debasement of semantics
DEBT DEFAULT

This whole "default" deal is a debasement of simple semantics. All the Politicians, Washington Insiders, and the Media all use the word Default. The say that Default would be epically bad for the U.S. That is true. But also irrelevant and an intentionally distracting masquerade. There is ZERO chance the government will Default on debt if the debt ceiling is not raised Oct 17th. It a moot point. Its like saying that if the sun didn't rise in the morning it would be bad. Well no shiii...! That is completely inapplicable because the sun will rise in the morning.

Default is when you don't pay your credit card bill or home mortgage. A credit line increase denial is not Default. This congress should deny a credit line increase. Keep the debt ceiling at $16Trillion.

The Treasury brings in $250B a month in taxes and interest payments on debt are only $20B a month. How could we default? The reason everyone tows that line is they will use it as cover for when they will inevitably raise the debt ceiling. They will tell their constituents that they had to, there was no other choice, or else the world as we know it would promptly end.

life liberty property decimation

STATES RIGHTS

The new slave masters, as opposed to their 19th century brethren, are opposed to states rights. The depths of these socialists thoughts are revealed in their actions. For universal single payer? Fine - do it on a state-by-state basis. Whats the hold up? Certainly many states are currently socialist run. Massachusetts, California and others have beginner health socialism plans, stunted only by reality. State budgets are lacking in the key ingredient for universal coverage to take off. States don't have a green tone printing press that can create small peaces of paper with dead white aristocrats and associated numbers on them. The U.S. congress does have one of these. And thus only ridiculous ponzi schemes can be inflationaly sustained at the federal level. The new slave masters know this, and if one is going to rob the rest of humanity of the ownership of their labor, best to do it incrementally, as has happened over the last century.

The next faze will be expanding S-Chip to cover the middle class. Then offering a government alternative to private health plans that will be subsidized by participants in private plans. Then after enough people join, government will set drug prices (in a process to be called negotiating). Why is their goal universal coverage rather than better health? For beginners in economic matters a brief aside: Only a committee of the smartest can completely ruin the life of the dumbest among us worse than they could have themselves. Humans are far from perfect but at least the individual directly experiences the results of their actions and can attempt to make corrections based on this feedback loop. The committee of the smartest is isolated from these feedback loops by the nature of their eliteness. So the same type of bureaucratic structures that underestimated Saddam's weapons programs in the first gulf war and then overestimated them in the second will be adept at making health decisions for all? The same mentality that started a pension scheme for the then 50:1 worker to retiree ratio should buckle in the near future 3:1. Evidently that's where that printing press comes in.

How about a states right to opt out of federal programs? How about making these things optional and give a lump sum of cash to residents of states that do not participate? If the heavenly benefits of socialism truly do accrue, would not people be free to move to that state to experience nirvana? The new slave masters know the answer and thus their national plan. Socialism is never free. Cubans defect from their free health care when their sports teams play in the free world. The new slave masters will not tolerate a free choice.

forever 1929

PROGRESSIVE DOGMA

For the want-a-be muckrakers such as Thomas Frank it is always the year 1929. One pictures him playing dress up in turn-of-the-century garb or soup line attire, bringing back old period words, writing away on an old style typewriter. Yes for sure he writes on an iMac, but for sure he hates it. You know capitalism brought about the computer revolution. Perhaps he sees the internet and all the new media as a necessary interludor until he can sway back the Nation into more sustainable times.

"Whats wrong with Kansas?" he asks. Well mr Frank, nothing. Whats wrong with you? This is a nation of values not class. Hard working poor people don't resent rich people if they earned what they've got and have similar values of work ethic, country, and faith. Something in the ten commandments about coveting neighborly things, has got him all hysterical that people don't vote for their "economic self interest" in his words. Ok mr Frank, the voters who voted for Regan and not stagflation are proles in your book. What an abstract concept and quite counter-intuitive for the progressive mind to comprehend. Coveting is the vise of the lazy, anti-american, and faithless.

