New Normal

From Jeannine Aversa (AP Economics Writer, Economy's fall still bad - even if less steep, May 29, 2009):

The Commerce Department is set to release a report Friday that's expected to show the economy shrank at an annualized rate of 5.5 percent from January to March. If Wall Street analysts' forecasts are correct, it would mark a small improvement from the 6.1 percent annualized first-quarter drop the government initially estimated a month ago.

There are all sorts of old jokes that are similar to the above. They often start with "Do you want the good news or the bad news" and end with a wife or cat being killed in a fire.

The summation of the Commerce Department's report is that the economy contracted, again. It twisted the presentation to make it appear as a good thing: since it only contracted 5.5%, when it could have been 6.1%, we're supposed to infer that things are better.

The cat is still dead.

There are a number of factors that are going to prevent the economy from recovering, unless we tackle those issues. We need to tackle:

• Entitlement spending (specifically Social Security). We will need to gradually eliminate it, beginning with means-testing.


• Deficit spending (beyond entitlement spending).


• Replacing private investment with government spending (across the board).

There is no political will to do any of the above, until it is too late, and excruciatingly painful.

The financial sites are full of predictions that suggest that we'll recover in the Fall, or next year, or things are already recovering, etc. What I don't expect to see is the truth: That there will be no recovery. This is the new normal. Our children and grandchildren will not have life as easy and prosperous as we did. Mostly, that is our fault (and the fault of our parents and grandparents).

Social Security is the biggest contributor because we allowed a Ponzi scheme to rake-in cash for decades and we allowed the government to maintain the ruse that there was some sort of trust fund, rather than the fact that the government spent all the money. That allowed previous generations to maintain the fiction that we had been more fiscally responsible in the past. The fiction that FICA is not a tax, just like any other tax, continues to this day.

Any report that says that "X % of Americans don't pay any tax" perpetuates that lie. If someone has FICA taxes deducted from their paycheck, they are paying taxes. That tax is put into the General Fund and is spent each year... and that has happened since the program's inception.

This has been a long time in coming. Previous Administrations are constantly blamed for deficit spending, but the real culprits of the deficits are never addressed. Even when Bush ran in his second term on fixing Social Security, the Congress wouldn't touch it. With AARP and similar organizations representing the largest special interest groups, politicians realize that reducing Social Security spending will end their careers.

Federal spending has clearly gotten out of control.  Social Security and Medicare has been a net gain to the budgets for decades, but in a few years, it will be a net drain, compounding an already serious problem.

The chart below shows Federal spending for Social Security and Medicare, and all other spending, in 2000 constant dollars:

[caption id="attachment_593" align="alignnone" width="468" caption="Spending 1976 to 2010 (in 2000 Constant $)"][/caption]

Apples in a Barrel

From Jonathan Martin (POLITICO.com, Barack Obama: Now or never on health care, May 29, 2009):

President Obama exhorted his supporters on a conference call Thursday to help lobby for his health care plan, warning, “If we don’t get it done this year, we’re not going to get it done.”

That seems simple enough.  "Not" works.

Merits and Mercy

From Thomas Sowell (JWR, ‘Empathy’ in Action, May 27, 2009) writing about the Sonia Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court:

If you were going to have open heart surgery, would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was chosen because he had to struggle to get where he is or by the best surgeon you could find— even if he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had every advantage that money and social position could offer?

As usual, Thomas Sowell gets it exactly right. We want the best, in all things, not the affirmative action candidate.

Sowell didn't get it right because he is Black, nor should Sonia Sotomayor be considered as a Supreme Court judge because she's a woman. Their race or gender are superfluous, or those characteristics should be.

The double-standard of Sotomayor's nomination is grating: She was nominated because she is a woman, but if we criticize her for her abilities or lack thereof, there are accusations of misogyny. Nice pedestal women have created for themselves.

I thought the idea of equality was about the destruction of pedestals and that everyone had equal opportunity to demonstrate that they could cut it and compete in the big leagues, without handicapping for being a woman or a member of privileged class.

That isn't the thing that bothers me the most about all of this. What is truly maddening is referring to anything a judge should do as having an element of "empathy," especially having empathy for women over men, or minorities over majorities.

Justice is supposed to be blind.

A judge is supposed to determine that laws are followed, not that empathy is meted out.

Acting as the referee for the law has nothing to do with empathy. The word that people are looking for is mercy; as in, "throwing themselves on the mercy of the court."

Mercy has a completely different meaning from empathy. Mercy, unlike empathy, flows from someone admitting their mistakes, of owning up to what they have done, and asking the courts for leniency based on the admission of guilt.

Empathy concerns itself with something else. It considers the feelings of those who stand before the law, regardless of what the law says or if the person has admitted their guilt, and told the whole truth. A judge cannot dismiss the law in determining guilt or innocence, but it can show mercy when meting out fines and punishments. Guilt or innocence is binary.

Absolution follows confession and penance, not the other way around.

The Supreme Court is liberty's last refuge, and empathy has no place in the Court's decisions. If the Court has done their job, and the society determines the law to be too cruel or harsh, it is the society who can change the laws under which the Court is bound.

The quality that judges must fight to expunge from themselves, to properly execute their duties as a judge of the law (not of the person), is empathy; otherwise, there is one law for me, and other for thee. That's not justice and that is not the liberty we stand for as a nation.

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1816

"Let mercy be the character of the lawgiver, but let the judge be a mere machine."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1776

It Isn't "Gay"

From Brian York (Washington Examiner, Ted Olson goes to court on behalf of gay marriage, May 26, 2009), quoting Ted Olsen:

"I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions," Olson told me Tuesday night.  "I thought their cause was just."

Personally, I agree that we "as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation."  It would be nice if Mr. Olsen tried that approach himself, especially as it applies to this issue.

The arguments for same-sex marriage often focus on overturning the discrimination against homosexuals (in addition to the argument that suggests that marriage is a right, not a privilege, as I detailed in an earlier post).

The issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation, although many who support it are championing "gay marriage."  That, however, is how we bypass the problems of unintended consequences (by sidestepping them accidentally or intentionally).

It would be discriminatory (and an intrusion of privacy) to suggest that homosexuals cannot marry, or that Blacks can't marry Whites, or tall people can't marry short people, etc.  What the law says is that a marriage must consist of a man and a woman.  It doesn't go beyond that to apply a religious or moral test (although there is a health screening test in some states as well as an "adult" requirement), a racial test, or a sexual preference test.  It applies equally to all... as would same-sex marriage.

In order to avoid discriminitory practices, we need to apply rules universally, and California has in this case.  It is discrimination in marriage that "gay marriage" advocates are wanting (or they're avoiding the sticky issue that homosexuals can marry today, as traditional marriage is not denied to homosexuals).

Same-sex marriage is denied to everyone in California, regardless of sexual orientation, just as opposite-sex marriage is available to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

Calling it "gay" marriage doesn't avoid the obstacle, nor does the revised term in describing it, as opposed to legislating it, mask the deception of those who make the argument that way.  If same-sex marriage is made lawful in a state, it doesn't and can't restrict same-sex marriage to "between homosexuals" anymore than opposite-sex marriage can be restricted to "between heterosexuals."

How would you enforce such a restriction... have a "gay test"?  So if someone's favorite singer is Judy Garland, then they can have a same-sex marriage, but if someone prefers Nine Inch Nails they can't?

How ridiculous.

(For the humor-challenged, that was a joke.)

It isn't "gay" marriage.  It is "same-sex" marriage that we're arguing about.  Sexual orientation is irrelevant, as it would be impossible (as well as peculiarly invasive) to ask or determine factually someone's sexual preference as a prerequisite to issuing a marriage license.

I doubt that homosexuals who are in opposite-sex marriages would welcome such a requirement.

Be careful what you ask for... you may get it.

H/t Instapundit.

Fair Wind

A few interesting clips from an article by Christopher Booker (Telegraph, Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told', March 28, 2009):

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

Regarding wind farms:

Britain’s largest windfarm companies are pulling out of wind as fast as they can. Despite 100 per cent subsidies, the credit crunch and technical problems spell an end to Gordon Brown’s £100 billion dream of meeting our EU target to derive 35 per cent of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020.

