wake up and say "Gosh. America is a pretty decent place. Yes, there are some ugly people on both sides of the aisle, but by and large America is a place where you can get ahead and speak your mind and is filled with good people - no matter what their political persuasion.", these fear-mongering Democrats will no longer be elected to office.

It is not that there is a conspiracy or a list of talking points that those on the left follow, but the ideology demands that the right be demonized and be shown to be less than human. It is important to dismiss those on the right as stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical. There are probably a few more, but that's a good primer.

To be fair, there are those on the right who employ such tactics, although they seem to be more centered on religious violations, or "sinful" behavior. But how is the list above any different from a list of dismissives from the right? Isn't this a list of sins? Moral defects? Breaches of character? Isn't the left seeking to affix a scarlet letter to those on the right?

And another key distinction is that these dismissives are leveled by high-ranking leaders of the left and not just the rank and file. It is quite difficult to see this level of name-calling by Representatives, Senators, Presidents, heads of major political organizations and the like on the right. It is worth noting that opinion writers and commentators often use hyperbole for effect, but some of the stuff that comes out of the mouths of leftist humorists is awful. One struggles to find comedians on the right that are hoping for rape and hate f**king of those on the left.

The left is heavily invested in the righty is a racist meme. The constant drumbeat is if the policy isn't endorsed by the Democratic Party, its racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. However, a compelling argument can be made that the left harbors ill-will for the groups they profess to support. For example, a man can be accused of sexual harassment and can suffer ramifications for telling an off color joke. Would it be appropriate for a man to pursue damages or punitive measures at work if a woman wore clothing that was distracting (in his estimation)? If you answer no, then you must answer why a woman can accuse a man of inappropriate behavior in the workplace if she is made uncomfortable, has her feelings hurt or is offended. If you believe it is appropriate for a woman and not for a man, all other things being equal, then you are sexist because you have lower standards for women than for men. You have higher expectations for men than women. How is it that the left is excused of these sorts of hidden racism?

The demonization platform is paired with hatred of the rich and government handouts. If the left treated the right as fellow sojourners who, while decent, hold different views, stopped the hate speech of class warfare and were not able to promise goodies to everybody who voted for them, what would be left in their platform? Egalitarianism?

The demonization of the right is prolific in the left's speech. Some examples include:

• Andre Carson saying that fellow Congress members would like to see blacks hanging from trees.
• Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, saying "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night."
• Alan Grayson manipulating a video clip to make it appear that Republican Daniel Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands (even Mother Jones posted a list of "outrageous" comments from Grayson. He was a one-man smear campaign.)
• the former NAACP chairman Julian Bond's comments about Attorney General John Ashcroft, saying "He knows something about the Taliban, coming from, as he does, from that wing of American politics." And while speaking at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina saying that "The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side."
• Patty Murray (Sen, D, WA) said "He's (Osama bin Laden) been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and these people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that." (Really? We haven't done this? And why isn't this an indictment of the left? Dems have been running the major cities for the last 50 years. If this is true, shouldn't this failure fall squarely at the feet of Democrats?)
• Krugman, Olbermann as well as others blaming the right for the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords
• left leaning comedians (kudos to NOW for speaking out against it) and commentators suggesting that Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and other conservative women be hate f**ked;
• Sandra Burnhard pining for a time when Sarah Palin is "gang-raped by my hip black brothers." (Secondarily, why isn't this racist? When Obama asks members of the CBC to remove their slippers to help out, his comments are - lazily and inappropriately - questioned as racist, but suggesting that blacks might be culturally or morally ready to perform such a despicable act of cruelty and horror isn't? Her expectations of the black man are so low as to think he might consider such an act? Does she think more highly of white men that she didn't suggest that they might want to partake?)
• Jimmy Hoffa calling Tea Partiers "son of a bitches".
• President Carter cites "racism inclination" as the reason for opposition to Obama. Couldn't just be that they have different visions of the role of government.
• President Obama (and a large portion of the Democratic left) using the teabagger slur while describing Tea Partiers: "Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care?"
• Jimmy Fallon band playing "Lyin' Ass Bitch" as the walkon song for Michelle Bachmann.
• Chris Matthews commenting that Republicans are "consumed by hate".
• CBS using a Bart Stupak phone message as an example of the threats against Democrats during the Tea Party protests of ObamaCare that said, "You and your family are scum....We think you're a devil....I hope you die." but not revealing the threatening phone message was left by liberals upset over the pro-life Democrat still being on the fence over the abortion language in ObamaCare.
• Frank Rich comparing Tea Party protestations to Kristallnacht.