So now that reality has been suspended from the muckrakers mind, its not hard to see how he thinks the whole so-called "worst economic crises sense 1929", gets up and running. It was not government implied backing of Fannie/Freddie, it was deregulation. It's not congressional pressure to offer home loans to poor credit people, it was the people on John McCain's campaign bus. Its not that Capitalism's laws were not practiced correctly, its that it is intellectually bankrupt. Ok mr Frank, how did that new deal work out? Oh, It made it worse? You mean that government intervention caused a small rise and then a second more prolonged collapse? How can that be?

Back to the present. If congress passes the bail-out, no doubt all the Washington and New York insiders will be high fiving each other. I plan to stay 100 miles from any David Broder articles. But one can be sure that with every bail out, markets will be distorted and risks will be improperly assigned yet again. How about a true populist stance Mr Frank, NO-BAIL-OUT!! But then of course the commanding heights won't be transferred to Government... i mean government acting for the little guy right? Freedom a zero sum game?

gold in ied

RULE OF LAW

Finally some sanity. The Supreme wisdom of 5 people but echoed by many with a D in front of their names, and implied D's in front of their names - as in the case of journalists, has been presented to the Benighted. Terrorists finally get their day in court - show the corpse - er wait (the people the terrorists blew up?) Strange is it not, how the Supremes bring foreign law into the US or extend Constitutional Law outside our Nations borders and citizens, whichever suits their fancy - almost like they are making it up as they go along. Now, Now, their vision is quite consistent, its just not consistent with the Declaration of Independence, or US Constitution, or the Founding Fathers, nor Natural Law theory. Its a unique elixir of Marxism, Fabianism, Progressivism, and Pacifism. It is definitely not the rule of law. 65 senators approved the law of military tribunals that Kennedy the swinger threw out. Presidents conduct wars with oversight from Congress - except in the US where apparently there are now black robed generals. Now the military should take no prisoners...

In the glory days of the cold war, the US and Soviets faced off every 4 years in the Olympic games - except the boycott years. The Long War - the popular moniker for the war on terror - does not have the pizazz that the cold war did. Where is the space race between us and Al-Qaeda? Why no missile gaps or missile crisis or sputniks? Al-Qaeda, newly liberated from Guantanamo, needs an Olympic Team - we know they have been training!

throw out the rules

PRIMARIES

Those poor souls in Florida and Michigan being disenfranchised and all - what a shame. It's almost enough to make them want to follow the party rules. Of course if the rules were followed they would not be victims and victimhood is quite a badge of honor. (Can you believe those evil people who chuckle and say rules are rules). Not to mention all the home owners sucker punched by the greed infested home mortgage lenders. Like homeowners should be required to sign something before they agree to low introductory rates. Gotta love the Dems for their hybrid populism mixed with elitism. Winner take all is for social darwin Republicans. The Dem primary system is much more coddling. Delegates are appointed on roughly the proportional popular vote, so it is quite fair. Then after all the proles vote their benighted wits, Nitsche overmen (superdelegates) get to vote - to correct their party members - point them to the true wisdom that is theirs. I know this sounds like disenfranchisement - but remember victimhood is a badge of honor. Just a little more coercion and utopia will be upon us!

freedom from reality

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

FDR promoted freedom from want. As if such a goal could be achieved. Across the whole of human history, suffering has existed and its a safe bet will always exist. The line between dreamers who push the envelope and the madman's fantasy world is very hard to discern. The politics of meaning of the day during the Fascist Roosevelt years, has not been undone to this day. Its often said who doesnt deserve a good life - as though all freewill is removed from the people and replaced by sovereign policy makers. But unlucky stuff has to happen - how could it not based on simple probability. Material wants can only be obtained by self efficacy. If it is being provided by another source (other than family, friends, mutual self-interested business transactions) it is tainted with blood. Every child in america deserves a good upbringing but its not going to happen no matter how hard the village tries. There will always be some outlier - the receiver of misfortune - and the more powerful government is made to fight Murphy's law the more people will subcome to it. Be it education, healthcare, living wages the result is always the same ("I just want you to know how sorry we are that things got so [messed] up with us and Mr. Wallace. We got into this thing with the best intentions and I never... "). Legitimate government is only comprised to protect an individuals abstract rights, not to be a giant make a wish foundation for their wants.

