Thoughts Aloud

Archive for December, 2008

Joseph Farah’s New Year’s Message is one of the most optimistic I have seen:

Unlike many of you reading this column today, I am not fearful about the attacks on freedom that are surely coming this year and next, I see them as a necessary evil for a reawakening of the American public. Nothing short of what is coming could possibly get us back on track.

I’m not telling you to sit back and relax. I’m advising you to hunker down for battle. It’s not going to be easy. But there is an end in sight.

Here’s what I see coming in 2009:

• attacks on our most fundamental right to bear arms;
• attacks on our most fundamental right to free expression;
• attacks on our most fundamental property rights;
• attacks on our most fundamental system of free enterprise.

Socialism is coming to America – and it is coming like a speeding freight train.

But, if we play our cards right, none of the damage will be permanent – and it will soon be obvious to nearly all who was responsible for the misery it created.

We may be mourning for America for the next two years. But morning in America can be right around the corner.

As I have pointed out many times, we had to live through the Jimmy Carter years to get the Ronald Reagan years. There is no conceivable way Ronald Reagan gets elected president in 1980 without America experiencing the misery of the Carter years. It’s just that simple.

Likewise, the short-lived but memorable victory of Republicans in 1994 would not have been possible without the overreaching of Bill and Hillary Clinton in 1993 and 1994. The Republicans squandered that opportunity, but no one can deny the opportunity presented itself because of Clinton and the Democrats’ control of both houses of Congress.

He may be right; but that list of attacks on our “most fundamental…” is ominous and I think accurate. I’d say the tricky part of his optimism is the little qualifier, “…if we play our cards right…” That is a huge “if.” First, all available evidence suggests that once our government usurps a power that was not within it’s Constitutional purview, it is nigh on impossible to take it back. Time is not on our side, as the public schools are churning out more little socialists every year, and we capitalists are dying off at an equal rate.

Meanwhile, if we don’t somehow recapture the Republican Party from the twin altruistic forces of “neoconservative” Progressives on its Left, and Christian Fundamentalists on its Right, it is not going to be championing Reagan-like Individual Liberty when its turn in the sandbox comes again in 2012 or 2016. I don’t think Washingtonians are even capable of understanding why Sarah Palin was so popular. Left alone, they will just keep trying to pander to the domesticated minorities at their trough, and ignore the feral Patriots who increasingly won’t even bother to come out of the woods, to choose only between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. ◄Dave►

Here is a very interesting article, “Are Americans safe from U.S. mosques?” It describes a project by private citizens to map the level of Shariah Law adherence by the estimated 2,300 mosques in the US, as predictive of their threat to our security:

…The premise is that all streams and sects of Islam recognize a form of Shariah. His primary concern, for the purpose of assessing the threat to the U.S., is the mosque’s degree of adherence.

Of interest to most Americans, of course, is the threat of violent jihad. But Gaubatz notes there are two other forms of jihad at work in the U.S. to advance Islam, the pen and the tongue.

“We focus too much on why we haven’t had an attack since 2001 in the United States, because the pen and the tongue right now are winning here,” Gaubatz said. “Why would you go for number three, the physical jihad, if you’re already achieving goals one and two?

…Virtually all Islamic leaders in the U.S. have been particularly careful since the 9/11 attacks about what they say publicly, Gaubatz said. But many Shariah-compliant mosques and schools distribute materials supporting or calling for violent jihad. In a widely distributed DVD, for example, an Islamic scholar in the U.S., Ahmad Sakr, declares in a pre-2001 sermon, “Do not follow the laws of the U.S. Constitution, do not follow the congressmen and other U.S. leaders, they will all go to hell, follow Shariah law.”

After reading the whole article, it is amazing to me that Homeland Security is not doing this task themselves. Political Correctness is insidious, and will be one of the major factors responsible for hastening Jihadist Islam’s inevitable ultimate victory over Western Civilization.

If we are not permitted to name our enemy, and it is only polite to discourage their more violent tactics, what possible chance do we have for prevailing over their determination to subjugate us with their glorious dreams of a global Caliphate? We might as well go buy prayer rugs for our grandchildren. ◄Dave►

I have chaffed at the notion of “limited warfare” since Vietnam. I reckon that a people get the government they deserve, and I have no sympathy for the wives, children, and supporters of those who have declared war on me and mine. The current hand wringing over a few civilian casualties in Israel’s war with Hamas is nonsense. The Palestinians freely elected Hamas for their government, precisely because these terrorists vow to push Israel into the sea. Actions have consequences, and the sooner they learn of their foolishness, and are completely and utterly vanquished beyond all will to try it again, the sooner peace will become possible in Palestine.

Vanderleun has recycled a five-year-old memo he wrote for the Israelis to deliver to the Palestinians. Too bad they didn’t use it; but hopefully they are in the process of executing its intent, for they don’t seem to be paying the international community much heed:

We have, with your agreement and assurances of a better performance, given you time, money, professional help, medication and a more than reasonable offer of land for you to live in while you work out “your issues.” In the course of these meetings we feel we have been more than forthcoming in our attendance to your “special needs.”…

It has come to our attention, through a continuing rain of the body parts of our citizens onto our streets, that “your issues” do not seem to be resolvable through considered and mutually agreeable negotiations. The outcome of these ‘negotiations’ in the recent past seems to us to be one of we give and you take and then you kill us. We have decided that this is not a peace project that we wish to continue…

Bear in mind that we have not in recent memory over-reacted against your unremitting efforts to exterminate us. We have been patient and measured in our responses, cognizant of a watching world and not wanting to seem, even for a moment, to be as savage and violent as those who have been waging a coward’s war against us for decades. We have, at all points, been as honorable in war as possible — even when the wars in which we were engaged were not fought by honorable adversaries but by cowards and murderers…

Because we are weary of having our streets used as your martyr’s mausoleums, because we are extremely angered when we must place the shredded bodies of our children into body bags, because we would feel a lot better getting up in the morning if we knew we’d be coming home at night, we have decided we must, regretfully, engage in methods which will, finally, either get your attention or leave you without the capacity for attention in the first place…

Should you fail to do so and, as we stated above, even one more of our citizens should be killed by the cowardly methods you have perfected over the years, we will conclude that your entire society values martyrdom more than life and peace and will endeavor, to the utmost limits of our ability, to supply you with same.

