Infantile protest reveals big labor's total lack of self-awareness

On the heels of the union antics in Michigan this week comes this story out of Philadelphia:

Residents at the Vista apartment building on the 2800 block. of N. 47th St. in Philadelphia's Wynnefield section are losing their minds over a recording played by protesters from IBEW local 98.

Last Wednesday, the union set up an iPod and loudspeakers that plays this recorded message: "Your community is crying for jobs, participation and fair wages." It's what comes next that brings a tear to the eye: an extended crying jag by a seemingly fussy infant.

The recording- which began last Wednesday- runs each weekday from around 8 a.m. to mid-afternoon.

"I know everybody says they've got their rights," says longtime apartment resident Jean Smith, "and that's fine. But don't we have rights too, that we have to hear this constantly- every day?"

The electricians are protesting the use of a non-union contractor to do electrical work on renovations at the apartment building.

Union boss John Dougherty defended the tactic saying it's "within the first amendment."  When I heard this my first reaction was to question whether or not this is actually covered by the first amendment.  Government is, after all, allowed to place reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech.  But beyond that, I wondered if a crying baby counts as speech at all, or whether it's just noise.

Then almost as quickly I realized that Dougherty probably has a point.  This is speech.  For what better expression of the union/progressive mindset could there be than a whining crying baby?

Judging by the comments section on this story, I wasn't the first to come to such a realization.

Books I Want To Read

Bill O'Reilly has been flogging his two bestselling books Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy for what seems like years now.  These are the two most famous assassinations in U.S. History and they have been done to death, if you'll pardon the pun.  I'm hoping Bill will continue to produce books in this vein shedding light on lesser known events in presidential history.  Here are some of the titles I'd like to see:

Killing Harding

Socking It To Nixon

Scaring Carter Like A Little Girl

Get writing Bill.

Mile High Indeed

In voting to legalize marijuana, Colorado and Washington have set up a neat object lesson in federalism.  After all, what does it matter if the voters of these two states have decided that people should be able to decide for themselves, without interference from the state, whether or not to use marijuana, if the federal government will continue to prosecute those who chose to do so?

The marijuana issue is interesting because it involves so much ideological inconsistency on both the left and right.  Marijuana legalization seems to be more popular with the left (and the libertarian right) than with the traditional right.  The voters in Colorado and Washington who approved legalization presumably would like to proceed without interference from the federal government.  On the other hand, leftists consistently support federal involvement in most other areas of national life.  They like federal initiatives in education, transportation, energy, industry, health care, etc.

By contrast the right tends to support a comparatively smaller role for the federal government in these areas but also favors federal drug prohibition.  I once heard Rush Limbaugh in a conversation with a caller about the subject of states' rights, which Limbaugh generally supported.  But when the subject turned to drug legalization Limbaugh stated that drugs are "inherently federal."  I rarely yell at my radio but I nearly lost it when I heard that phrase.  The whole point of the Constitution's creation of a government of limited and enumerated powers is that nothing is "inherently federal."  Limbaugh's use of the phrase represented an ignorant and careless attitude about Constitutional government.  The right should be better than that.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder have indicated their intention to enforce federal laws against marijuana possession even within the states of Colorado and Washington.  One suspects that both men's ideological sympathies run towards legalization and they would be happy to see Congress follow those two states' lead. However, I think the supremacy of the central government is far more important to them than any given policy position.

This is one of those occasions when I'm reminded why I like the Eighteenth Amendment so much.  The Eighteenth, which enacted Prohibition in 1919, represents one of the last times that Congress recognized that it's authority was subject to Constitutional limits.  For if Congress already possessed the Constitutional authority to ban alcoholic beverages, it could have proceeded by a simple legislative act requiring only a simple majority of both houses.  Instead  Congress recognized that it had no power to implement this policy, no matter how popular it might be.  The only legitimate course was to augment Congress' powers through the  amendment process, requiring two-thirds of each house plus ratification by three-fourths of the states.

When Franklin Roosevelt took office the Congress began asserting the power to intervene in a number of areas previously understood to be beyond its authority.  For several years the courts refused to allow Congress to act outside of the limited and enumerated powers contained in the Constitution.  But the Supreme Court eventually knuckled under to political pressure and removed any practical limits on Congress' power.  Can anyone doubt that if Congress decided to enact Prohibition in 1939 instead of 1919, it would simply have asserted the power to do so under the Commerce Clause?

The fact is that Congress has no authority to ban the cultivation or possession of marijuana.  Presumably it could legitimately act to bar the interstate transportation or importation of marijuana into states where it is not permitted but that is the extent of its power in this area.  Conservatives need to be true to their convictions and support the right of Colorado, Washington and any other state that so chooses to legalize marijuana.

