Media Suicide by Trump

Read more!

Whio-TV News Set  Ed! at English Wikipedia

For decades legacy media have been a kind of symphony orchestra that performed hymns to the Left. They played well, forte and were consistently perfect in meter and pitch.  But there is a new conductor in town, and he has provided scores with unfamiliar notation they haven't learned how to read.  What were once melodic concerts have become a cacophony that their former audiences are, increasingly, no longer willing to hear.

Nationalism? Populism? Whoa, Nellie. Not So Damn Fast

Read more!

Those facile labels, in their generality -- their certitude -- smell of Leftist media, meme factories and think-tanks.  And they are unconsciously, yet eagerly embraced and repeated by fearful, ignorant, thoughtless and inarticulate eunoch Republicans.  "I don't know how to sort this stuff out on my own, so I appreciate the help.  Anyhow, if I had an original and contrary thought, I wouldn't think of arguing.  I don't want to look bad in front of my Democrat colleagues.  And how will I be seen in the media?"

Federal Government Lurches Toward End-State Dysfunction

Read more!

Bloat and Mission Creep

End-state bureaucracies eventually crumble when four conditions obtain: 1. confusion about or deliberate perversion of mission (purpose, policy); 2. alienation of markets or constituents; 3. ever-expanding maintenance costs; and 4. institutional arrogance that forecloses adaptive change from within.
But even in a clearly moribund and declining state, inertia of scale may prolong their existence for long periods. In these times they are deceptively fragile and unable to survive crises of their own making.  That would seem to be the condition of several agencies of the federal government -- State, EPA, Justice, BATFE, Agriculture, Education, DHS and, most recently brought to public attention, CDC.

Dance of the Sugar Plum Glocks

Read more!

The Left seems to have convinced themselves that firearms have somehow acquired their own agency.  That they have the power to act independently of human beings.  Or, as Bob Owens says, in his entertaining article they are believed to have cargo cult properties that -- via magic -- take possession of persons who touch guns and cause them to make murder and mayhem.  But I find myself wondering if, instead, gun haters don't bring the "possession" to the gun and not the other way round.  Breaking that down, what people often bring to the gun is a combination of fear, hostility and the illusion of superiority.  I'll get to that later, but now I want to discuss the simple fear of guns.

Open Inquiry to Republican Leadership. And Their Response

Read more!

Neighbors

Honorable members of Congress and of the RNC.  I beg your indulgence to consider a scenario and solicit your reaction to it.  While, on its face, it may seem frivolous or even silly, it raises questions that I think have serious implications regarding our political precepts.

There is no Serious Problem -- Social, Political or Economic -- that is not Either Caused by or Made Worse by Big Government

Read more!

The Course of Empire Destruction (Thos. Cole, 1836)

For a number of years now I have been posing the title statement as a question.  In print and in conversation.  Crickets and bullfrogs; the query might just as well have been rhetorical.  Few have responded, and no one has ever offered an apposite answer. Big-government types occasionally make an attempt, but only after they've changed the question to suit a prepared answer. The most common response, for example, is to reply that government does some things right, which I've never denied and which is entirely outside the scope of the question.

Big Government's "Problem" Racket

Read more!

Understanding the Rackets

If government is the problem, why would government want to solve it?  Think about it.

Since Marxist-leaning John Dewey's educational reforms took hold in America, our citizens have been conditioned to turn to government when difficulties arise.  It was a long transition from the instinctive habit of individualism and self-reliance that held on stubbornly from pioneer times through the late 50's.  Vestiges of America's independent spirit remain (as seen in the Tea Party, Tenth Amendment initiatives and scattered patriot groups sandwiched between the coasts), but recent social, political and economic developments in America suggest that self-reliance is now more relic that viable force.  We turn to government.

Foreign Trespassers

Read more!

US Soldier at Border Fence - 1916

It is remarkable when I find myself in agreement with the AP, but in this case I do -- at least in part.  The use of the phrase "illegal immigrant" should be abandoned, as should "illegal aliens" and "undocumented workers".  But the use of language in this sole instance is all I will stipulate to AP.  They carry the matter much farther in support of a pervasive relativist ethic -- no labels at all, anywhere! [1]  We may describe an action as illegal, but never a person.  Someone may belong to the CPUSA as a loyal and activist member, but he may not be called a communist; he may, with malice aforethought, take the life of his fellow human beings, but we mustn't call him a murderer.  And so on...  Too judgmental. [2]

The American Project Is Undone

Read more!