Read the whole thing. It is masterful. ◄Dave►

I posted about Prof. Panarin’s prediction a month ago: “Russia Gets It!” Now there is a WSJ Article about it:

“There’s a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur,” he says. “One could rejoice in that process,” he adds, poker-faced. “But if we’re talking reasonably, it’s not the best scenario — for Russia.” Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces — with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

While the article makes it clear that a lot of people don’t take him seriously, his credentials and access to data are sobering. So is his map:

I certainly don’t agree with his predicted territories, and I suspect Sarah Palin isn’t going to give up Alaska to Russia without a fight; but the notion of a breakup during the coming depression is sounding less nutty all the time. Another telling quote:

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia’s biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt “a pyramid scheme,” and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington’s role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama “can work miracles,” he wrote. “But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

A Ponzi scheme has never been saved by a miracle… ◄Dave►

Now, here is a thought provoking website: “Friends Of the Article V Convention” that I need to explore further.

Heretofore, I have gotten nervous every time I hear someone mention a Constitutional Convention, because I thought much mischief could be done to our basic rights by the Left, who would love to, for instance, abolish the Second Amendment.

These folks appear to be wishing to preserve and/or rekindle the original intent of the document, and reverse some of the perversions of it, which have put too much power in DC. I need to think more about this; but one blog entry is certainly provocative of such thought:

A Constitutional Convention should not be convened lightly, but these are not ordinary times thanks to the accumulating damage from a progression of power hungry presidents going back to Nixon. People are recognizing exactly this as a problem, and thus the volume of discussion on the desirability of “revolution”. Well, a Constitutional Convention can be revolutionary, and would represent revolution in its most peaceful and effective form.

If we want every luminary in the land involved in the discussion of where to take this nation (and, indeed, the world) from here, we need only structure our Convention in that manner. With this tool, our choices are infinite.

Nor should we fear it, because this is the ultimate in government of, by, and for the people. There is only a small segment of our population that is stupid enough to be worrisome during a process that would be the most closely watched of anything in our entire lives.

There is no higher body politic than “the people”. All else in government flows from that (the consent of the governed) and are mechanisms created solely for our convenience. Now, however, there is a consensus forming that the system, itself, is not functioning correctly. Is it malfunctioning because of a fault in the system, or because of something separate from the design of the system? Those are the kinds of issues that a wide ranging Constitutional Convention can hammer out. And we need fear no proposed changes because all proposals are subject to ratification.

Once, a very long time ago, the country invested the time, energy, money, and talent to hammer out a blueprint of a social contract, and created a glorious work product. Now, however, there are real questions about whether it still can and will take us where we want, as a nation, to go. Or is the question only that the journey has become vastly more complex, and we only need to try to reach another consensus on the destination that we want to strive for?

In any event, a Constitutional Convention provides the framework within which such an important and wide ranging national discussion can be held. We know what happens when we break into groups that talk past each other. A Constitutional Convention constitutes a forum where everyone in the country would listen to every idea and viewpoint because the publicity would tell them that this is the single most important thing that has happened in our nation since the last time that we all made the effort to talk and listen to each other.

It occurs to me that if I have already given up on there being any future for America; that our only recourse will soon be another revolution; or that it is time for secessionist movements to break it apart; then how much harm would be done by trying an Article V convention? Any thoughts? ◄Dave►

OK, I have been poking and tweaking the back end of this thing today. I have enabled gravatars now, so those with a global gravatar at WordPress.com or Gravatar.com et al ,should have it show up here on your comments. If you do not have one uploaded there, it generates a pattern that is unique for you. If you look at one of my comments, it will be obvious that I created my own gravatar and uploaded it as a picture file to the WordPress site.

I also enabled a spam checking plug-in that is supposed to catch most of the robotic spam. I made a test comment and it was just as fast as usual, so I hope it doesn’t slow down the commenting process appreciably. I will be more dilligent at looking in the moderation cue to make sure it didn’t trap a legitimate comment. ◄Dave►

In the Financial Times a couple of weeks ago was a sobering article entitled, “And now for a world government.”:

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

Susan Rice; John Podesta; Strobe Talbott; any of those names sound familiar? Elections have consequences, and those celebrating the coming era of “Hopenchange” have no earthly idea what they have wrought. ◄Dave►

The following is slightly adapted from a comment I made at the Secular Right blog today:

I find myself reluctantly reevaluating the value to me of participating here. It held such promise; yet I suppose I expected more political discourse, and a whole lot less theological debate. I really appreciate the quality of minds and discourse found here, both from the posters and the majority of commenters. This obviously speaks well of the moderators ability to consign moonbats’ comments to the bit bucket.

I enjoy the philosophical and psychological discussions; but not the theological wrangling that so many threads devolve into. I perceive an existential need for those of us pining for maximum individual Liberty, and the minimal government necessary to secure it as envisioned by our Founders, to free ourselves from the dogmatic battle between the Politically Correct forces on the Left, and the Piously Correct forces on the Right.

If our republic is truly meant to be secular, their competing moral codes have no relevance to good government. We make a huge mistake by allowing these two factions to frame the debate in elections for our representatives, with their litmus tests for conformance to their PC dogma. Their struggle is pointless to individuals with more enlightened moral codes of their own, which they have no desire to impose on others.

