The Next Great Wave [*1] -- Featuring this, which brings into sharp focus the fact that the "progressive" agenda is now, in the 21st Century, actually quite backward-looking. You might almost say . . . "conservative" . . .
The Progressive ideology much of the western world has labored under for a century or so is a product of the industrial revolution. It will die and be replaced by something else as the technological revolution sweeps all before it. Political wonks live in the sort of bubble where they give primacy to politics over everything else, little understanding that politics grow from more basic factors, and those factors are currently being rearranged, rebuilt, newly created or destroyed by forces far more powerful than politics or ideology. Even the oldest ideology of all - religion - sways and teeters in the face of the oncoming storms.
The fact is, if you hold "progressive" political views, you're not anywhere near the cutting edge of political thought. In fact, what you believe is largely a return--not a return to the Progressive days of the late 19th and early 20th century, the days of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, but a return to a kind of feudalism last ascendent in European culture after the fall of Rome. Let's call it neo-feudalism. Consider the society of the early European Middle Ages, where those few who, by wisdom and intellect are chosen as the Wise (that would be them) lead the many, the poor, the ignorant. That would be you. The last time around, the few, wise people represented the Catholic Church. Now, they represent "progressive, compassionate policies." But in operation, there is very little difference. The rulers, and the ruled. It is this system against which the American Revolution was a decisive--if momentary--defeat, and ever since, the rulers have been seeking another path to unlimited power. They think they've found it. Are they right?
My Biggest Mistake in the White House [*9] -- I'm inclined to agree with Karl Rove on this one--at least on a political level . . . although not having Bush and his entire Cabinet all piloting Coast Guard choppers to pluck people off New Orleans roofs after Katrina might be right up there--or perhaps, he should have just moved the desk and chair from the Oval Office to the Louisiana coast and, like King Canute commanded the tide not to come in, simply ordered Hurricane Katrina to begone . . . it's a tough call, here--
Drowning in Debt[*10] -- wherein we find that denial is not just a river in Africa . . .
Media Matters: Arbiters of Legitimacy? [*15] -- I'll go with "brazen leftist/"progressive," George Soros-funded attack and smear machine" as a brief but descriptive definition of Media Matters as an organization. I think they're soulless, amoral, cynical, scheming evil people, True Believers in their rightful place as the lords and masters (and your rightful place as the serfs and servants) of the New Feudal society that they refer to as "progressive." Just in case you're in doubt what I think about the loathsome Media Matters.
I loathe anyone who has ever sent money to, or worked for or with that organization. That's sorta the definition of "loathsome."
For the sake of civilization itself, Mises urges us to discard the mercantilist myths that pit the prosperity of one people against that of another, the socialist myths that describe the various social classes as mortal enemies, and the interventionist myths that seek prosperity through mutual plunder. In place of these juvenile and destructive misconceptions Mises advances a compelling argument for classical liberalism, which sees "economic harmonies" — to borrow Frédéric Bastiat's formulation — where others see antagonism and strife.
Suppose a peasant have three sacks of corn: the first, A, for his support; the second, B, for seed; the third, C, for fattening poultry. Suppose sack A was destroyed by fire. Will the peasant on that account starve? Certainly not. Or will he leave his field unsown? Certainly not. He will simply shift the loss to the least sensitive point. He will bake his bread from sack C, and consequently fatten no poultry. What is, therefore, really dependent upon the burning or not burning of sack A is only the use of the least important unit that may be substituted for it, or, as we call it, the final utility.
In other words, final utility is simply a kind of opportunity cost, viewed from another direction. How much does it cost the farmer with three sacks of corn to lose one of those three sacks? It costs him basically what he would do with the third of the three sacks, not what he would do with the first one.
One of the key observations that a reasonable person makes about the economic policies of the neo-feudal "progressives" is that those policies show an almost complete ignorance of, or even denial of the concept of opportunity cost. This is why the neo-feudal "progressives" are economically illiterate.