Meanwhile the Government gives the go-ahead for three new 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power stations in Wales. Each of them will generate more than the combined average output (700 megawatts) of all the 2,400 wind turbines so far built. The days of the “great wind fantasy” will soon be over.

[Emphasis mine.]

Just in case I'm accused of never pointing to any good news... the above should suffice as proof that I'm not good news immune.

Rights Versus Privileges

The California Supreme Court issued its ruling on the same-sex marriage issue. They decided that the citizens (who voted twice on the issue) get to decide. We should all be celebrating this decision. It would be nice if same-sex marriage advocates accepted the defeat gracefully, and avoided the expense of putting the matter to a vote repeatedly, but that is not likely.

One (of the many) issues clouding the debate on this issue is the subject of rights versus privileges.

Rights: Rights, which may be reasonably restricted (such as the prohibition against shouting "fire" not limiting your protected right to express opinions, as the First Amendment intended) may not be universally denied. Government shall/should/must.

Privileges: Actions and benefits which may be granted, based on a set of requirements or restrictions. Government may/could/might.

Driving is the easiest example of a privilege, not a right. In order to get a drivers' license, which is required to operate a motor vehicle on the public streets, a person must pass a written test, a driving competency test, and other restrictions which include age, safe driving record, sightedness, etc.

An individual (in most states) is not denied the ability to operate a motor vehicle on their private property or on the property of someone else who allows it, i.e., a child can drive his father's truck on the father's farm without a license. If the child drives the vehicle onto the public street, the child can be issued a citation (and the parent may be prosecuted for failing to properly supervise the child).

Similarly, an individual who, for whatever set of reasons, does not want to drive or cannot pass the requirements for a driver's license, may get an ID card. That is not uniform or available in all the states, but it is true for some, including California.

Civil marriage is not a right. It is a privilege. That's why it requires a license. The fact that it requires a license is the huge, flashing clue that it is not a right. Rights, by definition, cannot require a license. It is the ability to get the license, to change the requirements of couples wishing to get a marriage license, that the same-sex marriage advocates are fighting for. The citizens of California get to decide this matter, as it is (primarily) a monetary issue.

California law is entirely consistent (now) on this issue, as it is with other privileges that are handled by the issuance of a license.

No two people of the same sex can get a marriage license, regardless of their sexual orientation: gays, lesbians, and straights cannot get a license to marry someone of the same sex. In that sense, there is no discrimination on this issue.

Two (or more) people of the same sex can live together, just as individuals can drive on their own property without a license. They can commit to each other in a private ceremony (of religious or secular nature). They can initiate vows, contracts, and any other private arrangement to solidify and sanctify their relationship in the private sphere (among their family and friends, and all else who wish to validate and recognize their relationship).

Just as with driving, their inability to obtain a civil marriage license means they cannot take their relationship into the "public street," with official recognition of their status as "married," and thusly, afforded all the privileges and protection of a civil marriage.

In California, same-sex couples can get the equivalent of an ID card (in lieu of a drivers' license) for like reasons, which recognizes their relationship, but is distinct from marriage. The couple (or any multiple of parties) may create contracts such as a Durable Power of Attorney, Wills, or property ownership contracts. They can buy property together, and specify who owns what or what portion if the contract is cancelled/revoked by any of the parties.

The distinction (and separate definitions) of rights versus privileges seems to be lost on some people (commenter "Stealth," The Volokh Conspiracy, California Prop. 8 Upheld, But Held Not To Affect Existing Same-Sex Marriages, May 26, 2009):

The court essentially ruled that a simple majority of the state electorate can prohibit a minority from exercising a fundamental right, and that's not something to get outraged about?

The "simple majority" is how California decided to handle matters such as this. The "simple majority" did not deny anyone a "fundamental right" because marriage is a privilege, not a right. Regardless, same-sex marriage was not denied to a minority. Same-sex marriage was denied by the voters of California (twice) to all citizens of California, regardless of age, religion, race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation.

The majority of Californians could have decided differently. They could have voted to allow same-sex marriage to all its citizens (regardless of age, religion, race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation), but they didn't. Californians have not denied couples (or multiples) of the same sex the abiltity cohabitate, declare their love, devotion or admiration for each other, nor denied them any function or access such as establishing contracts, bonds, or making vows or commitments.

It's just the financial benefits and the official status of "marriage" that has been denied to all same-sex couples.

If you support the right of the citizenry to establish laws and constitutions, then you should be pleased that it worked in California; the courts did not attempt to legislate away the rights of the people of California to decide these matters through the ballot box and the majority prevailing. You don't have to agree with how the majority decided, only to recognize the right of majorities to decide these matters.

"If we are faithful to our country, if we acquiesce, with good will, in the decisions of the majority, and the nation moves in mass in the same direction, although it may not be that which every individual thinks best, we have nothing to fear from any quarter."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1808

Jack Sprat

From Phoenix Business Journal (Producer price index rises 0.3 percent, May 14, 2009):

The Producer Price Index climbed 0.3 percent after declining 1.2 percent in March. Food prices rose 1.5 percent in April, the biggest increase since January 2008.

Something is missing/not right. I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data, but food prices seem to be much higher than that. Meat and poultry prices (except pork) have been rising since last Fall.

Consumers are responding to the economic situation in their food purchases by:

• Consuming less (either by producing smaller meals or extending meals)


• Spending less (either by choosing cheaper brands or being more attuned to sale priced items)

The typical response to economic hard times is to hoard ("pantry load"), but people generally hoard shelf-stable products and comfort foods (usually higher in starch and sugar). Eventually, however, the pantry needs to be replenished, but replenished with what?

There were reports that consumers are responding to lower prices at the fast food venues, and those businesses have lowered their prices (and in some cases, their product sizes). Fast food venues have seen an increase in their bottom lines, by volume. The slight 1.5% increase has to be showing up in a much greater percentage in particular grocery categories.

From Bill Lapp (NY Times, The Drivers of Inflation, May 16, 2009):

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that the producer price index rose by a modest 0.3 percent from last month, and is 3.7 percent below a year ago. However, while overall inflation at the wholesale levels remains subdued, the wholesale cost of food products continues to rise.

The P.P.I. for finished food rose by 1.0 percent during April compared with the previous month. The jump in prices was led by a 21 percent gain in egg prices. The surge in egg prices likely will reverse itself in the coming months.

Even in the middle of recession, the corn factor raises prices on everything from beef to processed food.

However the underlying strength in the wholesale price of other food products is unlikely to abate. Just as we experienced during 2007 and early 2008, increases in the price of underlying commodities (such as corn, wheat and vegetable oil) are driving wholesale costs higher.

Ultimately if this upward pressure on wholesale costs continues (as I anticipate), the higher prices will be passed on to consumers, resulting in an acceleration of consumer food inflation.

Grain costs, especially with so much of the corn crop going into the energy sector rather than the wholesale food sector, is running up meat production costs (and eventually those increases are passed on to consumers, but there is a delay in that increase).

That doesn't explain the increases in lamb prices (generally grass-fed coming from New Zealand). Retail lamb prices have tripled in the last year (as a lamb eating family this has taken quite a bite in our food budget, as well as forcing us to shift to lower cost meats and other food items to balance the increase).

From Owen Hembry (The New Zealand Herald, Record prices but flocks shrinking, May 18, 2009):

The national sheep flock is now down to levels not seen since 1950.

Rabobank's latest Agribusiness Review said farm gate lamb prices had strengthened since January, hitting levels more than 50 per cent up on last year.

Rabobank senior analyst Hayley Moynihan said prices would be enough to improve profitability but were probably not enough to encourage more investment.

The smaller flock had pushed up prices, she said.

"Our sheep flock has fallen so much because producers have got out because it's unprofitable, but they're not yet at the point where producers are going to start expanding the flock numbers again.

Pork has remained affordable, but only in comparison with other meat items (probably, but not substantiated, by the swine flu causing ignorant consumers to avoid pork, causing prices to decline).

From Derrell S. Peel (Cattle Network, Cow Calf: Beef & Cattle Markets Try To Maintain Seasonal Strength, May 22, 2009):

Total beef production is down 4.5 percent so far in 2009 compared to last year. The reasons for decreased production have changed in recent weeks. In the first quarter of the year, reduced cattle slaughter pulled beef production down despite sharply higher carcass weights. In recent weeks, slaughter has increased, as is typical of this time of year, but carcass weights have dropped to levels only slightly higher than a year ago.

