All possible comments would be inappropriate.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Surreal: Cap & Trade Rises Again
Possibly the only thing with potential to be worse for our economy than Obamacare is Obama's proposed environmental regulation - deconstructing our energy infrastructure while imposing cap and trade. Yet, according to a Reuters Report, gird your loins and hold onto your wallets. Cap and Trade is about to be reintroduced come April 26 - with the monumentally treacherous Lindsey Graham leading the charge on the Republican side. This from Reuters:
A long-awaited compromise bill to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming will be unveiled by a group of senators on April 26, sources said on Thursday.
The legislative language to be sketched out in 11 days, according to government and environmental sources, is being drafted by Democratic Senator John Kerry, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman.
Backers of the environmental bill hope the unveiling will pave the way for the full Senate to debate and pass a measure in June or July if the compromise attracts enough support from a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats. . . .
If like me, you wonder how anyone in Congress could possibly seek to resurrect this abortion after a steady stream of revelations in the wake of Climategate and with an economy that is still far from recovery, the answer is they are either cynically pretending that none of it matters, or they are being wilfully ignorant. For instance, in the Reuters report, as justification for reviving cap and trade, they point out that "[t]he National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported on Thursday the world's combined land and ocean surface temperatures in March were the hottest on record."
Oh really? Would that be the March where NOAA claimed that the polar regions were on fire, yet satellite footage shows that polar sea ice reached at or near its 1970-2001 average in March - thus meaning that the claims of record high temperatures in the polar regions are ludicrous? (Update: Drudge links to Vostok, Antarctica, today, where the temperature, less wind chill, is a balmy minus 103 degrees farenheit)
And do take a look at the March map from NASA-GISS - showing the polar regions on fire and numerous hot spots around the globe.
On the above map, take a careful look at Iceland - shown in red above as experiencing an extremely hot March. Climate Audit dug through the figures and found:
GISS station values are even more spectacular, the warmest March on record is set in every Finnish station GISS is following. For instance, according to GISS, the mean March temperature in Sodankylä (61402836000) was a remarkable +1.5 °C beating the old record (-2.2 °C) from 1920 by 3.7 °C!
Well, according to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, March 2010 was colder than usual all over Finland, especially in the northern part. For instance, the mean temperature in Sodankylä was -10.3 °C, which is almost three degrees below the base period 1971-2000 average (-7.5 °C). So the GISS March value for Sodankylä is off by amazing 11.8 °C!
To put that in terms of farenheit, that means that NASA is misreporting the temperature at that station in Iceland by 21.4 degrees.
That is not a mistake. That is fraud. We have known for some time that the surface data temperature being propounded by the major players in the AGW field are untrustworthy in the extreme. Yet it makes not a wit of difference to our political class, who are preparing to saddle us with massive rents and incredibly invasive laws, all ostensibly to reduce carbon dioxide to save the planet.
Et Tu, Charlie?
Polls show that Florida Governor and senate candidate Charlie Crist is getting swamped by the challenger Marco Rubio. Crist's latest act ought to see him lose what little support he still has among Republicans. That latest act is Crist's veto of a bill that would have removed tenure rules for Florida public school teachers and instituted merit pay. I have blogged extensively on these issues within the context of public sector unions here. For all the reasons I set forth in that post, issues of public sector unions, tenure rules and teacher merit pay should be core issues of the Republican Party in 2010 and beyond. How any Republican - even the most nominal of Republicans - could possibly veto this bill is mind boggling. Dafydd at Big Lizards makes the case that Crist is eyeing a run as an independent and does not want to upset his new base. If so - and I think Dafydd is right - then it is an act of incredible political cynicism. The alternative is that Crist is a big government Democrat wearing only the moniker of Republican. In either event, as Dafydd concludes, "it's time for Charlie Crist to go."
Friday, April 16, 2010
"These Are My People . . . Americans"
The gap between the MSM and race baiting industry and reality is a wide one indeed. Kathy Kelly interviews a tea party protester in the video below.
(H/T Hot Air)
Friday Follies
Boy is it going to be a long next few months for incumbents . . .
Incumbent Mayor loses election to challenger who died a month ago
Not since the days of Indian Jones . . .
From the "I know there is a joke in here somewhere" department . . .
Blinded by jealousy . . .
The Miricale of Tongues . . .
A 13 yr. old Croatian girl went into a 24 hr. coma and, upon awakening, spoke only fluent German.
Wall Street, A Billion Dollar Fraud & The Mortgage Meltdown
I have long been a defender of Wall St. against charges that it was the primary cause of our current economic troubles. Obama's demonization of "greedy" Wall St. is designed both to stoke populist anger and to hide the heavy hand of Democrat's race based social engineering - in which Obama took part - that is the real proximate cause of our current fiscal crisis. Moreover, I believe Obama's proposed changes to the financial regulations are not only unnecessary, but on at least several levels, deeply counterproductive (see here and here).
That said, one thing that I do support is much stronger penalties for white collar crime. For example, if the accusations in this SEC Complaint of a billion dollar fraud are true, than Goldman Sachs should be severly punished and its employee, Mr. Fabrice Tourre, locked up and the key thrown away. Do read the SEC Compalint, as it is a window into the derivatives market, a snapshot of the relationship between Wall St. and the mortgage meltdown, and a road map to a billion dollar fraud.