intelligent design schools

EVOLUTION

Fearing Darwin the administrators hunker down clinging to their faith, but their god is good and will not abandon them. No one, after all, wants to leave a child behind with the rapture fast approaching - the second coming (Hilary?) This impending NCLB Armageddon will separate the sheep from the goats and the administrators are taking some heat, being the scape goats. Natural selection would dictate that parents could choose where to send their kids to school - and schools that couldn't attract any schoolmates would die off and the species would be more fit. This genetic algorithm's form of artificial intelligence - recombination, crossover, mutation and evaluation of fitness - is clearly blasphemous to the keepers of the faith. Only the school administration et al has a direct relationship to their god. Sex/reproduction has to be kept out of the schools - the species can survive with a little more prayer for insight from the intelligent designer (storks delivering wisdom). The proles need guidance from their shepherds, and shackled down, not to wonder to the school of their benighted choosing. These school children are needed nutrients (state funding) for the maggot infestion that is failing unfit schools.

third party foul

COERCION

Evidence points to inequality of decision making. Some people routinely make good choices as judged by society while others routinely shoot themselves in the foot. The scientific management model of modern liberals assumes rough genetic equality with observed differences explained mostly by environment. Using a diminishing marginal utility model, they can explain lazy unmotivated peoples behavior. How some people actually accomplish things like having transportation to and from this thing called a job to pay for their food and shelter is explained away as benefiting from past wealth/opportunistic chance. Problems of society are posited as though a solution exists rather than an eternal plague of humanity. Wealth redistribution (theft) is a favored solution of the modern liberal progressives. With a little articulate moral gymnastics they don't see this as stealing nor coercive. Classical liberals on the other hand assume genetic inequality (some are dumb) but have the hubris to know that third parties (even the elite minds) make even stupider decisions than stupid people would have made for their own lives. This is because third parties are often isolated from any negative feedback loops that the individual more directly experiences and use to adjust their behaviour. Human evolution since the dawn of civilization has only been 10 thousand years - only a blink of the eye in evolutionary time. Humans ultimately only have hunter/gatherer brain power. Classical liberals often appear looking foolish by acknowledging societal problems often have no government solution, but modern liberals throw out answers and remove all doubt.

disregard higher standards of living

WALMART

Well, you all know what Walmart represents? The absolute conquest of America to make this nation a factory town. First it was a department store destroying the mom and pop shops that are so vital to society. Then they branched out into groceries in Super Walmart incarnation, adding fuel and car service centers along the way. Look at the front of the store now (for you good spirited boycotters, I'll fill you in from my latest spy mission). They have little shops to get your hair done, eyeglasses, a place to get your prescription drugs, usually a McDonalds, sometimes a second party bank. They are planning on expanding into banking and opening their own health clinics. And then look around at who they prey on (for those of you who have never been outside the organic/boutique high end market, I'll fill you in) Their stores are teaming with poor people and people of color! And their employees too. Good thing minimum wage is going up, that way all the small shops that already have high wages and excellent benefits will be able to compete with non-union Walmart. Remember after Katrina when they rushed in to set up little makeshift supply depots trying to out-do FEMA. This was Sam Waltons plan: to offer low prices and reasonable service to lure the dimwitted (sorry, I meant people of less opportunity and systemic discrimination) in and have them go there for everything. Now its up to the intellectual elites of the nation to come together and suppress this Walmartation of the U.S. With their reputation for keeping costs down in higher education and government regulation of health care, who would not trust them?