We need a Secular Party that rejects the imposition of any particular moral code on individuals. Since the game is rigged against third parties, it seems more practical to hijack one of the two major ones. The Democrat Party is currently held hostage by the Marxists, who invented labor strife, socialism, environmentalism, and Political Correctness. The Republican Party is currently held hostage by the fundamentalist Christians; but at least it prefers capitalism for an economic model, even if corporatism seems to be gaining the upper hand over liassez faire.

It thus seems more practical to target the Republican Party and throw its “faith based” religious leaders under the bus, so that all the true secularists on the Left, who are not PC Marxists or environmental wackos, could also feel at home among us. I posit that today we are the silent majority, and could get this country back on track if we just stopped legitimizing the moralists’ PC issues.

I suspect that most individual Christians would be happy to let go of their need to bring their Piously Correct morality into the public square of political debate, if they were assured that the Politically Correct camp couldn’t impose theirs on us all either. The opposite may also be true, although I am less convinced of it. In any case, I would like to see more practical discussions regarding how to reverse the trend toward statism evinced by the last couple of elections.

In the meantime, I will just have to learn to discipline myself not to waste time reading the likes of the comments above, and the rebuttals they attract. I am sure she is a nice lady, and she writes of her beliefs well; but I moved past the slightest interest in what Jesus or the bible says forty years ago, and I just don’t see their relevance to practical discussions among the Secular Right.

It may not be pleasant telling such people that their faith has no standing in our quest for good government, and I take no pleasure in offending them by doing so; but sooner or later we are going to have to, if we have any hope of saving our country from the trend toward a Marxist tyranny. The effectiveness of the messianic personality cult underlying Obama’s campaign was particularly disturbing. The faithful have become a decided hindrance to the cause of Liberty, even if they think they are trying to help. ◄Dave►

Then, in rebuttal to a reply from a member of the Religious Right, I said:

You cannot recover or sustain liberty without us.

I didn’t intend to. I made the point that most Christians would accept a secular government in DC, if they could get the ACLU off their backs in Peoria. The question is, what would it take to get the abortion or gay issue off the table? These morality issues are losers, for here the Religious Right is decidedly outnumbered. By forcing Republican candidates to take a public stand on them to get the nomination, other secularists are driven into the camp of the Progressives as perhaps their lesser of two evils.

Obama et al is permitted to claim to be a Christian and pro-choice/gay at the same time. Except in the North East, Republicans are not. The devout may take comfort in a President claiming to get on his knees and pray for guidance from his god; but there are a whole lot of folks that are made extremely nervous by such a notion.

They would prefer a President who took responsibility for his own actions and mistakes, rather than smugly resting assured that he was following his god’s will, and the noisy vox populi be damned. The Progressive Public School factories are churning out these Politically Correct voters, much faster than the churches are creating Piously Correct voters. Fundamentalists are losing the demographics game, and increasingly are just playing the role of spoilers.

I reckon that if there was only a Secular Party and a Progressive Party, most considering themselves among the Religious Right, would vote for the PC-neutral Secular candidate anyway. Perhaps as only the lesser of two evils; but the Secularists would get their votes by default, without any need to pander to them, which is what is inexorably killing the Republican Party.

There is plenty of common ground to be found in our shared wish to restore constitutional (limited) government and free enterprise.

Agreed. Help us devise a strategy for getting the PC morality debate off the table, and I will happily vote for you as Sarah Palin’s VP in ’12. ◄Dave►

Bloggers are starting to post their life’s job history, and some of them are interesting. I first encountered it at American Digest, and traced the meme back to one called Stageleft:

The most interesting things about blogging is the bloggers. I’ve only ever met four of you out there in the real world, but in some ways I think of many of you as friends.

But I don’t know very much about anyone. And it’s been a long time since we had a new meme. So here’s one.

It’s simple. Just list all the jobs you’ve had in your life, in order. Don’t bust your brain: no durations or details are necessary, and feel free to omit anything that you feel might tend to incriminate you. I’m just curious. And when you’re done, tag another five bloggers you’re curious about.

Serendipitously, I mentioned in a comment just a couple of days ago that I have had a lot of interesting life experiences; but still hadn’t decided what I am going to be when I grow up. I’ll play. So far, I have tried:

• Lawn Mower
• Fishing Worm Breeder/Wholesaler
• Snow Shoveler
• Paper Boy
• Pig Farmer
• Pine Cone Gatherer
• Chicken Farmer
• Car Wash Attendant
• Farm Laborer
• Fruit Picker
• Almond Knocker (hardest job ever)
• Grease Monkey
• Grocery Box Boy
• Busboy
• Ice Cream Dipper (Thrifty Drugstore)
• Sales Clerk
• Radio/TV Repair
• Grocery Clerk
• U.S. Army Soldier
• Microwave Radio Repair
• Morse Code/RTTY Operator
• Waiter
• Bartender
• Bouncer
• Policeman
• Electronic Test Equipment Repair /Calibration
• Satellite Tracking Station Telemetry Technician
• Computer Engineer
• Computer Programmer
• Computer Designer
• Electrical Contractor
• Burglar Alarm Business (Seychelles Islands)
• Farm Manager (Rhodesia)
• 2-Way Radio Repair (Rhodesia)
• Quasi-mercenary (Rhodesia)
• Solar Energy Contractor
• Solar Collector Manufacturer
• Solar Collector Traveling Salesman
• Charter Boat Deckhand
• Commercial Fisherman (California)
• Newspaper Columnist
• Yacht Captain (Mexico)
• Tuna Boat Captain (Hawaii)
• Marine Electronics Business
• Fishing Magazine Columnist
• 2-Way Radio Business
• Cell Phone/Fax Machine Retailer
• PC Clone Manufacturer
• Computer Consultant
• FM Radio Station Engineer
• Cattle Rancher
• Retirement Care Facility for the Elderly
• Montessori Preschool
• Business Consultant
• Webmaster
• Ghost Writer

Many were entrepreneurial pursuits rather than jobs, so I just listed all the different ways in which I have earned money. I have lived in eight countries and sixteen States, so home is where my bunk is at any particular time. Several were repeated in new locales; but the list was already long enough, so I didn’t repeat the duplicates. I suspect I may have left a few out.