Beef and lamb production is down, which has to drive up prices, but the selling price is dropping to appeal to poorer buyers, so buying is down.

Scarcity drives up prices, but less demand drives prices down, so there is a strange balancing act occuring. My hunch was that people (like my personal situation) are buying less meat/poultry, which is killing the producers, who are responding (appropriately) by producing less.  The result is less, for everyone.

Our pantries will eventually need to be replenished, but prices will have to eventually rise as decreased production and profits eventually effect producers (some will fold, others will contract).

Leaner times are ahead, not unexpectedly, but hungry people do strange things.

Jack Sprat
Could eat no fat,
His wife could eat no lean;
And so,
Betwixt them both,
They licked the platter clean.

- Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes

From the Mount

From Heather Mac Donald (Secular Right, Preaching from reason: a contradiction in terms?, May 24, 2009):

The greatest boon of religion, in my view, is the sermon. It is a formal, regular forum in which to shore up the values required for a stable, law-abiding society.  Those values—patience, forgiveness, and self-discipline, among others–are not religious values, they are human values; religion merely appropriates them and claims them for its own.  But secular society has not evolved a counterpart to the sermon in which to articulate and strengthen its core moral components. 

For a smart woman whose writing is about uncovering myths and deceptions, she certainly missed the obvious on this one.

You are the sermon, Mrs. Mac Donald, as is anyone who preaches the values of patience, forgiveness, and self-discipline from a virtual pulpit.

The Chosen Ones

Being "chosen" must get tiring and irksome.  

Via Drudge: (Breitbart/AFP, Half of Israelis back immediate strike on Iran, May 24, 2009):

Just over half of Israelis back an immediate attack on the nuclear facilities of arch-foe Iran but the rest want to wait and see the results of US diplomacy, according to a poll released on Sunday.

The above, combined with Iran's sabre rattling and their announcement that they reject compromise proposals makes it a certainty that, once again, God's chosen people will be the ones who have the burden and the hutzpah to do what is necessary to keep the world safe, by attacking Iran's nuclear facilities.

There was a time when America had that kind of leadership and backbone, but no more.

An Ill Wind

An ill winde that bloweth no man to good.  

- John Heywood, Proverbes. Part ii. Chap. ix.

So they've done it.

From David A. Fahrenthold (Washington Post, House Panel Passes Limit on Greenhouse-Gas Emissions, May 22, 2009):

A bill to create the first national limit on greenhouse-gas emissions was approved by a House committee yesterday after a week of late-night debates that cemented the shift of climate change from rhetorical jousting to a subject of serious, if messy, Washington policymaking.

[H/t Instapundit.]

The Senate has to consider the matter and come up with their own version, but it would appear there is no stopping this... or anything else for that matter.

We shouldn't be surprised. We should not be surprised by anything this Administration and Congress has done or will do, but I can't help thinking that I'm not the only one who hoped that for once they'd listen to the citizens, think of our national interests (just a tiny bit) before their own, and avoid taking us down this road to ruin.

In just 4 months they've shredded the Constitution so many times it is hard to keep an accurate count. For many of us it takes on the emotional equivalent of being repeatedly raped, eventually becoming immune to the pain, and tuning out the horrors that are occurring again and again and again.

We face the morning news in a constant state of shell shock, unable to handle the reality of what is going on around us.

Unfortunately, what government does takes a while to trickle down. From changing fiscal policy, nationalizing industry, putting a cap and trade on our prosperity, befriending our enemies and ignoring our allies, to taxing us and spending into deficit oblivion, the citizens have not cried out in unison and en masse against these horrors, because their effects are slow in coming. They're packaged as being the solution, rather than making our problems worse, or creating a problem where none actually existed... and nothing but misery will come of it. Once the effects are realized it will be too late, so all we are able to do is steel ourselves for the coming blow.

Calpurnia

Caesar, I never stood on ceremonies,
Yet now they fright me. There is one within,
Besides the things that we have heard and seen,
Recounts most horrid sights seen by the watch.
A lioness hath whelped in the streets;
And graves have yawn'd, and yielded up their dead;
Fierce fiery warriors fought upon the clouds,
In ranks and squadrons and right form of war,
Which drizzled blood upon the Capitol;
The noise of battle hurtled in the air,
Horses did neigh, and dying men did groan,
And ghosts did shriek and squeal about the streets.
O Caesar! these things are beyond all use,
And I do fear them.

Caesar

What can be avoided
Whose end is purposed by the mighty gods?
Yet Caesar shall go forth; for these predictions
Are to the world in general as to Caesar.

Calpurnia

When beggars die, there are no comets seen;
The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes.

Caesar

Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard.
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.

- William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene I

Missing the Missing Link Link

At the dinner table last evening we were discussing recent headlines. Two of us, including me, were quite surprised that we missed any mention of the discovery of the missing link (National Geographic News, "MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?, May 19, 2009):  

The fossil, he says, bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.

"This is the first link to all humans," Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said in a statement. Ida represents "the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor." 

Having that discovery found at all (which was never a certainty) is quite astonishing.  Having it found during my lifetime is something personal to celebrate. (I'm old enough to consider that breakthroughs that have been worked on during my lifetime will not complete before I die, but not this one!)

I would have expected special news bulletins would have accompanied the announcement, as the finding is as important and remarkable as "Mars creatures land on earth" would be.

I missed the missing link news completely, which surprised me, as I'm quite a news junkie.  

I shall attempt to rectify missing the missing link news by becoming even junkier in the future.

Meme Check: Concern about Deficits

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has found the Democratic talking point meme of:

"Why are you concerned about deficits by Obama, when you didn't complain during Bush when he [insert a variety of the meme strains here]."

I find it most amusing in its audacity, as well as its frequency in the commentosphere.

It is not without irony.

The irony of the remark is that "where we were" wasn't in the voting booth supporting John McCain, which is why their guy got in in the first place!

Conservatives were so angry about the shift to the middle of the taxation road that many conservatives stayed home in 2008, ceding the election to Obama by default.  They also stayed home, rather than elect Republican-In-Name-Only/GOP Congressional candidates, which is also why the Democrats have a majority in Congress.

Now one could argue that it wasn't the best approach, given that Obama's deficits are exponentially greater than that of Bush's (in only the first few months of Obama's presidency) or anyone else in recorded history, but the reality is that the GOP candidate lost, partly because conservatives didn't think him fiscally (or otherwise) conservative enough. Conservatives were angry enough to stay home.

We were screaming all during the Bush years, and during the Clinton years, and the Bush years before that.  In fact, conservatives have been screaming about deficits for decades.  It's what we do.

We need a new law to handle this meme.  I don't mean a real law.  I mean something along the lines of Godwin's Law (where someone in a comment thread automatically loses the debate when they call their opponent Hitler).  

With online information sources such as Wikipedia, it is quite easy for a new term like this to gain traction and documentation.  

I propose that we call this new law "Klein's Law" after the infamous Ezra Klein, who manages the JournoList listserv where some of this type of spin originates.

Following on with the Godwin Law rule, anyone who suggests that conservatives were unconcerned or did not scream loudly about deficits in the past loses the debate.  (I'd suggest that we have them also receive 30 lashes for lying, but that's just me.)

Other naming suggestions are welcome.  I would name it after myself, but "Herself's Law" is just silly, and frankly, it would not be the type of notoriety I would welcome, even anonymously.

Stand Down, For Now

From Jillian Bandes (TownHall.com Obama May Grab for Guns, May 20, 2009):

Yesterday’s passage of legislation that revoked the longstanding ban on guns in national parks proved that this treaty would probably fall by the wayside once more, said Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America. But the fact that Obama voiced his support for it speaks volumes about the President’s view of the Second Amendment, after his famous claim to not “take away guns” from law-abiding Americans.

We already knew how Obama felt about guns. His "clinging to guns and bibles" remark was consistent with his often "present," but sometimes "no" votes on gun rights issues.