progressives fight progress

OWNERSHIP SOCIETY

Liberal progressives can be downright bulwarks against change. They favor mostly the unstabilitating kind of change - social change. This change in effect leads to humanities long natural history of self-efficacy to diminish into state oppression, with all the promises of government to help the broken family actually removing all incentives for nuclear family formation. Once upon a time the 'downtrodden' aspired to improve their lot - or were at least too proud to take handouts - now these transfer payments are seen as an entitlement by both giver and receiver. Other than the initial civil rights movement most of this has been disastrous. The so called 'conservatives' are a force for change by preserving the historical institutions that allow rapid material progress without upheaval. When it comes to free-trade, retirement/pensions, school-choice, lawsuit restraint, and other market driven ideas, progressives fight to protect the status quo and thwart change. Somehow the progressive Democrats are labeled liberals (FDR stole this term) even as they fight for union-jobs by preventing the de-institutionalization of individuals with disabilities. They also fight sprawl which only results in home prices going up, and alas, we need government solutions to affordable housing. The so called 'conservatives' ownership-society is a revolutionary vision that is a much too frightening change for the progressives. If the populace is on-its-own (in Hillaryspeak) then what need have they for governing elites? This liberal policy most be stopped.

the great roundup begins

IMMIGRATION

The elites brave debate has been silenced by the benighted masses. Even with the ad hoc endorsement of amnesty by the old media and polls confirming their stewardship of the issue, immigration reform has been stopped. Kennedy's shouting to opponents about the evil of their plan to roundup and send 20 million illegals home summed up the debate: since option one (the roundup) is inoperable then only option two is reasonable (amnesty). Now all the illegals will have to go back into the shadows - receiving free handouts to survive (the darkness that surrounds their existence) - court mandated taxpayer provided k-12 education, eligibility for welfare, non-discrimination (of the citizenshiply challenged) in housing and drivers licenses. Not to mention that most are uninsured and can't get preventive care before they end up in the insurance-payer/tax-payer subsidised free emergency room. Its almost enough to make some of them want to pack it up and head for home, withdrawing money from their no-proof-of-citizenship-required bank accounts. With families being exploited like this we will need to increase tuition assistance for illegals because all they get now is the in-state tuition rate. America is an uncompassionate place (why does everyone want to come here?) The way things are going, illegals will loose the right to vote too, if the courts let citizens demands for proof of eligibility requirements to stand.

select news fit to print

NEWS MEDIA

The news is a report of what is new so they don't report much on what has remained the same. Advertising is their customer so they report mainly to get viewers/readers that advertisers want to reach. The fact that some things are getting better all the time is not news in the sense that no political action is needed. They only report the expose and love to report acute rather than diffuse effects. The 5th generation milk farmer going into default makes better news than the millions of consumers jipped 5cents a gallon because of farm subsidies. Journalists fancy themselves affecting change in a positive fashion rather than just reporting the facts and putting perspective on events. With almost every story, change is needed and implicitly government is the choice change agent (with fiat power). The stratification of America has never been more polarized - a drastic charge. But when one considers the changes since the '50's of a re-castization of America - along intellectual fault lines -it seems to make sense. People can be divided in roughly half - left and right brain people. You see journalists are (left brain - creative/expressive) writers of fiction - they use facts to adjust their template and tell the story along familiar plot lines. The rich get richer the poor get poorer. The latest outrage that needs immediate government action as though it where some unusual event unprecedented in history is what sells. They are sell-outs to truth and reason.

college for everyone

IMMIGRATION

Marxists talk as though people where living an idyllic country life and then rounded up - almost against their will - forced to move to the cities and work in factories. They mention the squalor and suffering of the cities, but most likely this was occurring in the country side - just concentration in the city made the problems more acute, less diffuse. Then Henry Ford came along, cash on hand, not trusting the Jewish banking community, and offered workers a $5 dollar day. So factory work - even if mundane - become harder to leave with the pay so lavish. So if, as the Marxists fantasize, of workers dreaming to return to the country, (there may be some truth behind this) they certainly could not easily accept such a lower standard of living to do so. So to insure a stable workforce, most large companies have paid above market wages to reliable employees. These employee wages can be easily undercut by mass illegal and legal immigration of unskilled workers. One can live quite cheap on rice and beans, bunking with coworkers - yet a more lavish lifestyle than possible south of the border. Advocates of open borders and amnesty must yield on these points. The unskilled American worker will be undercut by mass immigration. Markets always clear - there is no such thing as a job Americans are not willing to do. Mass immigration will largely benefit middle and upper class skilled wage and professional salary earners because prices will go down. Modern progressive liberals insert talking points here: (worker re-training programs, college tuition assistance, universal heath care, living wage) Just never mention the standard distribution of intelligence - if you ignore it, it will go away!