Occupy the mailbox

Poet Artie Moffa has devised a way to shake his fist at the big banks. It is painful that this is thought to be "brilliant" (as one commenter opined).



There are many reasons why this is a silly notion. As many of these types of activities go, they are often an impassioned orgy of virulence, but little else. Such a tactic is likely to do nothing more than make those who do it feel clever and self-satisfied.

The current number of YouTube views for this video is 109,168. If everybody who watched the video actually sent in their envelope and it cost the big bank they are targeting $0.25 each, the total cost of postage to the bank would be $27,292. Not exactly a sum that will take down a corporation. And this assumes all 109,168 viewers will send in an envelope. To the same bank.

Although we all share the dislike of bulk mail items arriving in our mail box, and even though many of us have been tempted to mail the materials back to the sender in a moment of protest, the reality is that most people just aren't going to go through the bother of sending the stuff back.

Since everyone who watched will not likely send an envelope and since they are not likely targeting the same bank, the impact to any one organization will be even less. But if the tricky wood shim tactic is used, the price per parcel will rise and the pain to the bank will be greater. Even if it cost the bank a dollar per letter, the cost is not that great when spread across millions of customers. And that is exactly what would happen.

The bank isn't going to dock the pay of the CEO to cover the cost of this. It will pass the costs on to the consumer. Just as would be the case if this YouTuber ran a business and the local ne'er do wells filled his garbage dumpster with their garbage. He wouldn't just pay that amount out of his paycheck. He would add it to the price of his product as a cost of doing business. And that cost would not be significant enough to raise the price of his product so drastically that it would drive him out of business.

And if you think that since you are not a customer and therefore it won't affect you personally, what about all those who are? Isn't one of the points of OWS to speak up for those who are suffering because of the predatory practices of the large Wall Street banks? Isn't this just the sort of selfish, greedy, narcissistic behavior that the OWS crowd eschews? And besides, the merchant from whom you purchase your next car, house, gas, food, utility, clothing, medical care, TV, laptop, or iPhone may use this financial institution and you'll pay the fee as it is passed on to the consumer.

Moffa asks us to "Think of the scene in a mail room at a big bank." Well, it is likely that this type of mail is not handled in the mail room at 111 Wall Street. In fact, this probably takes place in some drearily familiar industrial park mail facility that employs people much like Artie, his mom or dad or other working stiffs who are not part of the 1%. They would like nothing more than to be able to do their jobs without the harassment of wood shims and notes from wise-acres who want them to join a union. They may already be a union member, which only makes the "really heavy, dense and crumbly" interruptions in their work day all the more tedious. Why not add baby powder to the mix? That would really show those greedy bankers. Do you suppose Moffa is appreciative of hecklers when he is on stage doing his job? One wonders whether Moffa would recommend spitting on the server at the local buffet if we disagree with the corporate business practices.

If we use Moffa's estimate of "a few roofing shingles, a few hundred wood shims and a few thousand empty envelopes," we might be verging on a couple thousand bucks of financial punishment to an institution while causing untold headaches for the rank and file who will have to deal with the real world implications of his proposed stunt.

And then Moffa gets to what he thinks is the point of such a protest. He admits that sending shingles to bankers "isn't really about running up the postage bill at the big banks, although that's a nice side effect." It is about creating meetings. Meetings to discuss the hundreds and thousands of weird credit card applications received by their fulfillment agent. He doesn't reason that these meetings will probably be held at the time clock in a noisy mail sorting facility and not range much beyond the topic of how to properly dispose of the debris sent in by disgruntled housewives, elderly retirees, and now, OWS protesters, and the fear induced in these times by opening envelopes containing foreign substances.

Moffa has much higher visions of grandeur.

Every hour the banks spend reacting to us is an hour they won't spend lobbying Congress on how to screw us.

Really? The banks will call the lobbyists back from DC to help sort mail? Does the SEIU stop lobbying just because a letter-writing campaign is waged against them?

Its an hour banks don't spend foreclosing on our houses.

Really? The bank will be so jolted that they will forget that Joe Blow hasn't made a payment in six months?

In large part, this is a masturbatory exercise. Maybe banking practices do need a thoroughgoing examination. Maybe government shouldn't have pressured banks to do Congress's social engineering so that we didn't find ourselves in this current situation. But this tactic gets us no closer to these ends.

What at first glance seems like a nifty idea, upon reflection devolves into an emotional fit. And the smugness dripping from such statements as "being immoral doesn't mean you're infertile," speaks only to fellow devotees who probably also had a Hans Landa "Ooooh, that's a bingo" response to shoving construction debris into an envelope.