I tag all the other few bloggers who happen to read this. You know who you are, and I would be interested in reading your background. ◄Dave►

When I look at her aging face, it is scary that I remember when Caroline Kennedy was born. Now, after no other qualifications than having picked those famous parents, she thinks she she deserves to be a Senator. Much has been written about this, but none as well as Victor Davis Hansen’s take. It is a must read, and the E3Gazzette sets it up masterfully in “Send In The Clowns…” ◄Dave►

I participated extensively today on an interesting thread at the Secular Right Blog, regarding a study that claimed Secular Conservatives were the stingiest of givers to charity. This is a topic I hold some passion for, and among several rebuttals to challenges, I made the following three posts which I repeat here for posterity:

Oh my, so many thoughts on this subject… I could write an epistle on it; but will try to break it into separate comments.

First, Secular Conservatives, who to my mind are closet libertarians, are precisely the rational folks who understand the virtue of selfishness and the evil of altruism. One would hope that a Secular Conservative would not succumb to guilt, and allow their self-worth to be judged by the role models of the altruistic Robin Hoods of the Secular Left, or the altruistic Good Samaritans of the Christian Right.

Both exalt victimhood and demonize the industrious geese that lay the golden eggs, which they so enjoy redistributing as charity. All either is peddling is guilt; and I for one, am not buying it. I am not a serf or slave in a collective, and owe no one outside my household a living.

Yes, I acknowledge that I am totally selfish and immune to guilt over it. I posit that there is no such thing as an altruistic act. Those who think so, are ignoring the personal pleasure the giver takes from the giving. When I do someone a kindness, the good feeling I received exceeded the value of my charity. Otherwise, I would not have voluntarily done it. Could it be otherwise?

That said, those I regularly encounter around me, generally benefit from my selfish industry; be they employees, customers, or neighbors. One thing is sure; as a self-sufficient member of society, I am not a drain on their resources in the slightest. ◄Dave►

I wonder how much charity by the rationally selfish goes unreported. Mine certainly never is.

I rather enjoy being charitable, when I personally know the recipient, or otherwise can see for myself the positive effect of my act of charity. I never have a coin left in my pocket after walking past a Salvation Army kettle, and sometimes stuff a bill or two in one as well; but that is the only organized charity I ever contribute to.

I discovered long ago the immeasurable pleasure I could purchase for myself, by the simple act of giving a hundred dollar tip for a cup of coffee at this time of year. When I can see for myself the determination of a struggling young single mom to provide for her family, giving her a hand in making their Christmas special is incredibly satisfying. The utterly sincere gratitude I receive from another diligent human, who does not claim entitlement to my earnings, nor consider my gift coerced from me or extracted out of guilt, is just priceless.

I own a preschool, with an authentic Montessori education program second to none, and struggle to keep tuition rates affordable to average families in my community. Since we could easily double them and cater to the elite, as so many other Montessori schools do, that in itself is arguably an unreported act of charity.

Moreover, we always accept a few welfare subsidized students, for the diversity it provides in our environment, even though the paperwork this entails is onerous, and it is not uncommon for a parent to lose eligibility midyear and not be able to afford the tuition without it. Frequently when this happens, we will absorb the lost income for the sake of the child, if not the too often hopelessly screwed up parent. Since space in a classroom is all that we have to sell, this too represents thousands of dollars of unreported charity from a very selfish man.

Needless to say, I do it for the gratification of knowing I am making a difference in the life of a hapless child I personally know and have grown fond of. Color me selfish and proud of it; but at least I do it voluntarily, avoid the wasted overhead of a middleman, get to choose my own cause, and see the positive effect for myself. ◄Dave►

The best thing any individual can do to alleviate poverty is start a business and create jobs.

Agreed. Those who haven’t tried this, probably have no idea how many charity schemes exist, and why business people get an unjust reputation as being greedy and/or hardhearted. There are all manner of quasi-fraudulent organizations with elaborate schemes for organizing local charity events to raise money for one obscure cause or another, which consume 90% or more of what they collect in their own overhead, and they are constantly pestering small businesses to sponsor them.

Then, there are all the well-meaning, but just as irritating, locally concocted charity drives that expect every business to jump at the chance to donate something to their oh-so-worthy cause. Besides the churches and traditional benevolent societies, it seems that every social club in town feels a need to put on at least one charity event every year, to “give back to the community.” You might be amazed at the excuses people use to form such a club, for they are legion. My own Corvette club comes to mind; but egad, some will even form among owners of Mustangs!

The guys just want to play with their toys; but the wives always include a few civic minded ladies who insist that even a car show should have a charity raffle to justify the event. Then they hit up every business in town to be a sponsor or at least donate a prize for the raffle.

Most small businesses get from several to many calls every week from these people, and simply could not donate to all of them and still make payroll. Choices have to be made, and it is usually a no-win proposition. Trying to say, “no” often elicits the guilt card, implying one is selfish or not civic minded enough. Saying, “yes” is not considered virtuous, only expected. Then, those turned down out of necessity, are likely to tell their friends about the Scrooge. Talk about the world being unfair…

As a Christmas gift to the entrepreneurs hereabouts, allow me to share a surefire, yet polite, method for cutting these calls short, before the guilt card is ever played. I stop them mid-spiel with, “I’m sorry, our charity budget is already allocated for this year, perhaps you might apply earlier for consideration in next years budget.” This always works, and in hundreds of uses, I have only ever been asked once when the window for application is. The pros from out of town hang up immediately, to move on to greener pastures with their telemarketing time. The local amateurs lose the leverage of guilt, because I have acknowledged my “civic duty” to be charitable, and implied that I am even organized about it. Stymied, they usually just politely thank me for my time and hang up too. Try it; you will love the effect. ◄Dave►