And The Winner's Are . . .
Each week, the members of the Watcher's Council nominate one of their own posts and a second from outside the Council for consideration by other council members in a contest for best post. The Watcher publishes the results each Friday. And the results of this weeks voting are in:
The winner - and the one I voted for first place - is The Barrel of GoogleRands, is an absolutely hilarious post from the professional writer among us, Gerard Van der Luen of American Digest. Here is a teaser:
Dear Congress, President Obama, or armed IRS agent with a no-knock:
I am writing in response to your request for additional money via the "WTF!? Cough It UP! Re-Financing America Extortion Act of 2010: IRS Form 259B Error" Page I was led to while filing my taxes electronically last night. It noted that I had not paid the full amount of estimated re-tax double blind anticipatory VAT levy for the "care and feeding of citizens who pay no taxes." I had put "Poor Planning" as the cause of my overnight insolvency in Line 42b of sub-paragraph A of Form 259B-subC. Your database asked for a fuller explanation and I trust the following details will be sufficient. . . .
It's Mr. Van der Luen's rewrite and update of the classic tale of the Barrel of Bricks. Once again coming in second place was one of my posts, A Tale Of Two Conservative Parties – Part 1: The UK, pointing to Britain's systemic democratic deficit, describing how the socialist left has deconstructed to the UK to the point of calamity, noting the electorates deep dissatisfaction with Labour, and finally, acknowledging the lack of any political party that actually represents the will of the people.
In the Non-Council Category, the winner was Fitzgerald: The New York Times, and That Business At the Cathedral In Cordoba, a post I had submitted from the fine blog, Winds of Jihad. It is, as the Watcher notes, a "historical tour de force," that "takes us through the shameful whitewashing of the Muslim world that the NYT foists upon its readers." Coming in second place was an exceptional post from the Belmont Club, I Want My MTV, pointing to, one, how the Labour Party has led Brtian to an economic crisis so deep and vast that recovery might not be possible and two, how California is in a similar position. The unifying thread is that both arise from fantasies propounded from the political classes while the people seem ignorant and apathetic.
There were some great entries last week. You can find them all, as well as the full results of the voting at the Watcher's site.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Nominations Are Up
Each week, the members of the Watcher's Council nominate one of their own posts and a second from outside the Council for consideration by other council members in a contest for best post. The Watcher publishes the results each Friday morning.
If you would like to participate in the Council's activites, while there is no opening on the council at the moment, we invite you take part by submitting your own best post of the week through "link whorage." You can find out how at the Watcher's site.
As always, this week's nominations present an eclectic mix of thought-provoking reading.
Do enjoy them all:
Council Submissions
Mere Rhetoric - Obama Wrecking US Diplomatic Credibility, Squandering Diplomatic Capital In The Middle East
Bookworm Room - Getting a closer look at why liberals continue to feel that blacks should be held to a different standard
American Digest – The Barrel of GoogleRands
Rhymes With Right - Can One Fairly Judge Yesterday’s Deeds By Today’s Standards?
The Glittering Eye - The Gold Rush
Right Truth - A Nation Dividing
The Colossus of Rhodey - What makes good teachers?
The Razor - The Mythical Primary Care Physician Shortage
The Provocateur - China’s Currency Manipulation
JoshuaPundit - Reflections On Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day
Wolf Howling – A Tale Of Two Conservative Parties – Part 1: The UK
Non-Council Submissions
Yid With Lid - Zbigniew Brzezinski Helped Create The Taliban, Now He Wants to Do It Again Submitted by Mere Rhetoric
Noisy Room - Exhaustion from Anxiety : The true terrorism Submitted by Bookworm Room
Belmont Club – I Want My MTV Submitted by American Digest
American Thinker — Rick Moran – History and Ideology in Textbooks Submitted by Rhymes with Right
Sense of Events - A world without nuclear weapons, part 2 Submitted by The Glittering Eye
Chesler Chronicles - Jews Confront the Abyss. “The Absence of Outrage is Outrageous.” Submitted by Right Truth
Weekly Standard Blog - A Tale of Two Cities Submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey
Contentions – Noah Pollak - And Now for Some News from Realityland Submitted by The Razor
Newsmax - First Target: Harry Reid Submitted by The Provocateur
Melanie Phillips – Everyone Knows Submitted by JoshuaPundit
The Winds Of Jihad - Fitzgerald: The New York Times, and That Business At the Cathedral In Cordoba Submitted by Wolf Howling
Last Week's Winners
Each week, the members of the Watcher's Council nominate one of their own posts and a second from outside the Council for consideration by other council members in a contest for best post. The Watcher publishes the results each Friday. And the results of last weeks voting are in:
The winner in a run-away was Bookworm Room for her brilliantly ironic post, Redefining the word racist so that it suits ME. It really is a good read that take's the race baiting industry to task for both throwing the race card with no basis in fact and pursuing policies that hurt minorities. Coming in second place was my post, The War On Religion. Of note, and complimentary to Bookworm's post, is one from the Collossus of Rhodey, “You have to trust your gut,” which is as fine an explanation of the bankrupt critical race theory as I have seen anywhere.
In the Non-Council Category, the winning post was Cato Unbound's The Rise of the New Paternalism. Coming in second place was Victor Davis Hanson's Next Battle: Immigration
There were some great entries last week. You can find them all, as well as the full results of the voting at the Watcher's site.