Moffa would do well to understand that one's ideological opponents do not have to be evil or immoral simply because they have different thoughts and ideas. But this concept has yet to be learned by some of good will and is of little interest to those who would rather attack and destroy the messenger than engage in thoughtful conversation about competing ideas. This sort of dismissive rich/poor, black/white, young/old, red/blue, on/off mentality lacks nuance and is only helpful to those who are not confident in their own ideas. It is much easier to dismiss your opponents as evil, immoral, stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical than to converse about the intricacies of different ideas.

And what about the environmental waste caused by such a protest? All the added driving and decreased fuel economy because of hauling roofing materials around. And does it create or save jobs for postal handlers? Well, yes. In the same way that splitting supertankers over coral reefs create jobs for the cleanup industry.

So as is often the case, protestations such as these may make the protester feel good, but won't do much beyond that. But who doesn't want a little self-induced pleasure? And Moffa seems to feel good about his self-stimulatory feel good exercise. So thanks to him for turning the camera on while preening in his digital masterbatorium.

ADDENDA:

From a poster at reddit:

The communications part is pointless; fill the envelope and send it back, but don't waste your time with the communications bit: the only people who will ever see it are minimum-wage (or near-minimum-wage) mail handlers who simply discard this sort of response.

I have (unfortunately) worked for institutions like this in the actual mail room, and this sort of thing is pretty standard (where I worked, we received 15000-20000 pieces of mail a day, and we had 6 people sorting all of it; each of us got several dozen of these trash-filled envelopes daily). We had boxes specifically for these sorts of envelopes, and the only thing we had to do was add a single comment to the person's file (if we could determine who it was from). That comment? ERE, which stands for Envelope Returned Empty.

Most of the time, we didn't even bother adding the comment (which is actually a good thing for the intended recipient, as it kept the address in an unknown state of use; sending the mail back like this shows it is a legit address; additional contact, including phone contact, was often then tried with these accounts). The envelope and its trash contents would simply be tossed in that bin, and we'd move along to the next piece of mail.

So don't bother wasting time (or money) creating fliers or inviting communication: the people who see it will toss it in the trash and, truth be told, are probably already on our side (but unable to do anything from their "expendable" position). Just send back the envelope with its original contents and move on.

Edit :: For what it's worth, this is also the reason why sending threats, powders or other sort of "illusion to cause harm" items is not only pointless, but is counter-productive: most company mail rooms are isolated to reduce the damage caused by an actual attack, and the only people who are going to be affected by it are the ones who the company considers to be some of the most expendable people in the company (where I worked, only the [Mexican-born] janitorial staff were considered more expendable).

Comment by davidwbrown66:

No!!! DO NOT PUT THE SHIMS IN THERE!!! I fix the fucking machines those envelopes go through and you fuck up all the machines if you stick shims in there. Those kinds of letters get sent through machines that require the letters to be slightly flexible as they get carried by belts around bullwheels.

Just stuff them with the paper like he originally said.

Don't fuck up the machines, that just messes with a postal machine operator and, worse, some poor technician.

Comment by b0blee:

If you make the envelope rigid with wood, it's a hazard to the postal machinery. It won't go through as Business Reply Mail (because it obviously isn't), and all you've done is annoy some poor postal workers.

Comment by moclips1:

your ideas have been tried before, and they don't work.  mass mailings from big companies are cheap to produce, cost only a few cents to mail per piece, and make money even if a lot of blank envelopes are returned. . those return envelopes are bar-coded, and any mailing that is too heavy gets thrown out, which costs the USPS money and not the company, good ideals, though. my sources: USPS employees, who hate mass mailings, and my 20+ years in marketing at a big heartless corporation.

Comment by Kelliwilliams2:

I can try to answer this helpfully. I used to work at a bank in my youth. Any rigid object that breaks machinery used for sorting material ill result in people staying late and sorting it by hand. Any mysterious object like rubble or dirt or an angry letter in mail will be considered a possible terrorist threat and result in a trip to loss prevention and the employee being questioned about their involvement and knowledge.

If you feel like doing this use clean paper not the stuff he suggests at the end or the crazy stuff people are suggesting like dog poop and cat litter. Any inconvenience experienced by the person opening these letters will not matter at all to anyone higher up and neither will any messages. Anything you put in these envelopes is going to end up on the hands,clothes and unfinished work of the employee. You break their machines? They work wo them.

What shall we protest?