As I said, I have a bee in my bonnet over the subject, and have made myself a nuisance to the sob sisters in my Corvette club; but I reckon my reasoning is sound, and business people get a really bad rap they do not deserve over it. ◄Dave►

It occurs to me that the essay on political language I have been working on intermittently of late is getting long, and might benefit from being published in two parts for regular readers. Then, I have benefited from the comments of others, on previous attempts at depicting the political spectrum; so perhaps allowing for critique of a semi-final draft could make it better in the end. With these goals in mind, here is the first half:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down–up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order–or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. -Ronald Regan (1964)

Without language, there could be no rational thought or even human consciousness. Words are symbolic representations of concepts, whether simple or extremely complex, and are the scaffold on which we construct our ideas. The quality and efficiency of our thinking is dependent on our vocabulary, and nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of politics. Whole lifetimes of research and contemplation, which can and does fill volumes, can be expressed in the shorthand of a single word, e.g. Marxism or capitalism. For functional communication, however, one’s correspondent must share the same definition of such words.

When the meaning of a word changes, the thoughts and associations it evokes necessarily change too. This is the power behind the Orwellian technique for muddling the content of our minds, in the deliberate process of “dumbing down” Americans, to create rather thoughtless and compliant “workers” and “consumers.” Because their definitions keep evolving, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have become so meaningless to useful thought for me, that for the past couple of years I have stopped using them altogether in political discourse. I usually simply use “Left” and “Right” to convey what others generally intend to mean, when they still do.

While decidedly less ambiguous, even these terms are hopelessly inadequate for serious political thought; as Reagan had already noticed over forty years ago. They are a false dichotomy perpetrated by Incumbrepublocrat Party politicians, to divide Americans into one of their two allegedly competing camps. Free sovereign individuals, without a common existential enemy, have no need of exalted leaders, and are almost impossible to control. Witness the recent specter of “Joe the Plumber,” not in the least awestruck by the presence of “The One” in his neighborhood. He regarded the charismatic candidate, so mesmerizing to others, as merely another applicant for a civil servant job. He asked him some pertinent probing questions, which the fawning press almost never did, with revealing effect that embarrassed his supporters.

Moreover, the politicians’ Left/Right line is of little real value for illustrating the political spectrum, and plotting the relative positions of the sundry ideologies claiming superiority as organizing principles for society. I have been struggling with confusing political labels and trying to make sense of the political spectrum for almost 50 years now, and this is intended to share whatever wisdom my thoughtful pursuit has garnered. In the process, I hope to elicit your help in freeing Americans from the Left/Right mental trap, and spread the concept of an Up/Down oriented political map that Regan would have endorsed.

When I was a junior in high school, our favorite teacher taught a civics class using a textbook entitled, “World Government.” Years later, I learned that it had been authored by a Marxist for the communist dominated UNESCO, which I and millions of other Americans had innocently collected pennies for on Halloween as a child. The premise of the course was that it was inevitable that the myriad ills of nationalism would eventually fade away, as we evolved to adopt a world government modeled after the UN, and that this was a very good thing. Much admiring of this “cool” teacher, my plastic young mind bought this Utopian notion hook, line, and sinker.

He first introduced me to the terms “liberal” and “conservative,” by explaining that a liberal was “a young dynamic person, who wanted to change the world and make it a better place to live.” On the other hand, a conservative was “an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy, like your parents, who either wanted things to remain as they were, or (gasp!) revert to their vision of the (mercifully) bygone ‘good old days’.” Then he asked for a show of hands; and predictably, the entire class chose to self-identify as “liberals.”

What he failed to teach us, if he even knew it, was that the original liberals were revolutionaries like our Founders, bent on Liberty – freedom for the individual from the bondage of landless serfdom, which the medieval establishments of church and state wished to “conserve” for the propertied elites. That the collectivist Utopia dreamed of by the global idealists, would be a regression to serfdom on state owned land, was never mentioned. He was peddling “Hope and Change” – that universal elixir for impatient youthful idealists and mind-numbed victims of true oppression the world over – without much in the way of inconvenient details.

Today, after well over a century of ascendancy, it is an arguable proposition that the Progressives on the Left represent the current “establishment,” and thus are the modern “conservatives.” They haven’t come up with a new idea in generations, and are now rather desperately defending the status quo, and/or pining for the “good old days” of FDR’s “New Deal” or LBJ’s “Great Society.” All of the truly innovative ideas for improving our society are now coming from the Right, and many of them resemble those espoused by the original definition of “liberal” thinkers, influenced by John Locke, et al.

My dad was a union member when I was indoctrinated as a liberal; so, unlike many, I didn’t have to rebel politically against my own two fuddy-duddy Democrats. My family had celebrated the inauguration of John F. Kennedy as President earlier that same year. While JFK was a Democrat, and considered the epitome of a young dynamic liberal; he was by no means a Marxist or a pacifist. He was the dashing WWII hero of PT-109, who had already crossed swords with the Soviets in the Bay of Pigs and Berlin. He would soon expand our mission in Vietnam, ostensibly to prevent the Chicoms from conquering all of South East Asia. He also cut taxes to stimulate the economy and increase government revenue, proving “trickle down” economic theory worked a generation before Reagan reintroduced it. There would be no place for Kennedy in today’s Democrat Party, and he would have about as much chance as Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman of winning their Primary these days.

Over time, my essentially conservative parents – both from the South and Dad a WWII veteran himself – didn’t think too much of Jacqueline or Camelot. Royalty didn’t impress these common folks. They also got a little twitchy over the Peace Corps; but they were Democrats to the core, and rallied behind Kennedy again when the Cuban Missile Crisis erupted in my senior year. I remember announcing that if we went to war, they had better be prepared to sign the waiver (I was 17), because I would be joining up. Patriotic though my family was at the time, I don’t think Mom much liked that idea, but I could tell Dad understood.