Obama can sign a million treaties, but unless Congress ratifies them, it makes no difference at all. The Executive's only power in this arena (which can be trumped by Congress) is Executive Order, but he can't use Executive Order to ratify treaties.

There is plenty to be nervous about with Obama, but until Congress considers legislation that curb gun rights, I will remain unconvinced that there is an imminent threat to gun rights. Gun rights advocates have done a stellar job of letting Congress know that their votes on gun issues decide elections.

Vigilance is always a good thing, but it shouldn't give way to paranoia.

Careful There

Via Instapundit, a report on new college graduates employment (ABC News, Fewer Than 20% of Grads Land Job Offers, May 20, 2009):

According to a survey from National Association of Colleges and Employers, the class of 2009 is leaving campus with fewer jobs in hand than their 2008 counterparts. The group's 2009 Student Survey found that just 19.7 percent of 2009 graduates who applied for a job actually have one.

In comparison, 51 percent of those graduating in 2007 and 26 percent of those graduating in 2008 who had applied for a job had one in hand by the time of graduation.

[Emphasis mine.]

First, let's be careful what we quote here. The report doesn't say "less than 20% of graduates find work," as the ABC News article suggests by its title. The percentage is qualified with who applied for a job.

What could be a remarkable change is the difference from 2007 (51%) and 2009 (19.7%); however, we must still be cautious about making too much out of it.  We would need to know:

• If the majors changed dramatically, such as a larger number of Business or Finance majors. Those degrees would have less marketability this year because of the contraction in the financial sector, as well as new business development in a cash-strapped economy.


• If a higher number of graduates applied for work: If there were more graduates in the job market, the market for college graduates would be over-saturated. If, for example, 40% of college graduates applied for work in 2007, 50% of them securing a job would be 20% of the graduate pool. If, however, 80% of recent graduates applied for work in 2009, and 20% found a job, then 40% of the graduate pool found work. The net of that type of scenario would indicate that more graduates were employed in 2009 than in 2007:

40% of 1,000 Graduates = 400 * 50% = 200 employed

80% of 1,000 Graduates = 800 * 20% = 400 employed

If there is something close to the latter above, it could be that more college graduates are employed than in recent years. We do not know that from the report. It is fuzzy reporting from ABC News (because most journalists know very little about statistics, or it would appear to be the case, based on how badly they generally report on such things).

Bryan Hopkins, a senior at the University of Florida, calls the situation frustrating. "You feel frustrated because you feel now that was it all worth it," he said. "In a perfect world, I would have walked right off the stage and into a full time job in my field, but I mean I have the degree now and I am still waiting."

It would be interesting to know how many of those students voted for Obama. If so, it is a situation they helped bring on themselves. If they received business related degrees and they voted for Obama as a way of securing their futures, they should have their degrees revoked (as they obviously learned nothing).

It could be that there are other changes in the market that are causing this (although it is reasonable to suspect that market contraction is having an impact across the board). If there are too many software engineers and business/finance majors being churned out of universities, a glut of unemployed workers would develop overtime, even in a strong economy. Perhaps, just perhaps, software engineers and business and finance majors have gone the route of buggy-whip makers (the report would tend to support this line of thinking, as it details gluts of graduates from previous years).  The reporting doesn't allow us to conclude anything like that with certainty, but it is reasonable to speculate that there are too many of a particular type of major on the market, and (we can therefore assume) too little of something else.

You don't always get what you want, and the fact that someone wants a job in their chosen major doesn't mean there are opportunities in that field. Better major choices should be considered.

Summary: I detest reports like this one, as it gives too little information to come to any meaningful conclusion. I link to it to illustrate just how nonsensical these news reports can be, allowing anyone to spin it however they want. That's not science. That's propaganda.

Slight Edit

In a post by Dan Riehl (Riehl World View, All The Taxes Money Can't Buy, May 20, 2009) focusing on the "no" votes to the California tax increases:

It is imperative that Republicans not become aligned with Obama's moves and forge prudent alternatives people will one day accept to roll back the ongoing destruction of America's economic engine by this administration. 

It's so close to perfect that I'm reluctant to mention it, but...

It is imperative that Republicans not become aligned with Obama.

Full stop.

Why Not 3,000 Miles to the Gallon?

From Tom Krisher (My Way New, Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet, May 19, 2009):

Some soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs. Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more. Nearly everybody else will drive smaller cars, and more of them will run on electricity. The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016, will transform the American car and truck fleet.

No, it won't.  Setting standards for American car makers does nothing to require foreign car makers to reach the same goals.  If foreign cars are cheaper, Americans will buy more foreign cars, without the magical MPG requirement... thus doing more to kill American car makers.

But that's not the point.  The real point I want to make is why 35.5 MPG?  Why not, if we don't care about the laws of physics or the realities of technological improvement methodologies, just set the MPG requirement to 3,000 MPG?  Pick any number, any number will do.  What's so magical about 35.5?  Is it the numerology equivalent of B.O. or something?

It's lunacy and a ruse to placate the greens.  These targets are never met and they're adjusted to jive with whatever happens in the future.  

In addition, they're outside the Obama Administration's electoral control... it's wonderful and sleazy to make a standard that you won't be around to take responsibility for (2016), when it doesn't happen.  

Obama has no problem taking credit for something that won't happen (or doing the opposite of what he says he's going to do).  Everyone who follows these things knows it won't happen, but we're all supposed to be celebrating the announcement of a standard that won't be met, a plan that would put the final nail in the U.S. auto maker's coffin if enforced, an action that adds unnecessary costs, and reeks of totalitarian, central-planning control of our purchase decisions.

Simply put to these unconstitutional regulations of business:  F.O.!

Color me unimpressed and not celebrating this nonsense.

Update:  He says it much better: “…And Sawtooth Gearing On The Belgian Design!” (Francis W. Porretto - Eternity Road, May 20, 2009):

Your Curmudgeon, a physicist by education, is not amused. Not this time. As Steven Milloy points out, there will be consequences. Some of those consequences will be fatal.

The internal combustion engine, despite its seeming shortcomings, is the most advanced powerplant available to the automotive industry. Its combination of compactness, performance, efficiency, and safety has every other method of generating kinetic energy from a portable fuel beat all to Hell. If you need evidence to this effect, consider how doggedly -- and futilely -- the world's automakers have struggled to obsolete this device. They've tried steam engines, Stirling engines, electric motors, gas turbines, fuel cells...everything but sorcery. The IC engine still rules the road.

RTWT.

Obama Care: Rationing and Reform

From Jeffrey H. Anderson (Weekly Standard, Three Strikes Against ObamaCare, May 20, 2009):

Once private insurers are driven out of the market, medical professionals will no longer be able to shift costs to them, and the government will have only one option to cut costs: ration care.

Rationing really is the hidden nightmare of government run healthcare. There are people who are so desperate for everyone to be covered that they dismiss (or refuse to accept) that rationing is what always happens.

A government run program cannot, like private insurers, cancel someone who abuses the plan. In addition, it is also known that when people get something "free" that they use it, and abuse it, running to the doctor for every sniffle or cough. So whatever the cost of medical treatment is today, double it, or triple it, and then you will have a more realistic price tag for what the first few years of ObamaCare would be like.

Those costs are not sustainable. There will have to be methods used to reduce the costs, or our taxes will be so high that no one was any room to maneuver. The is never any efficiency or "economies of scale" found in anything the government does. The government does things less efficiently and with higher costs than the private sector:

But it's hard to see through the lens of zealotry. Daschle actually proclaims that government-run health care would not only reduce costs but would be "much more likely to be innovative."

Government as an engine of affordability? Since 1970, Medicare's per-beneficiary costs have risen 34 percent more than the costs of all health care in America aside from Medicare and Medicaid--and that's even without including the costs of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Government as an engine of innovation? Government lumbers like a walrus and is as flexible as a mule.

What Mr. Anderson does not address, that I will attempt to address here, is the real opportunities for reforming the cost of medical treatment: getting government and tort lawyers out of the process.

Every reasonable person recognizes that there is such a thing as "malpractice." It's meaning has changed over time, to become something equivalent to an idealized, almost magical thinking when it comes to medical treatment. We're all going to die. It isn't if. It is when and how. A patient who dies after receiving a heart transplant, does not mean that malpractice occurred. It means that reality occurred.