They're protesting the fact that they've never been hungry; never been cold; never been without TV, air conditioning and a car. They've always had a video game console and a laptop and a smart phone. And they never, ever had to do any long, hard, real work for any of it.

There are groups of people who are willing to pump and purify your water. Provide endless and affordable electrical power so that you can be 72° all the time. That there are people who will kill, clean, cook, package and deliver foods so that you don't have to see the blood or the dirt." "And that these groups of people who provide these things are called corporations... who do these ugly, difficult and unpleasant things for you.

You should be grateful. You should thank them.

Against equality and change. And fear of what the government is constantly putting on us. And staying focused.

Against the Jews.

The Jews commit more white collar crime than any other ethnic group on the earth, and they go unprosecuted because they can buy their way out of it.

Whenever there's a billion dollar fraud, there's a Jew involved.

For taking down the system. Abolishing debt and the banking system. The capitalist monster. Capitalism. Profit.



For socialism and the fair wages in North Korea.

Michael Moore is a 99%'er

Michael Moore denied that he is in the 1%. His proof? Because he says he's not. Amazing.

Apparently he can say anything and not be held to account. Does he really think that just doing a Jedi hand wave will convince the nation that he makes less than $344k/yr? (2009 AGI) Or because he doesn't think of himself in that way, he isn't? His thoughts notwithstanding, I think the IRS considers him to be a one percenter.

Will Moore extend the same wealth exemption to conservatives?




And Russel Simmons isn't in the 1% either. He's in the 100%.



UPDATE: Look for Moore to become more shrill. After making a statement as foolish as this, he will now go all in for socialism.

Civility on the Left

Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone article is an example of the unbiased, level-headed, policy centric analysis of intelligent people who disagree. Or not.

The Houston Chronicle teases out the name-calling and invective.

Rick Perry: The Best Little Whore In Texas

If you’re still not sure, get a gander at the subhead:

The Texas governor has one driving passion: selling off government to the highest bidder

In the loooooooooooooooong article in the magazine’s November 10th issue, veteran political writer Matt Taibbi compares the Republican presidential candidate to an undertaker, a prostitute, a male underwear model, a serial killer AND Adolf Hitler. Bet you’ve never seen all those things in one article before.

In case you don’t have time to read the entire piece, we have some highlights for you.

On Perry’s personal characteristics:

“Exceedingly well-groomed, but also ashen and exhausted, like a funeral director with a hangover.”
“Tall, perma-tanned, Bible-clutching Southerner with front-runner hair and the build of a retired underwear model.”
“On the human level he is a nonpersonality, an almost perfect cipher – a man whose only discernible passion is his extreme willingness to be whatever someone will pay him to be, or vote for him to be.”
“Rick Perry brings shallow to a new level. He is very gifted in that regard. He could be the Adolf Hitler of shallow.”

On Perry’s ethics:

“The candidate who is exponentially more willing than we’ve ever seen before to whore himself out for that money.”
“A human price tag.”
“Rick Perry has managed to set a scary new low in the annals of opportunism, turning Texas into a swamp of political incest and backroom dealing on a scale not often seen this side of the Congo or Sierra Leone.”

On Perry’s ups and downs in the presidential campaign:

“The governor went from presumptive front-runner to stammering talk-show punch line seemingly in the speed of a single tweet.”
“Perry has mainly distinguished himself with a kind of bipolar wildness in the debates: sullen and reserved one moment, strident and inarticulate the next. He sweats profusely. He can’t stand still. When he does manage to get off a zinger, he cracks a smug grin, looking like he’s just sewn up the blue ribbon in a frat-house dong-measuring contest.”
“One of the all-time great marketing scams, a breathtaking high-wire act by a man who if nothing else certainly has the gigantic balls required for the most powerful job in the world.”

On Perry’s rise to power:

“The descriptions of Perry’s early political career all sound like the early chapters of true-crime books about serial killers, where nobody notices anything special about the protagonist until the bodies start piling up along the local riverbank.”
“Favors are the one consistent thread running through Perry’s political career. Throughout his time as governor, whenever his ideology or his religion comes into conflict with the need to give a handout to a major campaign donor, ideology and religion lose every single time.”

It seems safe to assume Rick Perry won’t be getting the Rolling Stone vote.

Nuance on the Left

This presidential election has not lacked for clowns, and in a circus Barack Obama fits right in. But as the Black clown, Obama’s foot-in-mouth moments mostly involve insulting the Black community. This could be to establish his independence from the community in order to earn his bona fides with the moderate electorate or a way of appeasing the white liberals he’s courting. Or it could be that his foot and his mouth are magnetized. Whatever the reason, as a Black person, the Obamanator experience has been as distasteful as rancid, spoiled, stinky, curdled milk.