Humpty Dumpty

For many reasons I have not looked forward to writing this essay.   Some readers will surely view it as a pessimistic and panicky jeremiad; all Henny-Penny.  And I'd love to be wrong; I hope that my arguments will be found wanting and, if not rebutted definitively, at least convincingly.  My thesis is this: America has passed the tipping point in its long journey toward Marxist solipcism; that, barring the miraculous or the sudden emergence of a black swan, we cannot return to being a free society.

Debate: How MSM Set Up Obama to Fail

Read more!

Obama In Love

Romney (In the Real World)

Contrary to what seems to be the consensus, I don't think Mr. Obama was "off his game" in the first Presidential debate.  It's just that the game wasn't played by his rules.  MSM rules.

Obama at his best is prolix, stammering, pretentious and careless of fact, but his gift is a rare combination of rich voice, perfectly reinforcing gestures, facial expressions and cadence, capped by ex cathedra delivery that is mesmerizing and freighted with a strong hint of intimidation that discourages debate.  He is the uber elitist, perfectly miming the best features of the truly elite.  That he is profoundly ignorant in so many areas of common knowledge, thoroughly corrupt and intellectually vapid is not easily seen behind the persona of an accomplished man of letters.  Not seen at all by legacy-media types.

Mr. Obama: A Competent President

Read more!

Rope and Chains

If many people have styled President Obama as incompetent, they can be forgiven for their error; they are thinking that a robust economy and a position of strength in foreign policy are his objectives.  They are traditional Americans.  But seen from a Marxist point of view (the President's and that of his ardent Jacobin cohort) he has been extremely -- perhaps, spectacularly -- successful.  He has further divided America along  lines of race and class, hardened the ideology and dogma of the Left, increasingly marginalized capitalism in the public mind, and, by straining the economy to the point of collapse, he has set the stage for socialist revolution.  The uprising of the masses against the bourgeoisie that historicism demands.  He has succeeded beyond the dreams, so long unrealized, of Marxists planners who have so often been disappointed. [1]

Human Nature

Read more!

Utopia

Human nature is imperfect, and it is unchangeable.  The failure of the naive to acknowledge and accept those two simple, yet elemental facts leads inevitably to grief.

But grief does not discourage idealists; when their schemes fail they see only error in planning and execution, never questioning the possibility of -- nor their own faith in -- achieving a perfect end-state.
 
Utopian Dreams
The belief that men are capable of creating a perfect society is an old one, attested in Biblical writings and in Plato's vision, articulated in his Republic.
That vision echoed through the Middle Ages and persisted, with growing momentum, into the current era.  Along the way it found expression in Thomas Moore's Utopia (most famously), in the writings of Rousseau and in the early codification of communist socialism by Marx and Engels in reaction to the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism. [1]

Tea Party Metaphor and the Clueless Left

Read more!

The Left [1] doesn't like the Tea Party; not one little bit.  No sirree bob!  They're, by God, extreme ultra right-wing fascists; violence waiting to happen.  They're a hate group.  And racists to boot.
The list goes on. [2]

APS Cheating Scandal: In No Way Excusable; In Every Way Predictable

Read more!

The Atlanta Public School (-teacher) cheating scandal, and similar reflections in other cities, points to the systemic corruption of the K-12 educational establishment.  That corruption is especially prevalent in major metropolitan areas where affirmative action priorities [1] have reduced the level of competence and judgment of "educators" [2].  Crony Socialism (a redundant phrase) invites collusion between city  bureaucracies with oversight and those overseen.  To offer cash incentives for teaching and administrative performance within a system where incompetence has become the accepted standard, is to ask for trouble.  Moral hazards and predictable outcomes.

Liberalism: Thinking Inside The Closed Loop

Read more!

The essential problem at the core of liberalism is faith-based epistemology. (1)  It is not a problem at the personal level where a set of strongly held core beliefs may be a great source of security, comfort, confidence and -- above all -- a sense of control in evaluating and understanding the self and the world.  It is an enormous problem, however, where there is no openness to the consideration of facts that conflict with pre-conceived beliefs. When verifiable realities are rejected in favor of a rigid system of ideological verities, survival and prosperity are inevitably at peril.

Glenn Beck: Out of His Depth on This One.

Read more!