Medicine is not a science. It is an art, as there are variables that go beyond our human understanding, against the odds, and despite all efforts to change the outcome. Two exact same procedures can be performed on two different people and one will die and the other thrive. The death of the one doesn't imply or even suggest malpractice.

The public has a lot of responsibility to bear for all of this. We've become a nation of greedy... of seeing a car accident, an unwanted scar, or a broken ladder as an opportunity to win the lottery through a court settlement... passing along the costs of their winnings to all of us, involuntarily.

Certainly damages should be awarded when damage, malicious and intentional, is done. But even there, punitive awards go both ways and the individuals (and the lawyers) who receive those multi-million dollar awards have lost their souls in the receipt of it. They must remain eternal victims, never healing or recovering from their ordeal, lest they must admit to themselves that they're not entitled to the money they received.

We all want evil punished, but a predicable and reliable outcome of medical treatment is unrealistic.

We need tort reform as the best method of reducing medical costs. The ideas of universal care and insuring the "uninsured" are distractions to the real reforms that we need to address. It is not surprising that Congress won't act to reform where reform is necessary, because they're all lawyers, many who made their living as ambulance chasers, and have sold their own souls in the cases they've handled, and the awards they've deposited in their bank accounts.

To admit that we need tort reform would be to admit that they have bloody hands. Chances are good that they'll do anything else, including foisting the scheme of "universal heath care" on all of is, instead of admitting that they were complicit in evil and greed.

A Laffer Laugh

I lack the blogging credibility of Instapundit to link to something without comment and expect people to read it because I say so, especially if I am pointing to something Mr. Reynolds pointed out himself.

I would be lax, however, if I did not mention the article, as it is a brilliant smackdown on the "100 Economists" who have urged Obama to raise taxes on the rich (WSJ Online, Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich, May 18, 2009) by the esteemed Arthur Laffer and no-neophyte Stephen Moore:

Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."

Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.

It would appear that the outcome of raising taxes is logical and a viable alternative to a group from the progressive "Center for Budget and Policy Priorities."  How incredibly daft of them to conclude that the wealthy, or anyone, will continue to be fleeced when there are better pickin's somewhere else.

Fleecing the rich has never worked, so how they conclude that it may be the "best option" leads to speculation on how they came to that conclusion.  The reasonable assumption is that they can't figure out any other option (such as lowering taxes on the rich or reducing deadbeat social spending).  They are ideologically blind to those options, as it is contrary to their addiction to the idea of redistributionism, and punishing the successful.

Mr. Laffer and Mr. Moore present a bounty of evidence to rebut the "studies" performed by the "Center for Budget and Policy Priorities." Studies are wonderful things, if you have to invent evidence where no evidence exists (such as studies to determine if a new drug therapy does what it is supposed to do).  If, however, there are decades of actual evidence to look to, it is not necessary to conduct additional research... unless you want to circumvent the established evidence for other than lofty objectives.   What, pray tell, could they have possibly studied to come to the opposite conclusion than the historical evidence proves to be correct?

It is also unworkable to suggest that people want to soak the rich and restribute their wealth to others, as a means of making things fair. What the people may want and what actually works are not always aligned.  If the people, whoever they may be, want a better life for themselves, then they have to morally and logically understand that you don't get there by making someone else the bearer of the burden, or ask them to make a contribution you are unable or unwilling to make yourself.

As Misters Laffer and Moore detail, the rich will simply take their toys and go to a new home, if they are not treated fairly and equitably. When they take their toys, they take the toys they share with others to play with, that affords the lifestyle to which others have grown accustomed.

If given a choice between a $20.00 ice cream cone, and the exact same one for $3.00, which one would you buy?  It's just common sense... no "studies" required.

When a Rose Stinks

From Veronique de Rugy quoting Gov. Mark Sanford (The Corner on National Review Online, Gov. Mark Sanford in Defense of Libertarians, May 18, 2009):

"...Throw me in that briar patch, I’m guilty. I love liberty... I’ve been accused of being a libertarian, and I... wear it as a badge of honor. Because I do love, believe in, and want to support liberty."

That would all be puppies and kittens if it made any sense, but since libertarianism is wholly inconsistent with conservatism, it doesn't: Any form of radicalism is inconsistant with conservatism.

Low-Hanging Fruit

The reference, I assume, relates to the allegiances within the Republican Party tent. In that sense, including libertarians isn't a bad thing, anymore than including conservative Democrats is inconsistent with furthering our shared goals. If, however, we're defining conservatism, libertarian has no place in the definition.

Suggesting that libertarians are the only ones who get to claim a love of liberty is a bit specious (as well as arrogant). It would be as if someone suggested that only those in the Republican Party love our republic, or only those in the Democratic Party support a democratic outcome of elections. Simply because you share a word origin with a lofty concept, it doesn't mean you have exclusive rights and claim to to the root word.

It's the Type, Stupid

Within the social universe there are many types and categories of liberty, but I'll not focus on those here. What we're discussing is the socio-political aspect of liberty.

1. Emotionally Glorified, Unfettered Liberty: Libertarianism focuses on Utopian or unfettered liberty, where a society has no moral claim or right to restrict the actions of another person, except by the artificial and ideologically-invented construct of causing physical harm. Libertarianism uses the infamous cliche, "your right to swing your arm stops at my nose," to define the outward limit of the restraint of liberty. Libertarianism is an ideological theory of how liberty should be applied universally, with an idealized version of liberty, having no bearing on reality or praticality, and no downside. It's a nice pipe dream, but it doesn't help us very much other than to make us feel proud of ourselves, or morally superior to the ideology of others. Feelings have no place in establishing or evaluating the effects of public policy.
      


2. Pragmatic Liberty: Conservatism can be as emotionally-charged with marketing memes as the next political theory, but that generally focuses on conservatism in the abstract, not as it was defined by the men who first championed the idea: as an approach to how government should align itself with the people of a given society and culture. Ordered liberty (an oxymoron in the philosophy of libertarianism) is the goal of conservatism, i.e., the outcome of public policy should be good for most, without unnecessarily restraining the few, while recognizing and trying to find a balance of the practicality of imposing a change on a society that does not have the social history or mores to handle it.

Cause and Effect

If a blind man is put in a room he has never been in before without his cane, it would be reasonable to posit that he would bang his shins. Depending on the capriciousness of man, he could go so far as to fall and break his leg, or split his head open from a fall, and die. We could go so far as to suggest that it might not be the best way to introduce the man to his new surroundings. It would be theoretically pure, from the perspective of recognizing his liberty, to allow him to do it. Ideological purity belongs in church pews and children's fairy tales, not in the analysis of public policy.

Conservatives then, are not interested in recognizing the man's liberty alone. They balance his liberty with his ability. Conservatives would ask that the blind man's introduction to the room be with his cane, or with a trusted friend or family member to acclimate him to his surroundings, before he is left alone to explore it further. It isn't necessary to go so far as to coddle him, but it is necessary to recognize his blindness as a factor in our approach.

There are degrees of blindness, just as there are degrees of sightedness. A one-size-fits-all policy for the above doesn't work, either for the blind or the sighted: A policy that assumes that all are blind would unnecessarily restrain the sighted. Conversely, one that assumes that all men are sighted would unnecessarily allow harm to come to the blind. Theoretically then, it requires nuance to find a balance of liberty for each person, based on his abilities.

So, too, with cultures and societies. All societies and cultures are not the same, nor do they share the same experiences to allow them to handle the world in the same way. It is, therefore, just as cruel and wrongheaded to impose too much liberty on a society as it is to impose too much rigidity and structure.  Societies and cultures evolve, so it is necessary for a government to evolve with it, but nothing should be imposed (too quickly, carelessly or too soon).  If there is a change of law or policy, the person who hears about it should be surprised that it wasn't always that way, as the person's beliefs, opinions and experience should have evolved to the point of acceptance, without conflict or apprehension.  If the response is one of shock or alarm, then the society/individual has not evolved to it. It may be ready in a year, a decade, or never, depending on the severity of the change suggested, and the evolution of the society/culture in their historical and social path.