In Defense Of The Pope
A bit of late blogging on this one. From the most unlikely of source - the pages of the NYT - we see a substantive defense of Pope Benedict XVI as to his own role in the Church's sex abuse scandals. Op-ed columnist Ross Douthat takes note of the efforts then Cardinal Ratzinger made to address sex scandals in the Church, fighting the Vatican bureauacracy and the disorganization of Pope John Paul II. As Mr. Douthat concludes:
So the high-flying John Paul let scandals spread beneath his feet, and the uncharismatic Ratzinger was left to clean them up. This pattern extends to other fraught issues that the last pope tended to avoid — the debasement of the Catholic liturgy, or the rise of Islam in once-Christian Europe. And it extends to the caliber of the church’s bishops, where Benedict’s appointments are widely viewed as an improvement over the choices John Paul made. It isn’t a coincidence that some of the most forthright ecclesiastical responses to the abuse scandal have come from friends and protégés of the current pope.
Has Benedict done enough to clean house and show contrition? Alas, no. Has his Vatican responded to the latest swirl of scandal with retrenchment, resentment, and an un-Christian dose of self-pity? Absolutely. Can this pontiff regain the kind of trust and admiration, for himself and for his office, that John Paul II enjoyed? Not a chance.
But as unlikely as it seems today, Benedict may yet deserve to be remembered as the better pope.
Do read the entire article.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Thoughts On Britain, Colonialism & Multiculturalism
I am not long off the phone with a British friend who, seated in her office deep in a venerable British ivory tower, took part in a discussion with others of a more hard-left bent (which is, unfortunately, mainstream in British academia) who decried Britain's colonial past. My friend, as of yet untenured and a closet conservative, kept her tongue. But when a Malaysian professor spoke up and said she was glad her country had been colonized, an uncomfortable silence descended before the topic of the conversation was changed.
I am always amazed by how completely the modern socialists of Britain have been able to plant the canard in the British public's mind that British colonialism is a grave and unforgivable sin - and one for which the country must atone through such things as multiculturalism and reverse discrimination. It involves a complete distortion of history and today's reality.
The truth is that British Colonialism was Britain's gift to the world. A sizable chunk, if not the majority of the most prosperous and free countries in the world today have emerged from Britain's colonial empire - the US, Canada, India - which today boasts the world's biggest democracy, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand to name but a few. Indeed, as I pointed out in a post below, the U.S. not only adopted most of Britain's legal, governmental and bureaucratic systems, but the Bill of Rights itself is only a little more than an amalgam of the rights of British Protestants at the time of our nation's founding. Our debt to Britain is deep and lasting.
In all of history, I can think of only two colonial powers that have had a major positive impact on the world. The first is Rome. As they expanded throughout Western Europe, they built up the infrastructure in each area they laid claim. They brought with them writing and a language that unlocked a rich store of knowledge. They brought science, engineering and forms of government administration. These things they left in their wake, allowing Western Europe, after emerging from the Dark Ages, to evolve much faster than those who did not benefit from Roman rule.
The second colonial power to have such a major positive impact is of course Britain. The Brits, just like the Romans, brought a host of benefits to the nations they colonized, from education to the English language, from trade to capitalism, from government bureaucracy and democracy to the British legal system. What further set Britain apart from other colonial powers of the time was that Britain tended to treat her colonies as what amounts to junior trading partners. That was a major difference between Britain, Spain and France. The latter two looked upon their colonies as areas to be exploited for their riches
Compare Britain's former colonies today with those of France and Spain. The former are mostly functional, stable and economically viable states. The latter tend to be dysfunctional, corrupt and with lesser economic development.
For instance, compare the U.S. and Canada to Mexico, Argentina, or virtually any of the other South and Central American countries colonized and raped of their resources by Spain. Compare Nigeria - perhaps the most stable and prosperous of African states - with France's Chad. They are mirror opposites. Compare any of Britain's Caribbean Island colonies with France's former slave colony of Haiti, the poorest and most dysfunctional country in the Western Hemisphere.
There have been three classes of locales where British colonialism did not work to leave strong, stable countries in its wake. These classes are Islamic countries, many African countries still mired in tribalism, and in those countries that have suffered coups or dictatorships in the wake of Britain's withdrawal.
Virtually every Islamic majority country colonized at one time by Britain has failed to develop. Most today are ruled by autocracies of one form or another and are saddled with moribund economies. The reasons for that can be gleaned from the observations of Winston Churchill made during his time in the Middle East as a soldier and memorialized in his book, The River Wars:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.
Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. . . .
The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
With the observations of Churchill in mind, compare Pakistan and neighboring India. Both were part of Britain's colonial empire and both received their independence at the same time. The people of Pakistan and India are of the same race. The only difference between them is that Pakistan is an Islamic country. Today, India is the world's largest democracy, it is a free capitalist nation with a booming economy. Pakistan is mired in poverty, its democracy is atrophied and its civilian elected government has only the most tenuous hold on power.
Or for that matter, compare all other Middle East countries with Israel. Israel has a vibrant democracy and economy built on the British model. All of the other many former British colonies in the Middle East, from Egypt to Jordan to Arabia and others, all have dysfunctional autocracies and weaker economies - (but of course for the mega-rich autocrats themselves).