A good deal -- though not nearly enough -- has recently been written (here, here and here) regarding comments by Glenn Beck and Charles Krauthammer regarding growing opposition to Islam in Europe. In particular their mischaracterization of Geert Wilders as fascist and extremist. Regarding Dr. Krauthammer I will only mention that he is often wrong, always elitist and occasionally brilliant. In my view he -- like so many other (1) conservative pundits -- did not escape entirely the multicultural memes of the 60's. As for Beck, I believe his remarks grew out of simple ignorance -- a gap in his accumulated knowledge. While Krauthammer may be wanting in the humility to alter his position, I expect that Beck will set himself to the task of remedial learning. Still, as I indicated in my earlier essay on Beck, my reservations about him center on his penchant for creating sweeping narratives on inadequate foundations of fact; sometimes bordering on the superficial.

Islamic Terrorism: Connecting the Nots

Read more!

In the aftermath of terrorist attacks -- failed or successful -- post-mortem analyses typically reveal that necessary intelligence was in hand but not integrated in ways to prevent disaster. One thinks of 911, of course, but also of Mumbai and more recently Fort Hood and the Christmas flight to Detroit. But the broader anti-terrorist methodology and especially the seriousness of governments must also be called into question.

In the US airport screening, for example, seems focused on preventing what has already happened, relying on what passengers may be carrying rather than who they are and how they answer probing questions. Widely reported is the successful approach used by the El Al Airlines, and it is worthwhile to contrast the assumptions of the American and Israeli political classes that drive security systems.

How to protect ourselves from the violence of Jihadi savages? Let me begin by asserting that in matters of security, the trope-imagery of "connecting the dots" is a poor one in context. Assembling a jigsaw puzzle might be better, but it too is misleading. If there is anything to be connected to good effect, it may be the negative assumptions of decision-makers -- reality negated in aid of a political ideology and underpinned by political correctness. So we begin by connecting the nots of denial.

1. Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat to America and the world.
2. The threat and use of military force will not discourage terrorists and will not keep us safe.
3. Aggressive military interrogation of captured terrorists will not yield more information than conventional methods.
4. Profiling (as with El Al Airlines) is not an acceptable way of screening passengers. One must not risk giving offense.
5. Bloated, multiple bureaucracies charged with American security do not impede the flow of security information.
6. An image of national weakness does not encourage aggression from our enemies.
7. Released and repatriated terrorists will not become recidivists.
8. Trying terrorists in criminal courts will not be harmful to our security interests.
9. The Fort Hood massacre was not an act of Islamic terrorism.

Connecting the nots shows us why we are not secure from terrorist attacks. Unlike our own political class, Israelis clearly understand that seeing the world-as-it-is is a necessary condition of survival.

Thoughts on Good and Evil

Read more!

The very mention of the words "good" and "evil" (especially the latter) can invariably be counted upon to set off a spasm of righteous indignation among the relativist left. They will be particularly incensed by what they misperceive as usages that have meaning only in a wholly religious (biblical) context. Because the left is at heart antinomian (1), they eschew and despise any kind of standards to include the norms of traditional civil society (2).
Abstracting from its historical and popular current usage, I take the word "good" to mean anything in the service of human life, liberty, prosperity and general well-being. Similarly, "evil" has the opposite meaning - things that are harmful or destructive to all or any. At a deep, non-verbal level, the concept of good would seem to be essentially linked to survival and avoidance of pain.

In simple societies one can imagine that there is fundamental clarity about what is good and what is not. Existential threats posed by nature, enemies, hunger, sickness and pain are seen as evils; safety, abundance that satisfies basic needs and physical well-being are seen as goods.

But in secure and prosperous societies that have developed technologies capable of control or avoidance of existential threats, the linkage of good and evil to survival tends to become obscure, rationalized and abstract. (3)

I think it is important to see good and evil not only in moral, ethical or religious terms but also in the light of practical efficacy. When, with good intentions stipulated, we embark upon a project to improve our condition, we must first decide if the objective is good, i.e., does it promote life, liberty, prosperity and well-being, and second, whether our methodology for achieving the objective is good by the same standards. If, on the other hand, our methodology causes the project to fall short of its goals, if it wastes resources and if it generates unintended evils, then, our original motivations are irrelevant to the outcomes. Efficacy rather than intent must be the standard.

The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number (4)

Who could argue? But the phrase in inherently problematic. In advanced, pluralistic polities there is great variation in the conception of what is good. How are we to decide? If we decide, how, precisely is it distributed and what is the cost? Do we accept evil to promote the good, and, if so, what calculus enables us to establish a balance? Simpler, though plagued with many of the same difficulties, I lean toward prescribing the least evil for the greatest number.