The French Revolution Debates

During the French Revolution, a great debate occurred among the Founding Fathers (specifically Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Paine, and Hamilton), and also foreign intellectual theorists and statesmen, including Alexander de Toqueville, the Marquis de Lafayette ("General Lafayette") and the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke. The debate was not without controversy, nor were all the men involved restrained in their actions to destroy the character of those on the opposite side of the issue.  In other words, it got ugly and nasty, but with oh, such much more panache and flare than our petty and vulgar disagreements today.

What all the men agreed on was the idea/ideal of a liberated France. In that sense, they were more in agreement on the big issue than Americans are today on the idea/ideal of a free society.   In contrast, however, America, England ("Britain" in the larger sense), and France were at different stages of their evolution:

• America had fought, won, and was in the process of keeping its liberated society, after a previous 200 year history of self-government and self-reliance, fostered by the distance of the mother country, and accidental brilliance on the part of the early Puritan settlers to form social compacts, rather than tyrannical structures of order.


• England had limited the powers and authority of its monarch, establishing an elected parliament, while still maintaining the monarchy as a figurehead for social consistency.  It had decades of experience in developing statesmen and had a populace who had grown accustomed to restraining itself.


• France, on the other hand, had no such history.   It was about as pure as a monarchy as a society can get.  While there were up and comers, men who had supported and assisted America during its revolution, and certainly no shortage of passionate intellectuals and theorists, it had no statesmen ready to assume authority with the experience necessary to show restraint, nor any mechanism by which to accelerate the machinations necessary to create them.  France had no history of a constitution, a bill of rights, nor a social compact.

France, unlike America or Britain, was just not ready for liberation, and the fact that they quickly dissolved into a murderous mob and assumed authoritarian-rule as quick as a blink, demonstrated the wisdom of those who thought, at the time, that they just weren't ready for it.

The debates at the time included accusations that the men who were unwilling to support France were hypocrites or authoritarians (impugning their character), but that was simply not the case.  There were also arguments (mostly from Jefferson) that suggested that Americans owed a debt to France, because of their assistance in our Revolution, but that argument was one of emotion, not pragmatics. Jefferson, after seeing how quickly the guillotine replaced the gavel and round table, wavered in his support of the French, but his idealism for the spread of liberty was consistent throughout his life. It is clear from his writing at different times of his life, however, that he'd have wished the outcome could have been otherwise:

"It is difficult to conceive how so good a people, with so good a King [as Louis XVI of France], so well-disposed rulers in general, so genial a climate, so fertile a soil, should be rendered so ineffectual for producing human happiness by one single curse--that of a bad form of government. But it is a fact; in spite of the mildness of their governors, the people are ground to powder by the vices of the form of government. Of twenty millions of people supposed to be in France, I am of opinion there are nineteen millions more wretched, more accursed in every circumstance of human existence than the most conspicuously wretched individual of the whole United States." --Thomas Jefferson to Elizabeth Trist, 1785. ME 5:81, Papers 8:568 

"It is difficult to conceive how so good a people, with so good a King [as Louis XVI of France], so well-disposed rulers in general, so genial a climate, so fertile a soil, should be rendered so ineffectual for producing human happiness by one single curse--that of a bad form of government. But it is a fact; in spite of the mildness of their governors, the people are ground to powder by the vices of the form of government. Of twenty millions of people supposed to be in France, I am of opinion there are nineteen millions more wretched, more accursed in every circumstance of human existence than the most conspicuously wretched individual of the whole United States."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1785

"In the struggle which was necessary [in France], many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent. These I deplore as much as anybody, and shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1793 

There was a desire to spread the cause of freedom.  That passion is understandable, but it is also wrong-headed, without the social and political fabric in place to support it.  The other side of the debate felt that Europe dissolving into repeated and unsuccessful revolutions would be destabilizing, for the nations involved, as well as our own interests abroad.  

It was Jefferson who championed the idea of Manifest Destiny, and it is the destiny of the world.  Destiny, like liberty itself, cannot be imposed, but it can be fostered and nurtured.  It must reveal itself as a seedling, with good soil and loving care, breaks through the soil to breathe free.

From these debates we can learn two things (as well as many others, but irrelevant to this topic):

1. The Founding Fathers were not against "foreign entanglements" in the abstract.  They were against intrusion into the petty disagreements between monarchs.  Just as France was unwilling to assist the Americans in revolution, until there was a reasonable prospect of success, the Founding Fathers were unwilling to engage in fueds between warlords, but they were perfectly willing to support liberation, if it had a chance of success and brought long term stability.


2. Freedom is earned.

Learning to Walk

When we teach a child to walk we remain close by during their initial steps. In the strictest sense, we are coddling the child, but our motivation and intentions are not to coddle, but to protect and encourage the goal of walking. That protection prevents the child from hurting themselves so they are not discouraged from walking. If we protect too much then the child doesn't learn the outcome of a misstep or the dangers of walking too much, too soon. The goal, of course, is that the child will eventually walk on his own, without harnesses, crash helmets, or bumper guards. When we stand clear, and how soon we give the child greater latitude, depends not on an artificial construct of development charts and median outcomes, but on the specific child who is learning to walk. So, too, with liberty: You have to earn it, not by an artificial construct of how much is the ideologically pure amount, but how much a person can handle without the extremes coddling or recklessness.

The ultimate goal of conservatism is liberty, but it is practically limited to what an individual and society can handle at a given time in their development/evolution. In other words, conservatives are patient in their pursuit, like the tortoise against the contrast of the libertarian-hare.  The goal of libertarianism is liberty, too, but it wants to drop it on society as the blindman is thrown into a new room. It is unnecessarily harsh and reckless, and its outcome will not be liberty. It will be chaos and then tyranny... just like post-revolutionary France.

Customized Approach and Intellectual Laziness

It is not uncommon for libertarians to assume the moral high ground. After all, they're the ones who champion liberty... to the exclusion of all others, they assume.  The arrogance in Gov. Sanford's statement is just the type of presumption of superiority that typifies the claim to moral higher ground to which I refer.  

When one confronts the libertarian-indoctrined, it is not unusual to find them spewing forth with platitudes about the purity of the theory, believing it to be a blueprint for how we should all behave, lest we be lumped in with other less-than-intellectual dunderheads: If we understood it, then we would, of course, be libertarians ourselves. Since we conservatives do not share their faith in unfettered liberty, we are, by default, simplistic, socialist and/or fascist desiring overloads, incapable of intellectual thought or reason. Conservatives do not disagree with the goal, only the way the goal is achieved.

It is libertarianism that is intellectually lazy, as it provides a one-size-fits-all, faith-based rule to determine whether an action is good or bad.  Faith is the bastion of belief, without the requirement of analysis, evaluation or proof.  The evaluation of issues by libertarians is done in a vacuum, without the messy details of reality or recent- or long term- history.  It can ignore sociology, psychology, and physics as well.  Libertarianism has it all sewed up in a nice neat box: if it is liberty, then it is good.  If it is not liberty, then it is bad. There are no shades of gray or nuance, and no practical analysis of the cause and effect, nor any recognition that there are unintended consequences. In fact, it is most often in the libertarian campsites where the concept of unintended consequences is pushed in the logical fallacy closet, rather than the cause and effect light of day.

There is no one-size-fits-all analysis and contemplation for every issue, problem, or challenge that faces an individual or a society. Each one has to be evaluated on its own, with a careful, honest, and unemotionally-charged analysis of its pros and cons, its strengths and weaknesses, and its reasonableness as it applies to the given society or culture it would be placed on.  In other words, analysis isn't trumped by ideologically purity, nor a slogan.  It isn't easy to do that work every time, which is why the hard work is least favored over the mantras and memes of faith-based ideologies such as libertarianism. Just as Democrats like to refer to conservatives as "the party of NO" libertarians share the belief that saying "no" to unfettered liberty is a distraction rather than a requirement of the thoughtful, reasonable, and intelligent.

It is possible for libertarians and conservatives to share a political tent, and work together to fend off the tide of fascism and progressivism, but it is ridiculous to propose that two ideological opposite approaches to the making of public policy are consistent, or that one is a subset/subordinate of the other.

Radicalism, either to impose liberty or tyranny, has no place in the definition of conservatism.

Why and how to achieve it, not what you believe in or support is what matters in the definitions.

