Ignorance vs. Stupidity: A Dead Heat at CNN

Read more!

CNN Ireport Badge

More and more I am convinced that legacy media folks -- contrary to the opinion of some conservatives -- are perfectly sincere.  Innocent of fact, curiosity or independent thought, to be sure, but sincere.  They believe they are right in most, if not all, things, and I think they might even feel sorry for the rest of us if sympathy wouldn't interfere with the pleasure they take in condescension. 

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]

Tea Party Terrorism

Read more!

Che Guevara

I was recently dismayed to learn that, as a Tea Party member, I am, per se, a terrorist.  Well, a potential terrorist anyway.  And that revelation on no less authority than the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). [1]

A report commissioned by DHS called Hot Spots of US Terrorism tells us exactly who the terrorists are:

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

Short Take: Republicans Endorsing Hillary? (*)

Read more!

In political contests all sides labor diligently to insure that events affecting the contest are not left to chance.  Though mistakes are inevitable, some "mistakes" are contrived.  That's exactly what seems to have happened in the case of the public endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Sarah Palin and John McCain.

Voter ID is Clearly Discriminatory

Read more!

Karl Marx

Laws that require careful verification of a voter's identity discriminate not so much against blacks, Hispanics or other ethnic groups and the poor as against an entire political class -- cheaters.  Known also as Democrats. [1]  Polls indicate that as many as 80% of the American public (including many of those said to be injured) favor stringent voter ID laws.  The Marxist-Progressive Left, however, behind lamentations and crocodile tears, stands in utter contempt of the righteous public will.  Citing a litany of imagined (and therefore real) abuses of helpless 'victims', they howl with feigned outrage.  If strawmen, in company with the dead, could vote, Marxists would never lose another election.

Illegal Immigration: Seen and Not Seen

Read more!

Frederic Bastiat

As with most things in Western politics, America's illegal immigration question is argued within contending narratives.  The Marxist Left points to cultural enrichment, tolerance, virtuous altruism, abundant and cheap labor and "diversity".  Conservatives point to enormous burdens on Federal and local governments in the areas of healthcare, public education, law enforcement and revenues.  Given that both are imperfect, which narrative is more correct?  Does either go beyond what is easily seen?

2012: Testing the American Narrative (Part II)

Read more!

As I said in Part I, this election -- more than most because of unusually clear contrasts -- will test the the American ethos, the narrative, the vision that tells us who we are.  For those of us who, contrary to a century of Marxist/progressive indoctrination, have managed somehow to maintain a reverence of founding principles, this is a make-or-break affair.  Many will say that ideas of the American Founders were but temporal signs of time and place and that we have evolved and matured in matters social, political and economic.  We have put away old ideologies.  And they may be correct in their assessment.

2012: Testing the American Narrative (Part I)

Read more!

Who are we and what were we as Americans?  Today, there are competing narratives.  Two, though divergent, are organic, in that they grew out of the American Revolution and the founding principles. A more recent narrative that emerged out of European Marxist philosophy is being grafted onto one of the native strains.

Evaluating The Republican Field

Read more!

In company with many Tea Party conservatives, I am not particularly sanguine about the current field of Republican candidates.  But my choice at this point is not a difficult one to make.  Simple elimination leaves me supporting only Rick Santorum.  A year ago I would not have thought it possible, but things change.  The candidates currently in the early lead are not, in my view, core conservatives.  If either makes the nomination cut, I will vote for him in the general election.  With all the enthusiasm I felt for John McCain; maybe a tad more...

The big talking-point issue with establishment Republicans in general (and other wobbly conservatives) is "electability".  A combination of hubris and elitism causes too many to think it is a knowable trait.  Makes them confident they know what the electorate will decide in November.  A conceit of known and would-be pundits everywhere.  I think more in terms of principle than what is believed to be the most likely outcome.  Let me explain.

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]

Voting: Principle vs Praxis

Read more!

One finds no shortage of persons who will tell you with great confidence who is and who is not electable.  Certainly one can analyze what he knows -- or believes he knows -- about American voters, their political and policy opinions, their "mood" and their likely preferences and form an opinion as to how any election will fall out.  In fact, polling data, in experienced hands most often yield high probabilities of electoral outcomes.  But surprise!  Human behavior is not always predictable.  Black Swans -- perhaps far more common than the name suggests -- have ways to make laughable statistical models that very often assume a stability in kinetic systems that does not exist.  The models are correct often enough to create the illusion of predictability, but as, for example, the recent collapse of the derivatives market has shown, our confidence may be misplaced.  Said more directly, the laws of probability are not the laws of physics; they do not compel outcomes.  And it is always possible that there are variables that we do not recognize, anticipate or even imagine.