The second group of countries that did not benefit from British colonialism are those countries that were driven off the track by a coup or the installation of a dictator in the wake of Britain's withdrawal. Zimbabwe is one example. Uganda is another, as is Burma. Indeed, Burma exists next to Malaysia, another of Britain's colonies. Malaysia has a GDP fully 14 times that of Burma. And also close by is Singapore, one of the richest places on earth in terms of GDP. Malaysia and Singapore embraced the gifts of British colonialism. Burma was subject to a military coup by a junta that sought to impose Karl Marx's socialism.
Lastly are those former colonies in African nations where tribalism was and is stronger than nationalism. That said, Nigeria, once Britain's colony, is rapidly becoming the jewel of Africa based on the British model. It is overcoming a degree of tribalism that is amazing. Over a century ago, over 500 different languages where spoken in Nigeria. Today, English is the unofficial unifying language and Nigeria is a functioning nation state with a rapidly expanding economy..
To put all of this in perspective, the belief among Brits that British Colonialism is an unforgivable sin comes out of the socialist ethos of Karl Marx who famously wrote in the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
Under this philosophy, the unforgivable sin is the oppression of others, whether by colonialism or any other means. It is a deeply distorting and simplistic theory that ignores all which does not fit within its theoretical box.
Brits today who decry the colonial period are embracing their inner Marx. Britain's socialists would focus only the sins of their forefathers as unforgivable while ignoring all of the reality around them. They suicidally think of nationalism as an evil and they would deconstruct their own nation out of guilt.
The reality is that virtually every nation on this earth has at one time or another taken control of the territory of others by force. If the Pakistanis make Brits feel guilty for colonization, lift up the knickers on Pakistan's history and you will find brutal wars of aggression against her neighbors sprinkled throughout her history. Virtually all nations and races have been colonial powers or fought brutal wars of aggression at points in their history. There are sins aplenty in every nation on earth.
And if we are going to do a comparative itemization of sins, let's begin with the Arabs and the Turks who spread Islam by the sword during the greatest imperialistic expansion in our world's history. They spent centuries laying waste to Christian lands and installing Islam and Arab/Turkish rule in its stead. The Arabs made conquest of the entire Middle East, all of North Africa, Pakistan and Afghanistan, much of Spain and parts of Italy, with forays into France. The Turks did the same in Byzantium, Greece, and the Balkans, until finally beaten back at the gates of Vienna, Austria. And these colonizers never left of their own free will. Together the Arabs and the Turks are leagues beyond Britain in the breadth of their expansion and colonialism. Nor, with hindsight, can we say that there colonization was even benign, let alone having any sort of positive impact.
But that aside, if Brits today believe colonialism is wrong, then they need not further engage in it. But that does not mean that they alone have to atone for outlandishly magnified sins of the past.
The penultimate question one must ask is whether the world would be better off today had there been no British colonialism? To anyone of intellectual honesty, the answer to that question has to be an emphatic and absolute "No." The truth is that there is a significant portion of this world that owes their peace, prosperity and stability to the legacy of British colonialism.
The real tragedy is not that Britain was once a colonial power, but that today, Britain is so chained up in the distorting guilt of Marxian philosophy and so embracing of Marxian multiculturalism that it no longer values and is willing defend its own culture and heritage. That said, if the Brits would only look about, they would see that there are a host of countries across the world who, once colonized, have adopted these goods from Britain and are quite willing to spill their own blood to defend them today.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
A Tale Of Two Conservative Parties: Part 2 - The US
As I wrote in a companion post below:
At a time when the left has swung the pendulum hard to the left in both the UK and the US, at a time when the electorate of both US and UK appears poised for a massive move to the right, the "conservative" parties - the Tories in the UK, the Republicans in the U.S. - seem far from up to the task. When we need Churchill and Reagan, we instead have leaders in the mold of Clement Attlee and Herbert Hoover. The problem is particularly acute in the UK.
In the post below, I address the problems of the UK and its "conservative party." By comparison, our problems in the U.S. are not as dire as those of Britain's, largely because our democracy is much more representative than is their's. Yet in some ways, our problems are not dissimilar. In both countries, the left has pushed our nation's so far to the left that the economies and the very fabric of our societies are threatened. Further, today, neither in the UK nor in the U.S. is there a sufficiently strong leader on the right to stem the tide. For the UK, four weeks from their next election, that fact is disastrous. For we in the U.S., it is not yet at that point given that we are about two years out from having to decide who will be the Republican nominee. Yet the problems that they will face will be every bit as daunting as those faced in the UK:
- Between massive deficit spending and out of control entitlement programs, our economy is approaching a potentially existential crisis:
The U.S. government has $12.5 trillion of funded debt, almost 90% of last year’s GDP. That is a critical level according to Reinhart and Rogoff based on their 800-year study of sovereign bankruptcies. Serious, funded debt is not the major problem. Unfunded entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) are. These are estimated to be $106 trillion.
And still Obama continues a world record spending spree.
- the left wars on business (non-union businesses, at least) and the profit motive. Given the Obama plan to let many of the Bush era tax cuts expire and given the murmurings about a VAT tax, it appears that Obama's next grand act will be an attempt to tax us into prosperity.