In fact, he encouraged me the next summer, when I joined the Army straight out of high school. It was only a couple of weeks before my 18^th birthday, so Mom signed the waiver without much protest. The Tonkin Gulf affair was still a year away, and they viewed my three year hitch more as a rather necessary character building exercise for a contumacious juvenile delinquent, than a serious risk to my life.

JFK was assassinated while I was still in advanced training, and to the dismay of almost everyone outside of Texas, LBJ was sworn in. When I deployed to Asia shortly thereafter, I was still superficially a liberal Democrat, off to make the world a better place; leaving behind a couple of conservative Democrat parents, who would soon become disenchanted over Johnson’s “Great Society” programs.

Politics didn’t matter much in the Army. I couldn’t vote until I got out and turned 21, anyway. I do recall that even the Army Times didn’t much care for Goldwater in ’64, and writing my parents to tell them not to vote for him, because he might start a direct war with China. I was way too close to the DMZ to comfortably contemplate the specter of hordes of Chicom regulars pouring across it.

Returning to California as a newly minted civilian again in ’66, the calendar soon conferred upon me some of the privileges of adulthood, which three years in uniform shouldering its responsibilities had not. Being able to legally participate in our society’s nightlife was cool; but I took my new voting franchise seriously. I wanted to understand the issues so I could vote for candidates who best represented my own values. I naturally started my quest from the premise that I was still “a young dynamic person, who wanted to change the world and make it a better place to live.” After all, hadn’t I just spent three years making the world “safe for democracy,” by thwarting the regressive forces of “tyranny” known as “communism?”

Wasn’t the “freedom” enjoyed in America infinitely better than being an impoverished “worker” in the Soviet Union? I was aware that there were Marxists – both “communists” and “fellow travelers” calling themselves “socialists” – in America; but I naturally assumed that this Fifth Column expected to be among the privileged leaders of a Marxist America. Having spent the past three years among warriors instead of in a university, it simply never occurred to me that any real American would willingly accept the status of a mind-numbed robot as one of their serfs.

Still assuming I was a Democrat, I found California’s political world upside down. I had matured into a self-confident young man, and immediately noticed that my contemporaries who had not yet served, had not; but it was more than that. I was even more anti-communist than before, strongly supportive of our SEATO mission, and naturally assumed that a man was expected to take care of himself and his family responsibly; but these had never been illiberal or un-Democratic values. Yet, to my shock, my parents had morphed into Republicans and were planning to vote for “only an actor” for Governor! They had simply had enough of the “Great Society,” with unkempt hippies and peaceniks protesting everywhere, while rapidly taking over the Democrat Party.

This irritated my parents more than I could understand. It seemed to me that the hippies and fuddy-duddies both wanted pretty much the same thing; namely, to be left alone by government so they could live their own lives as they chose to live them. While they couldn’t understand each other’s worldview, neither seemed too inclined to force the other to adopt their own values, they just wanted not to be harassed by each other. I would have thought them natural allies; but the politicians managed to convince them they were on opposite sides.

I ended up also casting my first ever vote for Ronald Reagan for Governor; but it wasn’t my parents who swayed me. That task befell a fellow named Bob Welch. No, not that Robert Welch… Bob was just my boss; but he was in fact an open member of the John Birch Society, which is probably why I even remember his name. We shared a workbench and could freely chat as we repaired and calibrated electronic test equipment for a living.

That a responsible and competent young man, with apparent common sense and impeccable anti-communist credentials, could even consider himself a “liberal,” drove Bob ’round the bend; and he made it a mission to “save” me from my ignorance. Those daily engrossing and thought provoking conversations probably imbued me with my love of political debate, even though I was hopelessly outgunned and lost almost all of our arguments.

To be fair, he cheated. He loaned me a book entitled, “None Dare Call it Treason” and insisted that I read it on my own time. It was written as a campaign book during Goldwater’s contest with Johnson in ’64, with an inflammatory style and full of footnoted “facts” and citations. There was no internet in ’66, much less Google, and in my naïveté, I placed way too much confidence in the numerous references to the Congressional Record. At the time, I did not understand how easy it is for congressmen to enter reams of speculative verbiage therein, and assumed references to it were authoritative.

Still, if a tenth of its content was accurate, it was damning enough. It was so inflammatory to a Cold Warrior that I couldn’t read more than a chapter at a time without throwing it across the room in rage. All along, I had assumed our government’s intent was to ultimately defeat the Soviet Union, and free mankind from communist enslavement; yet here was reference after reference suggesting the opposite.

Why in hell were we selling turbine engines to Czechoslovakia, which were ending up in Soviet MIGs? Examples of such incomprehensible business dealings with the Soviet Bloc were legion. The Communists’ domination of UNESCO was exposed, including mention of my “World Government” textbook! This one really set me off. Then, if an oppressed people will only rise up to overthrow an oppressor when they are hungry, why did we ship Russia wheat every time their miserable feudal system caused Soviet agriculture to fail, and famine loomed? What in the world were our politicians thinking?

Was Washington DC virtually overrun with “fellow travelers” on the Left, who didn’t really want to defeat communism? That was the thrust of the book, and I was too naïve to ask if perhaps it was as much the corporatists on the Right desiring new markets, regardless of national interest. In retrospect, it was probably a measure of both; but the average real American would have supported neither. We don’t fight limited wars for chessboard motives. Most Americans are not easily goaded into preemptive war; but once engaged in one, we insist on winning it.

Bob converted me from a Democrat to a Republican, by convincing me that the tyranny of Marxism beckoned on the Left, with freedom and capitalism increasingly only championed by the Right; but he failed to make a “conservative” out of me, by the generally accepted meaning of the term. Although I wouldn’t admit it in polite company at the time, I was as godless as the Commies, and still as uninterested as the hippies in having bible-thumping fuddy-duddies regulating my moral behavior. After all, as a single young man, this new “free love” thing was rather hormonally appealing.