Ignorance of history is no excuse for racism [*19] -- Throughout American history, the political party which was the comfortable home of racists was the Democratic Party. This has not changed. The racists have just learned to use bigger words, and to actually convince minority races that racism is good for them.
Fans of the Limbaugh show tune in not just to hear right-wing opinions but for the host’s on-air persona (he plays an over-the-top egotist) and the world he constructed around it (his show has its own jargon and catchphrases, a horde of running gags, and a set of customs for the callers). Even the mic technique is distinctive: Limbaugh punctuates his comments with coughs, shuffles his papers noisily at the appropriate junctures, and, in general, gives his show a sound that is as singular as its viewpoint.
Yesterday I chatted with an old friend in Philadelphia. The man is well-connected and knows everyone of consequence in town. A loyal Northeast Republican, he lives in an upper-end condo, and during the last election, his neighbors were all solidly pro-Obama, so he had to endure constant ridicule for wearing McCain buttons. (He says it got pretty rough, too, which I do not doubt.) Yet he says that now, all of these same very wealthy, erstwhile Obama supporters just hate Barack Obama. He mentioned a variety of reasons for their anger, and Obama's Mideast policy seems to rank high as an irritant.
Bear in mind that this guy's neighbors are the sort of people who can normally be depended upon to pull out their checkbooks at Democratic functions.
If they hate Obama, the Democrats are in dire straits.
Stephen Glass, Redux? ThinkProgress.org Publishes Completely Fraudulent Video Labeling Tea Partiers Racists [*28] -- Democrats . . . neo-feudal "progressives" . . . lie. It's what they do. Many of their lies consist of their blithe, ignorant assumption that everybody behaves like they do, and therefore everybody else is lying too. Unfortunately for them, there are some few people left who think that lying is a bad thing and should be avoided, especially in important things--the more important, the more crucial it is to tell the truth. This concept seems foreign to Democrats and neo-feudal "progressives," judging from their actual behavior.
Sheriff Joe's War: Now More War-ry! [*30] -- I wish those on the right were a little more open to discussing and criticizing Arpaio's various excesses while pursuing an otherwise laudable "law-and-order" agenda . . .
Great: List Of Illegals Came From Utah Foodstamp, Public Benefits Lists [*32] -- I'm not sure why people accepting public assistance should not have their names publicized. If you want to remain private, don't take government assistance. If you'd rather be private than eat, you have that option. Public assistance should not come without some kind of responsibility. A minimum level of responsibility would be the other members of your community simply knowing that you are benefiting from their tax dollars. The people who pay taxes take the responsibility to do so. The people who benefit from those taxes should, I think, be willing to stand up before their fellows and at least acknowledge that benefit--if not daily thank those taxpayers for their assistance.
I'm sure that there are many who will consider this attitude to be callous and uncaring.
I think that the people who want to allow people benefiting from public assistance to remain private are the callous, uncaring ones. They don't want to see those less fortunate--they don't want to know who they are. They want to help "the poor," they don't really give a damn about each individual specific person's story--why they're where they are in life--and what, maybe, the community around them could do, outside of the realm of governmental authority and force, to improve that individual person's life. They don't want to see how destructive and corrosive public assistance can be, especially when accompanied with the lack of responsibility which is the natural corollary of keeping such a transfer payment secret.
None of which should be construed to justify somebody violating state law by releasing such names, if the law required them to stay secret. If that's the law, the law should be changed, but until it's changed, it should be obeyed. Which pretty much summarizes my view of immigration laws--and all laws--in the first place, actually.
Principles of Bizarro Economics [*40] -- Which, oddly enough, happen to coincide almost exactly with the principles of economics followed by the Democratic Party (and, sadly, all to many Republicans as well) . . .
Obama casts Republicans as party of the rich [*48] -- to which mocking laughter is the best response. Is that all you got, Barry? Is that all you and your eco-friendly jet-set Hollywood actor friends and Wall Street power broker buddies and shady Chicago financiers and pols, and Federal government workers who make significantly more than private sector workers for the exact same jobs---is that all you got? Is that really all?