- the war on business has resulted in persistent and staggering unemployment in America. "The U-6 unemployment number . . . is at 17.5%, within 0.5% of its all-time high. This figure includes discouraged workers who've stopped looking, marginally attached workers, and workers that are forced to work part-time because full-time jobs are not available."
- the enactment of Obamacare portends to only worsen our fiscal crisis while doing nothing to alleviate the severe crises posed by are already existing entitlement programs - Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and S-CHIP to name but a few.
- Public sector unions, only allowed in America since the days of JFK, are a toxin in America. They have perverse incentives to push for bigger government and higher taxes and they operate unchecked by market forces. They degrade performance in every aspect of the government where they exist and are a particular problem in education. The average public sector union worker now makes significantly more than their private sector counterparts - and they are destroying state and local economies with massive unfunded pension liabilities.
- Regulatory burdens, particularly in the area of environmentalism where the left has handed the keys to the courthouse to the radical greens, with untold costs to our economy. Moreover, in a move that bypasses Congressional refusal to enact cap and trade, the EPA recently announced that they will begin regulating carbon - in what portends to be a significant cost to our economy.
- Proposed regulatory changes to our financial structure that will place significantly greater racially charged lending standards on our financial institutions, despite the fact that this same degradation of lending standards led in large part to our current financial meltdown.
- The removing of any caps on the liability that will be underwritten by the U.S. government from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- The left continues to feed the race baiting industry beyond long after we passed any rational justification. It is time to bring an end to affirmative action as well as any and all use of the disparate impact theory to punish entities for racism despite no evidence of any act of racism. It should be noted that Obama wants to expand the disparate impact theory as part of the new financial regulations.
- our Courts are regularly legislating from the bench, reinterpreting Constitutional provisions in a manner far outside of the original intent of the drafters to bypass the ballot box on contentious social issues, ripping at the fabric of our nation. We could really use a Constitutional Amendment on this issue to provide some guidance to the Courts on how to execute their Article III duties.
All of the above are simply domestic problems - and the last two our my own issues that are not as pressing as the rest, but that do need to be addressed as part of a radical reorientation of our domestic polity. None of this even begins to touch upon the problems Obama and the left are causing in foreign policy.
Whoever is to tackle all of these problems in a decisive manner will have to be highly intelligent, articulate, and sufficiently driven by internalized conservative idealism to withstand the type of massive assault in the left wing MSM that will come with applying conservative solutions to the above problems - many of which will of necessity mean reorienting America away from the left wing path it has been on since at least FDR. Moreover, we are going to need a reorientation that has as its absolute focus the growth of businesses of all size - we are in a hole where the only answer to both our deficit and our undemployment problem is to grow ourselves out of both. Do we have a leader that strong on the horizon to accomplish all of these things?
Perhaps we do. I think New Gingrich fits that bill. I would also watch closely Paul Ryan and Chris Christie. I think all others are a level below these three in intellect, if not also in the intestinal fortitude needed to lead the type of radical reorientation our nation needs to survive, let alone to remain as first among equals.
Newt Gingrich - He is an absolutely brilliant man and a highly articulate speaker. Compliments of the MSM smear machine in the 1990's, many in the left and center have negative views of Gingrich, though it is doubtful those general views are today sufficiently strongly held to disqualify him from making a run. Of all the potential candidates, I would think him most qualified and the most likely to be able to address the many problems of our country itemized above.
Paul Ryan - I do not know enough about him yet to put a gold star next to his name, but his performance during the televised dog and pony shows with Obama have shown him to be articulate and in possession of a first class intellect. It is also notable that he is the only one, of all the Republicans in Congress, to actually publish an alternative to Obamacare. He is one to further evaluate.
Chris Christie - This man impresses ever more on a daily basis. He faces many of the problems in governing New Jersey that our nation faces on a grander scale. He is demonstrating daily a strong intellect and an even more impressive hard as nails approach to the problems of New Jersey. If he succeeds in turning around New Jersey in any cognizant fashion, he will definitely be a person to watch - if not in the 2012 election, then in 2016 and beyond. He has already demonstrated the combativeness and cajones necessary to push through the radical reorientation our country needs and he, unlike George Bush and much of the Republican Party, has also shown a willingness to push back hard against the smears of the left.
Then there are the lessers and the long shots:
Sarah Palin - as much as I like her, I don't see her as sufficiently rounded to make a run for the Presidency. I think her decision to give up her governership not even half way through her term was fatal to a bid for 2012. Perhaps in 2016 she might have a chance.
Mitt Romney - His claim to fame was his economic smarts. But the simple fact is that he designed Obamacare for Massachusetts. Either his economic smarts are vastly over-rated or this man is an incredibly cynical political opportunist. Regardless which, we can afford neither in office beyond 2012, and thus I won't be pulling a lever for him under any circumstances.
Mike Huckabee - his foreign policy views were what turned me against him during the last primary and nothing since has occurred since that would lead me to believe that he has gained strength in that area. That said, I do like his Fox shows.
Ron Paul - I would vote for Obama before I would vote for Paul. He really is a few McNuggets short of a Happy Meal.
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty - I do not know enough about him at this point to make a decision on Pawlenty. I have heard him speak a few times and have not walked away with either a positive or negative impression. Perhaps that itself says all that needs to be said.