I recall my early efforts to explain my new political viewpoint as, “Politically conservative and morally liberal.” In today’s lexicon, I was trying to say, “Fiscally conservative and socially progressive.” It would be another ten years before I got around to reading Ayn Rand and finding a compatible rational worldview; but already I was becoming a libertarian before I ever heard the word. To me at the time, politics was the realm of competing economic systems, and tyranny vs. Liberty, not morality.

I had been taught that our forefathers had fled religious intolerance in Europe, to a land where individual Liberty permitted one to believe, or not, whatever one wished; and to belong, or not, to any church of one’s choosing. I didn’t think trying to use government to impose a religious moral code on everyone, was any more legitimate than Marxists trying to impose a Utopian economic model on free people. I still don’t.

Thinking back, Bob also made a rather cynical political junkie out of me. I loved our eye-opening political discussions; but soon learned to distrust the motives and agendas of all politicians, and how to ferret them out of the noisy pandering, preaching, and demagoguery. Politics is a great spectator sport, if one doesn’t drink any Kool-Aid and can keep an open mind. The trick is to admire the skill and finesse of the players, whichever team they are playing for. When one is rooting for a team, it is hard to be objective.

Since libertarians are not permitted to field a team in the big leagues, this is not difficult for me. It is the process of American politics that I relish, not the end result, which I rarely find satisfactory. Because of my love of language, I particularly enjoy observing the clever spinmeisters at work. Their skill at manipulating mindless sheeple is a wonder to behold, whatever one thinks of their agenda. Sometimes I agree, most often I don’t; but a connoisseur of the art can appreciate competent technique in either case.

Clinton and some of his protégés were extemporaneous masters. Bush’s greatest failing as a politician, is that he hopelessly is not. Yet, even Bush bests Obama’s pathetic stammering when deprived of a script and a teleprompter. Bush can trip over an unexpected question at a news conference; Obama sounds like all the questions were unexpected.

I listen very carefully and critically to political spin, noting the words that work, and those that don’t. Focus group tested talking points, and Orwellian redefinitions, leap out at me within hours of their being introduced as budding memes into our culture; and it is fascinating to notice how soon they are being parroted by the media and even oblivious politicians among their opposition.

No one wishes to admit that they don’t understand a slick new word being used by all the insiders, nor even bother to look it up; so they just carelessly accept the connotation presented and add it to their lexicon. It is astounding how almost immediately effective spin is. It can become conventional wisdom overnight.

The relative ease, with which such elegant manipulation of our national mindset is accomplished, bespeaks the awesome power of language over us all. The pen truly is mightier than the sword… Then again, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. We shall see.

[At this point would come the new diagram already shared and commented on over here. Following that will be the explanation of its components, which will be part two. Critique and comments are encouraged and will be much appreciated. For any readers who may have not commented before because this blog was configured to require registration, it no longer is; so please do.] ◄Dave►

David Boaz of the Cato Institute makes an interesting case:

Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic suggests that the federal government use its new power over the auto companies to fire a General Motors vice chairman who has expressed skepticism about the catastrophic effects of global warming, and congressional Democrats wanted to forbid the firms from filing lawsuits against state environmental regulations.

That’s corporatism for you: Big, established corporations get taxpayers’ money as long as any dissenting scientific or political opinions are suppressed.

Socialism is dead even in Moscow and Beijing.

The real choice Americans face is whether we want a free market or a corporate state.

He thinks Obama will increasingly support corporatism over socialism. I am skeptical, but he does seem rather pragmatic. I see his support of the auto industry more as supporting unions than corporations; but time will tell. ◄Dave►

You knew this was coming, right? With economy in shambles, Congress gets a raise:

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.”

Hypocritical hubris at its finest. ◄Dave►

SantaCorp Pleads Case For Bailout, from the IowaHawk, of course:

Kringle and UET union president Binky McGiggles presented a draft emergency bailout plan to the committee calling for US $18 trillion in federal grants, loan guarantees, and sugarplum gumdrops that they said would keep the company solvent through December 26.

“We believe this proposal shows that management and labor can work together to craft a reasonable, financially responsible short-term survival plan,” said McGiggles. “After the new Congress is seated in January, we would be happy to return to present a long-term package to get us through April.”

As usual, don’t miss the whole post if you enjoy satire. ◄Dave►

I do not recall ever reading or even hearing of Herb London; but he has a powerful piece on Town Hall entitled, “I Lost My Country.”:

…I don’t think the Republicans merely lost an election, I believe many of us lost a country…

The America of now is one where Orwellian logic rules. Forced redistribution of wealth is fairness. Taxes are patriotic. The free market should be a regulated market. Big government is good for you. Politicians know what kind of healthcare is best for you. Choice should be limited, except when it comes to abortion. Power comes from being powerless. Progressive education is designed to promote progress toward socialism. Race doesn’t count unless a person of color tells you it counts. Higher education gets lower each year. Those who create our problems should be asked to solve them. Religion should be a private matter that does not inform public morality. Liberal is radical. Free speech is selective speech. Courage is impetuousness…

Where is my America, the place of fair play, individual rights, the rule of law and respect for private property? Was the past merely a dream from which I have awakened? Can that America of exceptionalism return? Can it find its way back into the public consciousness?

I have my doubts. Now the change agents scream “everything will be different.” Alas, they are right. It appears as if everything will be different, most especially the end of an America I loved.

Read the whole thing… and weep with him. ◄Dave►

I have been working (not very diligently) on an essay to explain my latest version of my political spectrum chart. Now that Orrin has resurfaced from being buried in his workload, I need to move it near the top of my to-do stack, as it was the discussion on his blog that instigated the change. Since I have the chart itself done, I have uploaded it as a teaser:

You can click on the diagram to open it full size, and suitable for printing, in another window. The main difference from my earlier efforts is that it emphasizes the nature of the vertical  Up/Down axis, and includes the economic systems as the principle sort for choosing the Left or Right path around the circle toward tyranny.