"You hope, Sir, that I think the French deserving of liberty.  I certainly do.  I certainly think that all men who desire it deserve it.  It is not the reward of merit, or the acquisition of our industry. It is our inheritance. It is the birthright of our species. We cannot forfeit our right to it but by what forfeits our title to the privileges of our kind. I mean abuse, or oblivion, of our rational faculties, and a ferocious indocility which makes us prompt to wrong and violence, destroys our social nature, and transforms us into something little better than the description of wild beasts. To men so degraded, a state of strong constraint is a sort of necessary substitute for freedom; since, bad as it is, it may deliver them in some measure from the worst of all slavery--that is, the despotism of their own blind and brutal passions.

You have kindly said that you began to love freedom from your intercourse with me.  Permit me then to continue our conversation, and to tell You what the freedom is that I love and that to which I think all men intitled. It is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of his Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is a social freedom. It is in that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint; A Constitution of things in which the liberty of no one Man, and no body of Men and no Number of men can find Means to trespass on the liberty of any Person or any description of Persons in the Society. This kind of liberty is indeed but another name for Justice, ascertained by wise Laws, and secured by well constructed institutions. I am sure, that Liberty, so incorporated, and in a manner, identified, with justice, must be infinitely dear to every one, who is capable of conceiving what it is. But whenever a separation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe.  I do not believe that men ever did submit, certain I am sure they never ought to have submitted, to the arbitrary pleasure of one man; but, under circumstances in which the arbitrary pleasure of many persons in the community pressed with an intolerable hardship upon the just and equal rights of their fellows, such a choice might be made, as among evils.  The moment will is set above reason and justice, in any community, a great question may arise in sober minds in what part or portion of the community that dangerous dominion of will may be the least mischievously placed.

If I think all men who cultivate justice entitled to liberty, and, when joined in states, entitled to a constitution framed to perpetuate and secure it, you may be assured, sir, that I think your countrymen eminently worthy of a blessing which is peculiarly adapted to noble, generous, and humane natures. Such I found the French when, more than fifteen years ago, I had the happiness, though but for too short a time, of visiting your country; and I trust their character is not altered since that period.

I have nothing to check my wishes towards the establishment of solid and rational scheme of liberty in France.  On the subject of the relative power of nations I may have my prejudices; but I envy internal freedom, security, and good order to none. When, therefore, I shall hear that, in France, the citizen, by whatever description he is qualified, is in the perfect state of legal security with regard to his life, to his property, to the uncontrolled disposal of his person, to the free use of his industry and his faculties: when I hear that he is protected in the beneficial employment of estates to which, by the course of settled law, he was born, or is provided with a fair compensation for them, that he is maintained in the full fruition of the advantages belonging to the state and condition of life in which he had lawfully engaged himself, or is supplied with a substantial, equitable, equivalent: when I am assured that a simple citizen may express his sentiments upon public affairs without hazard to his life or safety, even though against a predominant and fashionable opinion: when I know all this of France, I shall be well pleased as everyone must be who has not forgot the general compense, fear, and humiliation, they shall not be put to judge on the lives, liberties, properties, or estimate of their fellow-citizens; when they are not called upon to put any man to his trial upon undefined crimes of state, not ascertained by any previous rule, statute, or course of precedent; when victims shall not be snatched from the fury of the people to be brought before a tribunal, itself subject to the effects of the same fury, and where the acquittal of parties accused might only place the judge in the situation of the criminal; when I see tribunals placed in this state of independence of everything but law, and with clear law for their direction, as a true lover of equal justice (under the shadow of which alone true liberty can live) I shall rejoice in seeing such a happy order established in France, as much as I do in my consciousness than an order of the same kind, or one not very remote from it, has been long settled, and I hope on a firm foundation, in England.  I am not so narrow-minded as to be unable to conceive that the same object may be attained in many ways, and perhaps in ways very different from those which we have followed in this country.  If this real practical liberty, with a government powerful to protect, impotent to evade it, be established, or is in a fair train of being established in the democracy, or rather collection of democracies, which seems to be chosen for the future frame of society in France, it is not my having long enjoyed a sober share of freedom, under a qualified monarchy, that shall render me incapable of admiring and praising your system of republics.  I should rejoice, even though England should hereafter be reckoned only as one among the happy nations, and should no longer retain her proud distinction, her monopoly of fame for a practical constitution in which the grand secret had been found of reconciling a government of real energy for all foreign and domestic purpose with the most perfect security to the liberty and safety of individuals.  That government, whatever its name or form may be, that shall be found substantially and practically to unite these advantages will most merit the applause of all discerning men."

Edmund Burke, (Letter to Charles Jean-Francois Depont on the French Revolution), 1789

H/t Instapundit.

Accountability

Regarding the Chrysler dealership closings (and just about anything else that is related to Obama's meddling in the affairs of the private sector, comes this succinct quote from Riehl (Riehl World View Scapegoating Chrysler On Dealers, May 15, 2009):

Obama doesn't get a pass on the dealer network. You broke it, you bought it, etc

One of the endearing qualities of Harry Truman was his "the buck stops here." Americans are willing to attribute blame where it is due, but eventually the "let's look forward, not backward" President is going to have to accept responsibility and take ownership of the outcome of his actions.

Fallacies and Distractions

There is a meme appearing in discussions of the War on Terror, the budget arguments, and on the water boarding issue (as well as other places). It goes something like this (WSJ Forums, Critics Still Haven't Read the 'Torture' Memos, May 16, 2009, commenter: "Roger Bleier"):

... with a military budget that exceeds the combined total of all other countries...

In one of the first comments received on this site, it went like this:

It is still about equal to the defense spending of the rest of the nations combined, and eight times the amount of the country with the next highest military budget (China).

Those are just two of the dozens of examples I've seen.

The way the meme is presented it is an ignoratio elenchi ( ignorance of refutation), more commonly referred to as a "Red Herring" fallacy (aka Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase, etc.).

Its definition is:

The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

Introducing new, relevant information into a discussion is not a Red Herring. Introducing information with the intention of distracting the original thesis is. A Red Herring is in the category of distraction fallacies.

The meme could be classified, loosely, as an appeal to emotion as it is a bomb dropped to make someone sympathetic to the other points being made by the critic of the original argument.

It is common for irrelevant comparisons like this to be brought into discussions, either with the intent to distract, or more innocently by people who are not students of logic.

In discussions of man-made global warming or pollution control, it is common to see someone make the claim that "the U.S. uses 25% of the world's energy resources." While that statistic may be correct, its corollary is necessary for relevance, i.e., "yes, and the U.S. produces 33% of the world's goods." While we use more of energy than any other nation, we use it more efficiently and effectively than any other nation. With the outcome comparison it is easy to dismiss the distraction of that argument. Refuting that claim by suggesting that "Americans are fatter than any other nation, so they can't be more productive and efficient" would do nothing to provide meaningful context to the discussion. 

It is not relevent to discuss what the U.S. military budget is in comparison to 10 other countries, or all (depending on which version of the meme is used). What is relevent to the discussion is how much is the right amount, or how much we should be spending to achieve our objectives and goals with respect to national and international security.

It is possible to refute the claim by bringing in additional information, such as the facts that Germany and Japan are prohibited (by treaties signed after WWII) from having certain types of military capabilities, and the U.S. provides the missing capabilities for them, on their behalf. The world powers decided after WWII that some nations were incapable of showing restraint with respect to military capabilities, so it was in the best interest of the world for it to be denied to them, while still allowing them to have the protection that such military capabilities would provide.

Including the above, however, will enable another type of distraction to occur (playing to the hand of the distracter) by branching that further to discuss if that is something the U.S. should continue to do, or was appropriate for the U.S. to do at any time.

It doesn't matter, for the purposes of pointing out the fallacious nature of introducing the statistic if it is, in fact, correct.  Depending how you select the countries to sum from the list of military expenditures by country, you can taint the data to present it any way you want (the U.S. is, for example, the largest contributor to the U.N. and U.N. Peacekeeping forces and NATO).  If you include the amount the U.S. contributes to those efforts, the amount the U.S. spends will be higher.  Levels of military spending can also be explored by looking at the data in comparison to its spending as a percent of GDP.

Regardless, getting into the above does exactly what the Red Herring is intending to do:  Redirect the discussion away from the central thesis.