We will see who rises to the top over the next year. The other critical issue will be gaining conservatives in sufficient numbers in Congress. At any point in my lifetime, I would not have thought that possible. But today, given the path to the far left Obama is pushing us and the strength of the Tea Party movement - I now think it very possible.
A Tale Of Two "Conservative" Parties - Part 1: The UK
At a time when the left has swung the pendulum hard to the left in both the UK and the US, at a time when the electorate of both US and UK appears poised for a massive move to the right, the "conservative" parties - the Tories in the UK, the Republicans in the U.S. - seem far from up to the task. When we need Churchill and Reagan, we instead have leaders in the mold of Clement Attlee and Herbert Hoover. The problem is particularly acute in the UK.
The UK's political structure has failed systemically. Democracy in Britain does not result in a "representative" democracy. The people of Britain only get a vote for their own local representative. The position of Prime Minister is never voted on by the people, but rather is chosen by the party. The people get no say in the House of Lords - and it is a body that has been politically emasculated by the socialist Labour Party at any rate. Britain has no constitutional limitations on the power of government, despite centruries of agreements that specified such limits and that enshrined individual rights, begining most famously with the Magna Carta. That is because, over two centuries ago, Britain's Parliament declared their decisions the paramount law of the land, thus enshrining what is today a tyranny of the majority. Indeed, it should be noted that the U.S. Bill of Rights is little more than an amalgam of the rights of Protestant Englishmen that existed as of 1776. Unfortunately, many of those rights are circumscribed in Britain today. What all this means in the aggregate is that the wants and desires of the electorate are significantly minimized, the role of a left wing media is greatly magnified, and the desire of politicians to accrete power goes all but unchecked in the UK.
Labour has spent its years in office deconstructing Britain with multiculturalism - including as part and parcel thereof active discrimination against the indigenous population of Britain - open borders immigration, a massively expanding welfare system with incredibly perverse incentives, an ever more intrusive nanny state, huge increases in government spending, an insane energy policy centered on the canard of global warming that is driving up enery costs exponentially and threatens the viability of their energy infrastructure, a war on Christianity, and the transfer of Britain's sovereignty to the EU without the promised referendum of the people. On top of that, only a few short months ago, an MP (Member of Parliament) expense scandal rocked the Labour Party and brought the popularity of the Labour government already at or near its nadir, to a level of popularity slightly below that of the ebola virus.
By all accounts, Labour should be knocked from government in the next election in a blood bath. Yet so weak are the alternatives that it is actually an open question today, but a few short weeks from Britain's next election, whether Britain's conservative party will manage to pull a defeat from the jaws of what should be a victory so vast as to result in a banishment of Labour from political power for years to come. Indeed, EU Referendum reports that the Tories maintain only an 8% lead in the polls over Labour as of today.
When speaking to a very close friend the other day - a woman of uncommon perceptiveness and intellect born and living in Kent - she stated that, while the electorate is poised for a radical move to the right, the problem is that there is no political party to lead them. She thinks that David Cameron, the head of the Tory Party, is the worst kind of unprincipled political opportunist. The Tories, she said, have done nothing to differentiate themselves from the socialist Labour Party and are promising, in essence, to continue many of the same policies that are destroying Britain. The Lib Democrats are even worse. The UKIP is perhaps the only true conservative party, but they are wholly ignored by the media and stand little chance of making significant gains. The BNP is demonized by the media and, while many of their policies are good, their history of racism and anti-semitism makes them an unacceptable choice. In short, the people of Britain are, at a critical moment in their history, being disenfranchised by a broken political system.
My friend recommended a recent article by Simon Heffer as accurately summing up the situation (or, in her vernacular, "spot on.") This from Mr. Heffer at the Telegraph:
. . . The Labour Party has failed utterly in government. It has not merely wrecked the economy, with long-term consequences: it has taken a path of repairing the damage that will, through its emphasis on high taxes, borrowing and public spending, cause more harm before it does any good – if it does any good. It has also been derelict on matters of such significance as our schools, our universities, law and order, immigration and our Armed Forces. . . . Mr Brown's stewardship of our nation has been shocking. He does not deserve to have it renewed.
Yet, despite this atrocity, the Conservative Party has, in the five years since its last debacle, done remarkably little to convince the public that it understands what is going on, let alone that it has any concept of how to make our country more prosperous, better run and generally happier. When David Cameron spoke to activists on the Embankment yesterday morning, one was at once splashed in the face by the cold water of the obsession with image: almost everyone in sight was young, several of them (including a man Mr Cameron ostentatiously embraced with that warm insincerity that is his trademark) from ethnic minorities, a correct proportion of them women. His approach has always been about ticking the boxes of militant superficiality. His main argument is that he is not the Labour Party. Well, not in name, at any rate.
And the Liberal Democrats? They have a flexibility of principle that leaves even that of Mr Cameron standing; a record of opportunism and incompetence in local government (the only place they have had any power) that puts Mr Brown's moral and intellectual inadequacies in the shade. One would be inclined to ridicule them entirely were they not likely to do as much damage to Labour in some parts of the country as the Tories are, and because of the far from impossible prospect of Vince Cable having some say in the running of our economy in a month's time. With various useful independents standing in certain seats, with the Greens in with a chance in Brighton Pavilion, with Ukip a not impossible prospect for the Speaker's seat in Buckingham, with votes being split in a way they have rarely been split before, not just by the Greens and Ukip, but also by the knuckledusters of the BNP, anything could happen.