The Historical Roots of Statism in America

Read more!

Opposing Statism: The Incomplete Conservative Argument 

Until recently, I had never been satisfied with with conventional explanations of the steady rise of American statism.  Within the conservative pundit class there seems to be general agreement (or, at least, emphasis) that beginnings lay in the presidencies of Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson and the rise of the Progressives.  To be sure, anti-Jeffersonian policies flourished in their administrations as it later did with F.D.R., Lyndon Johnson.  But the nagging question for me was how, after the Founding period, did this trend -- more or less suddenly -- emerge?  Say with Theodore Roosevelt...?  So recent?  What about the Hamiltonians, the Federalist Party?  Some of our conservative voices, Glenn Beck, for example, will talk about Alexander Hamilton (a good start), but then they seem compelled to leap over a big chunk of history to the late Nineteenth Century.  Why is that?  What are they avoiding?

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.

What is the Vital Nexus Between Progressives and Islam?

Read more!

After puzzling for some time about the strong affinity between the Left and Muslims, [1] I think I have finally sorted it out.

The answer to the title question is a brief one, and for that reason, this promises to be a short essay.  It is simply this: the two groups share a culture of entitlement and a conviction of their own innate superiority, on the one hand, and of right of dominion on the other.  In a word, Progressives and Muslims have much in common.

European Riots and the Vision of Thomas Hobbes

Read more!

The rioting we have recently seen in Great Britain, Greece, Sweden, France and parts of Germany (not to mention the emergence of American "flash mobs") gives us a window into the future.  A future that will surely come if the West persists in its determination to commit cultural suicide. The violence of mobs also invites us to look at the past, and, indeed at most of the world around us today.

Of the several points to be covered here I want to place special emphasis on this one: most of us in the West have lived so well for so long that we do not appreciate how fortunate we are. And we don't recognize than we are a tiny island in a vast sea of human predators who understand only existential conflict and brutality.  They exist in established states which attempt to conceal murders, starvation, slave prisons and the near-total loss of liberty, and they exist openly in the killing fields of Rwanda and other African states.  What good people know in these places we do not -- what it means to live in constant fear of other human beings.

Wanted: Strong, Artilculate Men Of Principle

Read more!

In the current political war over the US debt ceiling and reductions in spending, I find myself more than slightly annoyed by the want of a certain kind of courage on the part of establishment Republicans.  John Boehner, Speaker of the House comes to mind [1].  Like others of his experience in politics, he is foremost a pragmatic man.  He weighs his options and carefully considers their political consequences.  Pragmatic men are precisely the kind who are needed to conduct the day-to-day business of government, but only so long as two conditions are met.  The first is that their political opponents act in good faith, and second, is that there not be an issue of such magnitude that the future of the nation is in peril.  Neither condition is currently satisfied by the current administration and the Democrat members of congress.  It is no longer the time for leadership to remain in the hands of moderate pragmatists.  Sorely needed are men of principle with the political will and courage to stand fast by their values and those of the American people.

What the Debt Battle Really Means to America

Read more!

The outcome of the pitched battle now underway in Congress will be of enormous importance to America's future.  Though nominally concerned with fiscal and economic matters, it is much, much more than that.  At issue is nothing less than the peoples' sovereignty.

In earlier essays (notably here) I have remarked that the behavior of the current president, his leaders in the house and senate and his allies in the Executive branch is stunning for its arrogance -- its contempt for the majority of Americans.  Add to that, and in concert, the same arrogance of the legacy media [1], K12 and academe, Hollywood, labor unions, the "permanent government" bureaucracies and many of the nation's courts, and we have to ask ourselves if they know something we don't.  What might that be?

The Left Deals in Good Faith: A Dangerous Assumption

Read more!

There is an on-going argument among conservatives that Obama and the Progressives are simply misguided and ignorant, on the one hand, or that they are deliberately bent on America's destruction on the other.  That argument is perhaps best exemplified by the thinking of Michael Medved in the first case and that of Rush Limbaugh in the second.  I believe Limbaugh is correct.