an inconvenient dogma

GLOBAL WARMING

What if it doesn't happen - what if the globe stays the same temperature? It seems pretty high and mighty of the new comi-enviros to assume that humans are powerful enough to alter climate on a permanent basis. Yes over a millenia but unlikely over a century. What, first the decree that we are no more than advanced chimpanzees then we are extra special earth wreckers. Can't they make up their mind? Are we or are we not part of earths natural system. Is or is not what we do natural or are we supra natural. The earth is always changing, sulfuric volcanoes atmosphere was replaced by bacteria, fungi, plant and later animal atmosphere. Are we Gods who have to maintain the present (statist) balance or can we rely on natures designer, who probably built in mechanisms that would counteract rapid climate change. Of all the greenhouse gasses CO2 is but one. Of all the systems that regulate earths climate, the greenhouse effect is but one. Yet Al Gore has determined that the debate is over and that earthlings have but ten years to act or else kaput.

gerrymand government

POLARIZATION

Why is bitter partisanship viewed as a bad thing? Is not grid lock the best case scenario? (Good government George Will and David Broder be damned). Congress in a bind means a lack of over governance - well one can wish anyway. Congress could easily take a decade off and life would go on pretty much unfettered (most spending is defacto automatically renewed anyway - big issues that need to be addressed are not touched). Dick Armey called bipartisanship date-rape when he was in the minority. A consensus is something that offends no one and nobody believes in fully. Convictions are a true sign of character - not watered down "can't we all get along". Better to wait for a title wave like '80 or '94 to get a mandate than crafting one out of twigs, pebbles and twine. A big deal is made of the polarization of the country into the mislabeled red and blue states (I thought commies were red - and blue is the Torrie colour). Well really, politicians are not more partisan but the parties are. The parties were more a social class vehicle than an ideological soul mate fraternity. Goldwater, bless his soul, changed that with a truly ideological campaign, not a coalition crazy glue contraption, and presently the parties are aligned along political lines which is more proper. The fact that most house districts are uncompetitive is not a sin in and of its self. It makes sense that the districts are created to reflect our segregated living arrangements - progressives in the inner core and conservatives in the exurbs - they are more accurately represented by one party leaning districts so long as the overall composition is not overly distorted. Good government types abhor this arrangement but they are missing the true travesty - a lack of term limits - true limited government. And now with incumbent protection reform (McCain Finegold) the chance to unseat a big porker is very remote. The constitution reads "We the people.." but that has become "We the few lifetime office holders..."

invasion of brown people

IMMIGRATION

A popular theme in fictional storytelling, is of the poor benighted but happy tribal village, isolated from civilization. This village of brown people suddenly becomes exploited by some evil white people and unable to free themselves, have to be saved by a different group of benevolent white people. After many overly cliche remarks, the brown people continue in idyllic bliss about their brown ways with their white saviors becoming honorary tribe members. The white people evidently love this but not enough to stay there permanently - they go back to their sophisticated less pure and unhappy lives but always remember the lessons from the tribe. The tribe people never get tired of living in squalor nor leave for better opportunities. That's why its fiction. The non-fiction reality is people living in lowered states of living standardly immigrate to more sophisticated societal beacons. The U.S. is being invaded by brown people from the world over. Presumably they came into this society to benefit from a systemic wealth generating nation devised by dead white males. They should be welcomed into our pluralistic state of white enlightenment - but progressives and multiculturalist try to hold them back to their brown ways. They wish to recreate the fiction even when denied by truth.