The least evil may be the "necessary evil" of minimalist government. In return for ceding some liberties to the collective we authorize a popularly supported government to defend us from external threats, enforce our laws and undertake only those tasks that are too large or too expensive to be accomplished by local communities. The least evil for the greatest number.

But what are the consequences if government expands beyond its modest mandate? The bargain to establish the necessary evil of government remains in place, and the growth of government invariably diminishes liberty and undermines the linkage between the popular will and government's priorities.


More precisely to the point, the Western left has, with near-religious zeal, rejected judgment to embrace tolerance, no matter the cost. The willful failure to discriminate -- especially in, but not limited to, matters of moral conduct -- has led to nihilism. To assert that everything is relative is to vitiate one's own argument in its very formulation. Yet those who hold relativist views often cite Jesus' injunction to "judge not...", failing to recognize that the remark was directed only to hypocrites. The most casual sampling of biblical writings reveals that, in fact, honest judgment is a cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian tradition as it was to the Classical one.

The ideas behind good and evil are pretty simple, really, and without much freight -- that is, until they are yoked to the special, controlling purposes of social, political, moral or religious ideologies.

------
1. This word emerges from the exegetical history of the Christian faith, but it is remarkably useful in the analysis of contemporary Western society.
2. The left is tied intellectually to the tradition of Rousseauvian thought, which, like antinomianism, champions wholesale rebellion against traditional standards. Cf. The Awful Specter of Standards.
3. I expand on this idea here.
4. Sometimes called "the greatest happiness principle", it derives from the philosophy of Utilitarianism, most closely associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill. The idea expressed has great intuitive appeal and manages to endure despite its vulnerability to reductio argumentation.

Broken Linkages, Broken Society (Part I)

Read more!

Human Nature, Behavior and Consequences
Despite the naive, ideological assertions of cultural Darwinists and utopian dreamers, human nature is a constant; it has not, does not and will not change. And it is important to recognize that men are not inherently good or evil -- they are both. To paraphrase Shakespeare, man is neither good nor bad but thinking (characterization) makes him so. I might add the poet's biblical borrowing that "there is nothing new under the sun". Men have weaknesses and strengths, and we are prudent when we organize ourselves in ways that discourage the former and promote the latter. It was the American Founders' unparalleled understanding of human nature that led them in the design of the most successful political and social system that has ever existed. But that system -- like the Founders themselves -- is imperfect and decays when our weaknesses overcome our better natures.
In societies that operate at Hobbsean subsistence levels the correspondence between behavior and consequences is bright-line clear. Strategies for obtaining food and shelter and for protection against predators, animal and human, demand close adherence in the cause of survival. In prosperous, secure societies the linkage between behavior and consequences tends to become obscured. Though it is no less real, its forms change. In primitive life one is well-advised to be ever-alert for things that bite and sting, for extramural warriors, for natural disasters. In our current environment we must be on guard against politicians, zealot ideologues and schemes of organized fraud, theft and deceit. We must know what is true in relation to our survival and prosperity and rely upon it. The venom of vipers may bring us a quick death, but the venom of tyranny is not less lethal. The latter is slower but enjoys better concealment.

Knowledge and survival
For persons living in primitive societies (or tyrannical ones) accurate, empirical knowledge of the environs of one's world -- dangers and opportunities -- wisely exercised, is essential to survival, security and prosperity. One must recognize and defend against the dangers of the natural world and aggressive fellow men; know how to obtain essential needs and protect himself and his family. We may imagine that persons in poor circumstances can ill-afford the luxury of denial, (1) but we are mistaken to think it a luxury we can afford.

In advanced, abundant societies that are largely free of existential threats, the linkages between imprudent behavior and serious consequences are attenuated. In a wealthy politea social safety nets expand, and the penalties for violations of civil and criminal laws tend to become relaxed, since, excepting some crimes of violence, transgressions are no longer seen to threaten survival. In many large business and governmental organizations linkages between knowledge, productivity and reward often become obscure. Similarly inadequate knowledge and false beliefs may be rewarded so that the very foundations of civil society become corrupt.

Labor and reward
"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us". That phrase was a common, ironic expression in the states of the former Soviet Union, where slackers and producers were equally rewarded. Where the true rewards were more closely associated with party loyalty that performance. In America we are not so far removed from the destruction of of the labor-reward linkage. It is most clearly seen in large, bureaucratic institutions -- businesses grown overlarge (2), public education, big eleemosynary institutions and particularly in governmental and quasi-governmental bureaucracies such as many NGO's and most notably the U.N., where any sign of accountability in the accomplishment of its stated missions has seemingly vanished. In terms of sheer fecklessness, employee perks and high salaries the European Union is rapidly gaining, if not overtaking the U.N. In these examples personal and political loyalties rather than performance to standards of efficacy are the engines of advancement.