Both men are deeply rooted in the Western Tradition's norms of civil society, and that is a good thing.  Limbaugh, however, is canny enough to recognize that Progressives, while careful to appear otherwise, entertain no such notions.  They are deconstructionists whose sole motivation is the will to power, and they well understand that their ends can only be achieved by the calculated and deliberate dissolution of American society and its roots in the heritage of the West.

Mr. Medved, like other "moderate" conservatives, naively -- and dangerously -- assumes that the Hard Left upholds the same values and plays by the same rules honored by the Right.  He fails to see that Progressives have launched upon a course of triangulation in aid of division and conquest: the fascist "third way" [1].

The Institutional American Left, Conservatives and the Debt Ceiling Battle

Read more!

Our politicians are engaged -- not in debate but in ideological war over the conditions for raising America's debt ceiling.  A game of brinkmanship is being played out as the deadline (variously defined) approaches.  Both sides agree that the US credit rating hangs in the balance and that the ceiling must be raised.  At issue are government spending and taxes.  The Right is intent on reductions as a quid pro quo for an affirmative vote, and it has offered numerous good faith proposals, while the Left is equally intent on the continuation of deficit spending and raising taxes.  On the one hand, there is concern for putting the nation's fiscal house in order and on the other there is a real fear that the continuation of political power is at stake.

Making News, Making History

Read more!

The sorry state of journalism is often portrayed -- in particular by media elitists, to the extent they acknowledge it -- as a recent development; one that calls into contrast the current state of affairs with some imaginary 'golden age' of purely objective reportage. My own suspicion, however, is that good journalism [1] has always been a rare thing. Journalists, and more especially those who have employed them, have yoked the facts of human events to existing dogma -- to prevailing orthodoxy -- and to liberal political agendas.

Are things worse now than in earlier times?  I cannot say with certainty, but it seems to me that institutional media have, in the last decade, abandoned all pretense to objective reporting even at considerable costs to market share -- perhaps with the expectation that the liberal establishment will save their financial bacon.

Transaction Costs: The Best Argument Against High Taxation

Read more!


Vigorish, as readers will recall, is a term famously used by the Mafia to describe the seizure (skimming) of the profits of a business under the threat of force. [1]  Percentage varies according to the mob's need for cash and calculations about what the market will bear.  Our tax system is nearly analogous.

Persons (outside government) who favor increasing taxation seem unaware of the losses in the tax system, arguing -- and wrongly assuming -- that collected revenues will go, more-or-less dollar for dollar to support various projects and causes they favor.  One wonders if they would remain sanguine knowing the amount of monies diverted from tax purposes.

Obama vs. Arizona: It Begins

Read more!

Actually, it has already begun but so far without clear resolution.  I am referring to a definitive showdown between the central government and the states.  Conflict between the states and the federal government has been escalating for some time in the form of de facto nullification on the part of some states and the rapidly increasing evidence of contempt for constitutional limitations on the part of the federal government.
Perhaps the best-known current examples of nullification center around the refusal of states to enforce laws pertaining to immigration (sanctuary cities) and to state legalization of medical marijuana -- both in direct conflict with federal law.  Those issues have been before federal courts and found some legal resolution, generally favoring central government.  But federal court rulings against the states have had virtually no effect, and the liberal Washington political class has not evinced enthusiasm for enforcement of laws (especially immigration) when violations coincide with its political ambitions. (1) 

Sacred Ground: The Lincoln Myth

Read more!

Preface
For some of us the time comes when we are forced to recognize that much of what we have been taught -- what is "common knowledge" -- is simply untrue.  That is the case, I believe, to some extent in all the academic disciplines but perhaps less so in the hard sciences than the soft sciences and liberal arts.  Here, I am concerned with history, which seems to be the subject of more ideological tampering than other disciplines.
In this essay I assert that the commonly accepted history -- the orthodoxy -- of the American Civil War period and the persona of Abraham Lincoln are largely innocent of salient fact, intellectual honesty and the application of common sense.  Further, I will argue that Lincoln's abuse of constitutional powers did great violence to Jeffersonian view of federalism and ultimately became the template for contemporary statism.

The Gulf Cleanup: Government Incompetence?

Read more!

Beyond the context of an objective, competence cannot be measured.  For example, imagine a case in which a large tree is to be brought down in a short time and with a minimum human effort; here, we have defined an objective.  Next, imagine three woodcutters, each given his choice of tools for the purpose of felling the tree.  The workman who chooses a power chainsaw will be seen as more competent than one who chooses and axe.  The one who chooses a scout knife will be seen as least competent.