Yes, I realize that most of the political noise comes from the two opposing moralist camps, the Politically Correct activists on the Left and the Piously Correct activists on the Right; but I have deliberately downplayed them. Ours is and always was a secular government, and their attempts to enlist it to impose their moral dogmas on others who are not adherents to their competing “religions,” ought not to even be considered in serious discussion of good government.

I have added a new category of good guys at the top labeled “Secular Conservatives.” This label would apply to those who are heavily invested in what they consider small government “conservative” philosophy or principles and support free enterprise. While they may or may not be religious themselves, they recognize and appreciate the secular nature of our government, and oppose the use of Piously Correct litmus tests for candidates for elective office. If I understand him correctly, Orrin would fall into this category.

I’ll get busy on the essay, which is already entitled “Political Language,” and post it soon. ◄Dave►

I have frequently lamented that the Left/Right dichotomy the Incumbrepublocrats try to shoehorn us all into isn’t very useful for categorizing the political factions in America. I have explained that I find more utility in Walter Russel Mead’s division of American foreign policy in to four schools, the Jeffersonians, Wilsonians, Hamiltonians, and my home among the Jacksonians.

I have also made much of the distinction between the largely Jacksonian values of the traditional folk culture of the heartland of America, known as Flyover Country, and the elitist cultures extant in metropolitan America, which combine the academics and the ghettos.

Now, Rush Limbaugh, has provided another useful label. I haven’t listened to Rush for more than a few minutes here and there in the car for years, but I sure missed a great monologue recently. I had read of Collin Powell’s recent suggestion that Republicans stop listening to him, so when his rebuttal popped up as a link on Drudge, I was naturally curious. It turned out to be a transcript of a part of his show the following day, and he not only nailed Powell’s vacuous character, but the whole mindset of the Washingtonian elites who control the Incumbrepublocrat Party. It is well worth the read; but here are some highlights. First he explains the beef:

…you might even say that the Republican Party is in the situation it’s in precisely because of the people like Colin Powell and John McCain and others who have devised this new definition and identity of the party which is responsible for electing Democrats all over this country.

…I guess McCain and Colin Powell are showing their true colors. Here is Colin Powell telling the Republican Party what to do after he voted for Obama! I know what really has Colin Powell upset, it’s because I said his endorsement of Obama was about race, and I’m not supposed to say those things. These things are supposed to go unsaid.

…Once McCain was nominated as the Republican candidate, largely by independents and Democrats voting in Republican primaries, Colin Powell waited ’til the last minute, when it would do the most damage to McCain and the Republicans and endorsed Obama. And when I said it was largely about race, that’s what set ‘em all off, you’re not supposed to say these kinds of things. This is supposed to go unspoken.

Then, he identifies the problem:

What’s going on here with this Colin Powell thing is that the Washington establishment — Powell’s not a Republican. McCain’s not a Republican. These guys are not even mavericks. They are Washingtonians. Washingtonians have their own culture and their own desires, and it is to matter. They don’t care who’s in power, they just want to be closely associated with whoever is. That’s the name of the game and they want press adulation. They want to be loved and adored by the media, they want fawning treatment, they want to be thought of as something special, unique, dignified and so forth, and that’s the Washington establishment. These guys are Washingtonians. And what is a Washingtonian? Who are these people? Ladies and gentlemen, they have driven this economy into the toilet. Washingtonians are tone deaf in terms of how you and I actually live and the things that matter and are important to us. Washingtonians are grabbing as much power for themselves right now as possible. Washington does not live in the rest of the country, does not live in the same world we do. What they’re doing now is looking for ways to silence opposition. They don’t care about the timid ineffective opposition. They like Republicans and conservatives who are ashamed of their views and their fellow citizens. What they want to do is silence people like me because they can’t abide debate or opposition or challenges to their status and their authority.

I couldn’t agree more, and “Washingtonian” just became part of my political lexicon. ◄Dave►

I have not had time to enjoy them all yet, but in celebration of the fifth anniversary of his blog, the Iowahawk has posted an anthology of his best 25 themes. I reckon it is worth a bookmark for entertaining reading when bored with watching our world disintegrate before our eyes. ◄Dave►

Charles Krauthammer warns us not to be fooled by Obama’s foreign affairs cabinet picks. He is focused on domestic affairs:

As Obama revealingly said just last week, “This painful crisis also provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people.” Transformation is his mission. Crisis provides the opportunity. The election provides him the power.

The deepening recession creates the opportunity for federal intervention and government experimentation on a scale unseen since the New Deal. A Republican administration has already done the ideological groundwork with its unprecedented intervention, culminating in the forced partial nationalization of nine of the largest banks, the kind of stuff that happens in Peronist Argentina with a gun on the table. Additionally, Henry Paulson’s invention of the number $700 billion forever altered our perception of imaginable government expenditure. Twenty billion more for Citigroup? Lunch money.

Moreover, no one in Congress even pretends that spending should be pay as you go (i.e., new expenditures balanced by higher taxes or lower spending), as the Democrats disingenuously promised when they took over Congress last year. Even some conservative economists are urging stimulus (although structured far differently from Democratic proposals). And public opinion, demanding action, will buy any stimulus package of any size. The result: undreamed-of amounts of money at Obama’s disposal.

To meet the opportunity, Obama has the political power that comes from a smashing electoral victory. It not only gave him a personal mandate. It increased Democratic majorities in both houses, thereby demonstrating coattails and giving him clout. And by running on nothing much more than change and (often contradictory) hopes, he has given himself enormous freedom of action.

Obama was quite serious when he said he was going to change the world. And now he has a national crisis, a personal mandate, a pliant Congress, a desperate public — and, at his disposal, the greatest pot of money in galactic history. (I include here the extrasolar planets.)

Are you ready for a socialist paradise? ◄Dave►