Conspiracy or Not

It is not uncommon for people to see a discussion point and repeat it, without it being motivated by conspiracy. It could simply be a coincidence that this one keeps popping up; however, with the recent revelations about JournoList and the awareness that there were large numbers of individuals paid to distract political discussions during the presidential election, it is not so easy to dismiss these types of repeating memes as conspiracies of some stripe.  This, as a conspiracy, cannot be dismissed out of hand, either as a conspiracy of distraction by intended conspirators or by useful idiots.

Relevancy

How much the U.S. spends on its military, in comparison to other countries in the world, has no relevance to how much we should be spending. It is also irrelevant to whether water-boarding is torture, if man-made global warming is a fact, if our military is well-funded, or if America is or is not imperialistic in its behavior.

Keep your eyes and ears open for this meme and avoid being caught by its tentacles.

"Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought."

- Milan Kundera, “The Brilliant Ally of His Own Gravediggers,” Part 3, Immortality (1991).

 

---

Note:  The SIPRI data, which is used to produce the tables shown on Wikipedia is nonsense.  The definition of what is included in the table includes the weasel phrase, "Where possible."  

In the list of what should be excepted from the totals it includes: civil defence, current expenditure for previous military activities, veterans benefits, demobilization, conversion of arms production facilities, and destruction of weapons.

The figure shown for the U.S. includes all or most of the above. Either the SIPRI database administrators do not now how to access the U.S. military budget data (PDF), English is not their first language (so they can't properly interpret what our budget data means and how to exclude their exclusion categories from the U.S. data because the line items include excepted items), or they are intentionally keying data into the database with the knowledge that their list of exceptions is ignored for the U.S.

It took me all of five minutes to look at the data on which these claims are made to determine it is specious.  Having access to a fact is not the same as validating it as truthful.

Captain Obvious

I was hesitant to comment on Obama's latest ramblings, as it seems to defy commentary...

From Roger Runningen and Hans Nichol (Bloomberg Press, Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’ (Update2), May 14, 2009):

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

Obama was supposed to be able to hit the bricks running.  Either this is news to him (and he's a nincompoop) or he thinks this is news to the rest of us (and he thinks we're all nincompoops).  

Solution:  Stop spending and then we won't need to borrow any more money.  Something about "getting the horse out of the barn before the fire" or "carrots and carts" comes to mind.  If I could work "feathers" and "tar" into it, I would, but that would make me a terrorist (according to the Department of Homeland Security).

H/t Drudge.

Hillarious: Down is the New Up

Professor Bainbridge (Obama's What?, May 14, 2009) throws down an iMac eating  gauntlet:

If you can convince me that's a conservative agenda, I'll eat the iMac on which this post was written.

I'm certain his digestive tract is safe (as well as his iMac).

George Orwell would be laughing.

I commented on the post, but it is held for moderation.:

"If you look at the Martin Wolf piece, it seems he's using the term in the sense of "cautious" and "trying to preserve a status quo"

Maybe, but that's the crazy part. Obama only has control over the office HE holds, not everything in the world that is none of his business/authority. The "status quo" in conservatism refers to the duties, responsibilities, and authority of the President (or other branches of government) and the approach (radical or incremental change) to addressing issues.

In no way has Obama, by instantly inventing powers he does not have, or creating powers that are specifically denied to him by the Constitution, been maintaining the "status quo" of HIS authority.

How could anyone get the definition of political conservatism any more wrong? He might as well have invented a new word, if words no longer have any fixed meaning. Conservative means "no radical change" as its opposite is "Radicalism" not (as is often the wrong antonym) "Liberal." Everything about the way the government has handled the financial crisis is radical, in every way.

That may have been what the author intended, but that's the problem. He's moved the goal posts, not only to a different place on the field, but to a different planet.

If conservative now means radical, what does radical mean? Super-duper-gimormous-plus-one-radical?

H/t Instapundit.com

IMHO: First Cut

Lydia Saad reports on a recent Gallup poll ( More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time , May 15, 2009):

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

The poll information is interesting, but it is missing a significant piece of the meaning of the majority data. The poll shows that a majority of people lean to the "pro life" side, but 51% are not "pro life" for all reasons/causes.

My suspicion is that recent headlines have caused the shift, with more awareness of the horrors of late-term abortions and some concerns about farming fetal stem cells.  Those who are “guardedly” pro-life appear to represent the largest group:

Additionally, a recent national survey by the Pew Research Center recorded an eight percentage-point decline since last August in those saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases, from 54% to 46%.

However, guardedly “pro life” is not “pro life.” The person believes that abortion should be legal in some cases, i.e., that "choice” is an option, in some set of circumstances. That would make them, by default, “pro choice.”

It is how we define “choice” that matters.  It is a fairly black and white issue:  

• Choice:  There are a set of circumstances or types of abortion that should be legal.


• Life:  Abortion should not be a choice in any situation or any type or abortion.

We don't have any data in this article to give any meat to what that really means to the polling group. We do not have data to determine what "most cases" means to people, or if there a problem with the survey questions to explain that gap.

If, for example, a person believes that "saving the life of the mother" or "rape and incest" are legitimate reasons for an abortion, they might have answered the questions differently from someone who would permit legal abortions to occur, except when the fetus shifts to being viable (able to exist on its own, outside the mother), regardless of the life of the mother, or rape or incest issues. In both those cases, the person could be classified as either "pro life" or "pro choice" depending on how they wanted to appear, but having no consistent basis in meaning.

Asking those specific questions, to qualify the definition of both of the extremes, as well as the middle ground, is necessary to draw any meaningful conclusions, with which to develop a blueprint to respond to the way the citizens want their legislature to respond to the issue.

Question 1:  Do you want doctors, nurses and the mother to be prosecuted for murder if an abortion is performed at any time, regardless of any other issues (life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.)?

Answer "Yes" = "Pro Life."

Answer "No" = "Pro Choice"

Anything other than a "Yes" to the above is in the realm of "choice."  The degree to which the person would slide more to a "Yes" answer, or the specific asterisks they'd place on it, are what matters in creating law.

You can't infer any meaning from polls unless you cross-check to validate that the definition of the terms that people are being asked to place themselves in (such as "pro life" or "pro choice") have fixed meaning among the polling group.



[Click on thumbnail image above to enlarge and for source information.]

• Legal under any circumstances:  54% to 53%, not statistically significant.


• Legal under certain circumstances:  21% to 23%, not statistically significant.


• Legal under no circumstances:  22% to 22%, no change, not statistically significant.

If only 22% (or 23%, depending on how you read the above chart) believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, then, by default, 77% believe it should be legal in some circumstances, and are in a "choice" position.

All we've done is alter how we define the two camp's positions.  How it translates to legislative action has not changed at all.  The "legal" position is still in the majority.

Useless.

H/t Drudge.

Garbage Out Damn Spot

From Dick Brennan (MYFOXNY.com, Dead People Get Stimulus Checks, May 14, 2009):

This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead. A Long Island woman was shocked when she checked the mail and received a letter from the U.S. Treasury -- but it wasn't for her.

The above story (h/t Drudge) is all over the news.  The fact that the government sent out checks to dead people is a serious problem, but not the main problem.

The U.S government doesn't have accurate records of who we all are, nor should it.  Unless we initiate contact with the government (to get a passport, a social security number, file our taxes, etc.) the government needs to mind its own business.

I'm fully aware that this hands-off/butt-out idea makes it very difficult when the government wants to do things like send out checks or gather other information, but that's just too damned bad.  The Fourth Amendment hasn't been reversed.  The government has no authority to keep lists like these.  They are forbidden from doing so.

What is most concerning about these types of reports is that it lends an air of suspicion to other contact points.  Are these long dead people showing up on voting rolls?  Are there people getting Social Security or other entitlement checks in these people's names? Somehow these names got on a list, and we can only speculate on how that happened or the nefarious uses for those lists.

This is another reason why the government engaging in something like a blanket send of checks is such a bad idea (without first requiring that the citizens engage in a validation process to ensure that they are qualified to receive them).  Obviously, the dead people receiving these checks didn't file a tax return and haven't qualified for Social Security either (for a long time). Why were they on the list?