As I am not an astrologer – and also because I genuinely don't have a clue – you must forgive me if I don't predict the outcome. We shall know soon enough. All that is certain (and here comes another rare fact) is that we shall end up being governed by a social democratic government of some sort. This is not because I expect a coalition including the Lib Dems, though that joy may well await us. It is because the likely programmes and conduct of another Labour or a new Conservative administration will be broadly social democratic. By that, I mean that the state will play a large role in the management of our country; there will a strong redistributive element to policy; levelling down, whether through the education system or the welfare state, will continue. What this means is that a significant proportion of the electorate that wants none of these things will have been effectively disfranchised. Our understandable boredom is tempered by a frustration that none of the main three parties seems to want to represent what so many of us believe in. . . .
For the frustration of the non-social democratic majority in this country has only just begun. No one from the main parties will tell the truth about the need to sack hundreds of thousands of people on the public payroll in order to ensure we live within our means. Nobody will tell the truth about how lower taxes increase revenue, because there are too many cheap votes in bashing bankers who earn lots of money. Nobody will properly defend capitalism as an essential ingredient of a free society. Nobody will champion selective education, which gives such a chance in life to bright children from poor homes, and nobody will be truthful about the pointlessness of much university education.
Nobody will dare to be radical about the corrupt effects of the welfare state. Nobody will take the radical approach needed to counter the results of unlimited immigration. Above all – and that last point leads on to this – nobody will confront the public with the realities of our membership of a European Union governed by the Treaty of Lisbon, which has left us with a choice of staying in on Europe's terms, or getting out.
All these things matter to people who are honest, hard-working, love their country, and seek only to be allowed to get on with their lives, undisturbed by the state, and to keep more of what they earn. There will be millions of voters missing from the polling booths on May 6 because there is an agenda missing from the discourse of our leading politicians, all of whom fear challenging a consensus that exists more in their minds, or those of their teenage advisers, than in reality.
The tedium to come can be obviated by not turning on the television for a few weeks. Newspapers, believe me, will ensure the diet of politics is kept to the minimum: our readers are precious to us, and we wish neither to bore them with the self-importance of politicians nor to insult them by bombarding them with propaganda. Strong drink and martial music may be useful. That still leaves the problem of how Britain will ever be run properly, whether by a tribal introvert who wishes to suffocate us with his "values", or a PR spiv whose "big idea" is to appoint 5,000 commissars to assist the development of "communities". There will be more absurdity yet. "Democracy," wrote Carlyle, "which means despair of finding any Heroes to govern you!" How right you were, Tom, how right you were.
These are dark days indeed in Britain. And there is no light at the end of the tunnel. I would highly recommend the blog EU Referendum for following this election and the various issues associated therewith.
See: A Tale Of Two "Conservative" Parties - Part 2: The U.S.
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Best Political Attack Ad Ever . . .
This one is hilarious. John McCain goes after J.D. Hayworth with more snark, humor and kill shots than I have ever before seen. Had he only gone after Obama in this manner on his past associations and the Democrat's responsiblity for our on-going massive recession, . . .
Oh well, water under the bridge. Enjoy.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Thomas Sowell Opines On Politics, Race & Multiculturalism
Thomas Sowell has written a four part essay covering many aspects raised at the intersection of race and politics. In Part I, Sowell notes that:
Few combinations are more poisonous than race and politics. That combination has torn whole nations apart and led to the slaughters of millions in countries around the world. . . .
Sowell takes Obama to task for leading us deeper into racial politics and condemns the left's unjustified playing of the race card as very dangerous politics indeed.
In Part II, Sowell explains that historically, racial groups with different cultures, sophistication and eduction have varied widely in their degree of success at different points in history. That is actually the norm - and it is not indicative of racism.
In Part III, Sowell notes:
Today's racial dogmas are no more realistic, when they try to dismiss or downplay behavioral and performance differences among racial and ethnic groups, blaming different outcomes on the misdeeds of others. Nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings. But the fatal misstep is to assume that those sins must be the reason for the differences we see.
Sowell goes on to note that historical injustices often proved a boon in disguise. He points to how Western Europe suffered brutally under the yoke of Rome, yet because of Rome, their societies were able to advance much faster through the Middle Ages and Rennisance. Likewise, "the fact that people of African ancestry in the United States have a far higher standard of living than the people of African ancestry still living in sub-Saharan Africa, is due to injustices and abuses inflicted on black Americans' ancestors. " As Sowell concludes:
Causation and morality are two different things, however much they get confused today by politicians and the media."
Lastly, in Part IV, Sowell takes on the evils of multiculturalism:
One of the most ominous developments of our time has been the multicultural dogma that all cultures are equal. It is one of the many unsubstantiated assertions that have become fashionable among self-congratulatory elites, with hard evidence being neither asked for nor offered.
But, however much such assertions minister to the egos of the intelligentsia and the careers of politicians and race hustlers, the multicultural dogma is a huge barrier to the advancement of groups who are lagging economically, educationally and otherwise.
Once you have said that the various economic, educational and other "gaps" and "disparities" of lagging groups are not due to either genes or cultures, what is left but the sins of other people?