internal combustion engine gore

AUTOMOBILES

There is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle. Electric cars get labeled that way by the government but its just propaganda. See electricity does not come out of the ether from outer space, and it doesn't come from magical rays of sun. Electricity has to be generated. Yes solar panels and wind/water turbines don't give off emissions. But they had to be made somehow so it would be interesting to know if they were made using fossil fuel power. Nuclear plants are clean but nuclear fuel materials are created with many emissions. Natural gas is a fossil fuel but also clean burning so it doesn't get lynched on as much as the others (dirty coal and big oil!) Better to fight liquefied natural gas port terminals in the U.S. and offshore exploration, and at the same time mandate its use - that is the progressive way! So these cars that get plugged in are actually remote emission vehicles because the electricity most likely was generated with emissions. And every time energy is transferred from one state to another, energy is lost - its inefficient. Hybrid cars are the best bet - but only cost effective at high oil prices. Flex fuel is a good innovation but ethanol needs to be subsidized to be cost effective and methanol will be black balled because it can be derived from coal (oh! the humanity!! - insert Hindenburg crash here:) Hydrogen cars are sci-fi or fantasy at this point - depending on your perspective. Most science fiction eventually comes true - whereas fantasy remains in the realm of ones imagination. Will the price of electricity go down when the incandescent light bulb is banned?

drunk on grain alcohol

RENEWABLE ENERGY

A lump of coal in ones stocking is a great gift and even more valuable lesson. It reminds us of how rotten we have been using non-renewable fossil fuels which will run out in ten years. Renewable energy such as wind, sun, hydro, and bio-fuels will provide progressive society with a sustainable clean energy source. Never-mind the naysayers who point out that it takes more energy to make ethanol, than the end product has, or that if all the corn in the U.S. were converted to fuel, the dent in fossil fuel use would be negligible. Critics mention increased demand for bio-energy will have negative consequences across many economic sectors. If feed for livestock goes up then the cost will rise and people will buy less - less consumption is good! People should be eating free-range meat if they have not yet converted to veganism. Also a fossil fuel tax could be assessed to help subsidize the poor of the world to purchase corn tortillas - and the tax could be ratcheted up until by law non-renewables were made illegal. A special committee of experts should be appointed to regulate energy and all human activities that involve energy. We need a Manhattan project for bio-fuels, and an Apollo program to reduce energy consumption by 1% a year - over the next 100 years - it could reach zero! Absolute poverty is very sustainable.

wehmeyer doctrine of self determination

SELF DETERMINATION

Michael Wehmeyer defines Self-Determination as “acting as the primary causal agent in one’s life and making choices and decisions regarding one’s quality of life free from undue external influence or interference.” This is an extension from natural law theory, and a repudiation of the nanny welfare state. Although Wehmeyer developed this more for individuals with disabilities and with implicit positive rights, I believe it to be a valid statement for all people more inline with the negative rights that Lock and Hume believed in. As Hayek points out, that once the state gets involved in governing peoples lives, ultimately self efficacy is removed from the individual to be replaced by the state, no matter how sincere the original intentions were. The state ultimately, as an entity is removed from negative consequences of ill conceived social policy, and often makes matters worse by increasing program X even after it has been proven ineffective. The mis-logic of program X failing and proposals of "we need more of program X to meet our progressive goals" should be self evident. It is illegitimate to just take (steal) the funding from the rest of society as if it is a fundamental positive right. As a matter of practice, it would be legitimate for advocates to inform the public to vote to give stipends to individuals with disabilities, to use or misuse as they see fit, to meet basic needs and recreation, with support staff of their choosing. Persuasion is always better than coercion - unless one wants to travel down the road to serfdom.

nuclear days are over

MILITARY DEFENSE

Nuclear deterrence is not an effective defense any more. Because of the current state of western progressive thought, it would not be acceptable to them, to retaliate against a third world nation with nuclear weapons. Even if a state actor hit the U.S. or Europe with an atomic weapon either by missile or smuggled in, Nato would have to respond with conventional forces. The outcry among the pacifists would be too great, and make even strong willed leaders shudder at the thought of vaporizing innocents. Obviously nuclear deterrence is no deterrence against non-state actors. One can threaten to annihilate the entire holey land if terrorists struck, but could not carry out that revenge. Advanced nations may only strike military targets - that's barley even justified in this day and age. Terrorists may strike anyone - even civilian women and children - its our fault after all. What is a worse stain on humanity? Forcing prisoners to form naked pyramids or luring in a journalist, trying to get a story, and beheading him on video? Detaining suspected islamofascists in a tropical prison or flying passenger airplanes into skyscrapers? The world court of opinion has spoken.