This was written, not about Barack Obama, but about Herman Cain. Touré at Time Magazine let loose with this torrent of sophomoric angst in his October 21st article. His screed is just one more example of a group that isn't interested in civility, but rather tearing down their opponent at all costs. And they usually do it by attacking the person, not policy.

The left is particularly adept at lacking self-awareness. Their ability to self-reflect is almost non-existent. In the third paragraph of his Cain chew-out - after having called Cain a Black clown, the Herminator, Cain't and the Black Sarah Palin - Mr. Touré asks, "Now we’re doing teenage-level disses?" [Long Jon Stewart-esque pause for effect.]

Maybe Mr. Touré doesn't read his own work. The evidence may be that he squeezed in some more teenage name calling before he reached the end of the article. Hermy, Big Daddy Cain, Cain is a clown, buffoon and another Hermanator round out his 690 words of "serious intellect, realistic solutions and admirable character," three charicteristics Mr. Touré said that Herman Cain did not posses.

As if the name calling wasn't enough to convince the reader of Mr. Touré's superior intellectual argument, he marginalizes and dismisses everything that he disagrees with. It is not that Cain has different ideas about the economy, it is that he is courting and appeasing the white conservatives. It is not that Cain has a different opinion than Mr. Touré, it is that his foot and his mouth are magnetized. It is not that Mr. Touré and Cain don't see eye to eye, it is that Cain is as distasteful as rancid, spoiled, stinky, curdled milk.

So when you get past all the name calling and invective, what is left? Essentially Mr. Touré makes three points. 1) He doesn't think blacks have been brainwashed. 2) Obama has been a part of the black experience. 3) Racism is alive and well.

Mr. Touré doesn't like that Cain said that some blacks were brainwashed. He noted that:

Brainwashing is a highly offensive charge that suggests the Black mind is defective or has gone to sleep. In a world where Black intelligence is constantly maligned and denigrated and underestimated, this cuts deeper than the quick. Alleging that we’re not intelligent enough to make rational political decisions would hurt if it weren’t so comical coming from his mouth.

Does Mr. Touré also feel the pain in his quick for poor white people who are often maligned as hillbillies, white trash and rednecks? Let's change the focus of his comments from blacks to the NASCAR crowd and see how it sounds:

Brainwashing is a highly offensive charge that suggests the white mind is defective or has gone to sleep. In a world where southern white intelligence is constantly maligned and denigrated and underestimated, this cuts deeper than the quick. Alleging that NASCAR lovers are not intelligent enough to make rational political decisions would hurt if it weren’t so comical coming from his mouth.

Brainwashing does not suggest that the mind is defective. Everyone is susceptible to a brainwash. I suspect that if a certain cultural or religious group of whites voted in lock step at rates at or above 90 percent for Republicans, Mr. Touré might not bristle so vociferously at the notion of a brainwash.

Mr. Touré then asks, "... has the GOP offered a reasonable alternative?" to the brainwash. Um, yes. The subject of your article Mr. Touré. And the other 6 or 7 people showing up to the Republican debates. The whole point of Cain making the brainwash reference was to jar the black community into considering ideas from him or anyone else from the Republican side of the aisle.

Moving on to Mr. Touré's second objection, he feels that Obama certainly was and is partaking of the "black experience" in America. Well, not exactly. He notes that you can't define black experience too narrowly. And that even if "Obama has lived a life that’s different than most Black people’s", Obama is black. So therefore what he experiences is the black experience. And anyway, Obama is redefining the experience. Where he is, the experience is. "The mountain came to Muhammad." Of course, no mention that Herman Cain's experiences are the black experience or that they may be redefining the black experience in any way.

Number three. With this objection Mr. Touré drifts perilously close to a Jesse Jackson sing-a-long. In citing his own book, Mr. Touré notes that even his extensive research that consisted of asking "about 100 people" to identify the "the most racist thing that’s ever happened to you," he discovered that more than one third couldn't identify such an act. So rather than conclude, as Herman Cain has, that things are improving in America, Mr. Touré provides the answers for this mysterious racism lacuna: these people just weren't aware of the hidden, subtle, unknowable racism that is modern racism. Maybe they were brainwashed. And no level of success within the black community - not his, not Obama's, not Herman Cain's - is going to refute that racism is everywhere.

Oh, and Touré doesn't like Cain's sense of humor. But Cain's a clown. An unfunny clown. So there.