Sins are never hard to find, among any group of human beings. But whether that actually helps those who are lagging, or just leads them into the blind alley of resentment, is another question. . . .
Multiculturalism enshrines the sins and grievances approach — and paints the poor into a corner, where they can nurse their resentments, instead of advancing their skills and their prospects. The beneficiaries are politicians and race hustlers.
Do read all four essays. It is Sowell at his best.
The Progressive's Newest Human Right
This is utterly outragous. The progressive's newest human right is one you won't within the text of the Constitution. According to International Planned Parenthood, each person has a right to a "fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives" and that, within the penumbra of that right, those with AIDS or HIV have a right to engage in sex without informing their partner that they are infected. This from CNS News:
In a guide for young people published by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the organization says it opposes laws that make it a crime for people not to tell sexual partners they have HIV. The IPPF's “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide also tells young people who have the virus that they have a right to “fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives.” . . .
“Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else,” the guide states. “These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”
Under the heading “Sexual Pleasure and Well-Being,” the guide declares that it is a human right and not a criminal issue as to whether a person decides if or when to disclose their HIV status, even if they engage in sexual activities.
“You know best when it is safe for you to disclose your status,” the guide states. “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of the stigma and discrimination within their community.”
The guide continues: “They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like that they are using injecting drugs or, having sex outside of marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometime fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.”
“Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure,” the guide states under the heading “Sexual Pleasure; Have Fun Explore and Be Yourself.” . . .
I wrote in a post here that when morality becomes unmoored from the Judeo-Christian ethics, then the left is able to invent all sorts of new "rights" based on whatever they choose to define as the greater good. This is a prime example. In this case, the left is elevating the desires of infected individuals above all others, disregarding an innocent partner's right to make an informed choice as to whether or to refuse sex in order to prevent possible transmission of a fatal virus. No person has a "right" to endanger the life of another for their own personal pleasure - unless, of course, you are making up your own morality as you go along.
The NYT Reporting On Islam, Salafi Dogma & The Muslim Occupation of Cordoba Cathedral
According to Islam, and most prominently Salafi Islam, it is dogma that if any land was once ruled by Muslims, then it must be returned to Islamic rule. Al Qaeda justifies their terror in large part on this dogma, citing, for example, the centuries old Reconquesta of Spain as a wrong that must be righted. Less ridgid is a Muslim philosophy that buildings of worship once used for Islamic worship than must remain - or be made into - mosques. For example, Caliph Omar, after capturing Jerusalem in the 7th century, is reputed to have refused an invitation to prayer in Christendom's holiest site, the Church of the Holy Sephulchre, lest his followers use that to justify turning the Church into a mosque.
The relevant background for this post is that Muslims conquered much of Christian Spain in 712 A.D. When they occupied Cordoba, they destroyed the Basilica of St. Vincent and erected over top of it the Great Mosque. Once King Ferdinand III reconquered Cordoba in 1236, he reconverted the mosque to a Church. It has remained a church for the 800 years since.
On 2 April, during Easter holy week, 120 Muslims occupied the Cordoba Cathedral and interrupted church services to loudly pray to Allah. When asked to leave, they became violent, sending two security personnel to a hospital. The NYT covered this story, leaving out the background as well as ignoring the underlying motivations of the Muslims and the dogma upon which they acted. The blogger at Winds of Jihad has written a far reaching critique of the NYT coverage as well as the NYT's entire coverage of Islam, all in addition to an exceptional analysis of the event. Read it here.
Ginger Ale & The Dawn Of Civilization
Many have speculated that civilization dawned when man accidently discovered that beer could be made combining water and sugars from grains and fruit, wild yeast doing the rest. I never gave the theory much credence.
While I have long brewed mead, ales, stouts, and . . . . well, my small still is strictly for decorative purposes, I have always used store-bought yeast and I have never brewed with ginger as the primary ingredient.
At any rate, here is what happened. I made some candied ginger a week ago. Peel a pound of ginger, slice it very thin, put it in a pot with 4 cups of water, a cup of honey and 3 cups of sugar, bring it to a hard boil, then reduce to a simmer for 30 minutes. Remove the ginger, sprinkle sugar on it and let it dry. The liquid becomes a ginger syrup. I usually boil it down even more to a thick syrup and use it on ice cream if I have company planned a few days after I candy the ginger, otherwise I just toss it. This time, on a whim, I decided to thin the syrup with a gallon of fresh brewed green tea to make something akin to ginger ale sans carbonation. I tried it - it was still too thick and cloyingly sweet. Rather than thin it further, I set it aside meaning to toss it - and forgot about it.
I found it a little while ago. Apparently, some wild yeast from the air got into the mix. I had left it in a plastic pitcher with a flip up top and noted that it had vented itself - its been fermenting for a week. I tasted it. Wow. And by that I mean WOW. Aqua Vitae indeed.
I haven't checked the alcohol level but I suspect it's at about 3 to 3.5%. The sweetness is just right and the ginger gives every sip a real bite. To call this stuff good is an understatement. Now I can understand why our progenitors decided to give up hunting and gathering and start farming after they tasted something like this.
I'd write more but I am going to the store to get a couple of pounds of ginger. This is going to be fun to experiment with. Am going to try a sweet mead yeast - not going to chance a wild yeast again. At any rate, cheers all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