It is important to consider the role of bureaucracies. They are, in their beginnings, useful in providing infrastructure support for executive productivity. But they tend to grow and when they reach a certain size and command of power, their focus shifts from executive support to self-interest. As organizations expand the power and remuneration of their leadership grows commensurately.

The most serious erosion of the linkage between labor and reward can be seen in highly progressive tax schemes. When the most productive citizens are heavily taxed to support the less productive, incentives (rewards) are reduced and the creation of wealth suffers at the expense of broader society. The "pursuit of happiness" envisioned by the Founders is possible only when the sanctity of property rights is guaranteed; taxation for purposes of redistribution clearly violates those rights.

Entire classes have evolved in the US from small institutions that once formed a useful symbiosis with the productive class but have drifted away from their original purposes and grown to be parasitic. Examples include much of academia, public education, most government bureaucracies, the arts establishment, unproductive corporate divisions and staffs, politicized churches and synagogues, media and much of the intellectual class, public health institutions and many research organizations. These classes tend to expand while consuming more public and private wealth and delivering increasingly less useful product. As parasitic entities they divert wealth from entities that might have produced more of it.

Virtue and civil society
Figuring importantly in the Founders hope for a successful and enduring republic was the idea that virtue -- personal and civic, private and public -- was the necessary condition of its maintenance.
To the ears of tribal intellectuals (and to those educated by them) "virtue" may ring as a notion that is puritanical, Victorian or simply quaint; its practice largely abandoned, its meaning is largely lost. (3)
Respect, it seems to me, is at the heart of the concept of virtue. Respect for one's self, one's work, one's moral precepts and for others. It is essential to the success of civil society, since voluntary association is at its core, so that persons who are not seen as virtuous -- who are, say, dishonest, venal or generally contemptuous of others -- will tend to be excluded.

Summary
The ideas and beliefs behind this essay are these: (1) that human nature is an historical constant, and the best organized societies are those that practically account for its virtues and vices by linking behaviors to appropriate consequences, and (2) that these linkages can be broken with individual impunity only in societies of abundance, where there is sufficient wealth and freedom from existential threats to support those who do not produce or sustain them. Individual impunity, however, does not account for the cumulative, pernicious effects that inevitably corrupt societies. The constant companions of success are hubris and the waiting Nemesis.

-----------------
1. One of the best examples of the workings of denial (especially among elitists) is cited in an earlier post linked to a French TV discussion. One cannot deal with the world as it is without knowing the world as it is.
2. The citation applies primarily to business, but the mechanisms critiqued are common to all large institutions. A broader picture can be found by following the links at the bottom of the article.
3. Honor and shame have likewise become epistemological curiosities.

Note: in this essay I try to establish a framework for specific, concrete examples to follow in Part II.

Sarah Palin: Boring, Dangerous and Confused

Read more!

And now I find myself writing a fourth essay commenting on Sarah Palin. But it's not Palin herself who commands my attention so much as the predictably irrational elitist response to her. Indeed, my earlier postings (here, here and here) have dealt more with elitism than with Mrs. Palin.

A better expression of elitist animus than this video interview with Martha Stewart (1) is not easily found. Ms. Stewart's choice of words is instructive.

"Boring" Translation: she is unworthy of my attention (or that of my ilk).
"Dangerous" Translation: her view of the world threatens mine. She's so ordinary. (2)
"Confused" Translation: persons who do not think as I do are intellectually deficient.
"I wouldn't, I wouldn't watch her if you paid me." Translation: I don't know anything about her, and I don't want to. But that doesn't alter my opinion.

Unrelated to Mrs. Palin but characteristic of elitism is the opening statement in the interview.

"I think everybody should give back..." Translation: I made money in this disgraceful and unfair free-market, capitalist economy. Hear my (pro forma) words of atonement.

Summing up. Self-arrogated sense of superiority, strongly held opinion in tandem with ignorance and mock PC self-effacement.

----------------
1. I am an admirer of Martha Stewart's entrepreneurial achievements, her intellect and her work ethic, and I took her part in the contretemps with overbearing federal prosecutors. I do not admire her immense personal arrogance.
2. How can a person be seen as at once boring and dangerous..? Why is she dangerous? "She speaks...she's so confused..." Dangerous behavior indeed.