The Virtues of Price Gouging

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy comes the entirely predictable harangues against "price gouging."  Politicians and media figures channel their inner Madame Defarges, condemning "greedy" merchants who raise prices sharply on high-demand items during a crisis or in its aftermath.  Since 1979 a majority of states have passed laws limiting price increases on certain critical goods and services during declared emergencies. Some of these laws impose criminal penalties for violations.  These laws have an undeniable emotional appeal.  Emergencies like Sandy inflict widespread hardships and people react viscerally when a few appear to benefit at the expense of their neighbors simply because they happen to have goods or services to sell that have suddenly become in short supply.

However, price gouging is just a pejorative term for the rational movement in prices in response to temporary localized shortages.  Higher prices in these situations are neither immoral nor parasitic.  They perform two functions necessary to coping with shortages.  Firstly, they encourage conservation and economizing.  Secondly, they encourage suppliers to enter the market who would not have been able to do so economically under lower prices.  Anti-gouging laws prevent these ameliorative forces from operating.  Nevertheless they are popular with politicians because the benefits of such  laws to a discrete, politically significant constituency are easily apparent while the costs are less visible.

The reporting on Hurricane Sandy over the past week has disclosed multiple examples of the harm caused by anti-gouging laws although the reporters involved were apparently too blinded by economic populism to recognize them.  The long gas lines seen in New Jersey and New York are a direct result of gas prices held artificially low by anti-gouging laws.  Increased prices for commodities like fuel, water, construction materials, etc.in the aftermath of a weather emergency simply reflect the fact that those commodities become significantly more valuable in such conditions due to disruptions in supply and, in some cases, increased demand.  Artificially holding prices low does nothing to change the intrinsic value of the goods and services affected.  Consumers know this and they are encouraged to purchase, and hoard, these items because they can obtain them at below-market prices - hence the long gas lines.

If prices were allowed to rise to reflect the real value of commodities, people would be encouraged to reevaluate their requirements.  Should they fill up their gas tanks as if nothing had happened?  Or should they make alternate arrangements on a temporary basis?  People could arrange car pools, take public transportation, take a bicycle to work.  If available and practicable they could take vacation time.  On the supply side, suppliers from outside the affected area might find that higher prices make it economical to divert product from their existing customers to meet the emergency demand.  Or they could increase production, put employees on overtime, or take other measures to increase their output on a temporary basis.  Scarce commodities get allocated according to real demand on something approaching a rational basis.

Instead, with prices held artificially low, scarce supplies go to those lucky enough to reach them before they are sold out.  No pressure is placed on anyone to conserve.  The results are that motorists wait in gas lines for hours only to find that the tanks are empty when they finally reach the pump.  Television reporters related that some vehicles in line were running on fumes while others had half a tank or more and were looking to top up.  Who knows if any of the motorists languishing in long gas lines took the opportunity to reflect that low prices are of limited benefit if there is nothing to buy?

Also, as a practical matter, anti-gouging laws can't really touch the secondary market.  Which is why people in New York were posting to Craigslist with offers of gasoline, presumably purchased at somewhere between $3.50 and $4.00 per gallon, at $15.00 per gallon.  The laws of economics are as immutable as the law of physics.  Attempting to prevent rising prices in the wake of a hurricane reflects an ignorance and arrogance that would only be exceeded by attempting to ban hurricanes themselves.  Of course President Obama, who famously promised to slow the rising of the oceans, might just think he can get away with it.

Whedon on Romney

Joss Whedon has published the following video to YouTube:

Now I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon.  He's had two hit television series and at least one of his other two series should have been a hit (I'm kind of ambivalent on Dollhouse).  As a writer and director he's brilliant.  As a political analyst he's as unbelievably stupid as the rest of his airheaded Hollywood compatriots.

He predicts that a President Romney's policies will "guarantee poverty, unemployment, overpopulation, disease, rioting . . ."  Poverty and unemployment?  Does he seriously think that Obama has successfully dealt with either of these issues?   The poverty rate has risen steadily over the last four years and there are a record number of Americans receiving food stamps.  Unemployment has remained persistently high despite Obama's incurring of six trillion dollars in new debt.  Based on historical patterns, a recession as severe as the one we experienced in 2008-2009 should have been followed by a robust recovery.  Instead we have had a dead cat bounce.  Just as the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Recession, Obama's policies have retarded and obstructed the natural corrective tendencies of the American economy.

As for the rest of Whedon's prediction, I can't tell if he really believes Romney's election will lead to "overpopulation, disease [and] rioting" or if that's just fanciful language meant to further his theme of the zombie apocalypse.

I have two main objections to Whedon's interposition of himself into the election.  The first is that, like most wealthy left-wingers, he is essentially immune to the harmful effects of the policies he wants to impose on the rest of us.  Whedon's net worth is estimated at $45 million.  Unemployment doesn't matter to him because he never has to work again, although he will because his talents are in high demand.  It doesn't matter if Obamacare drives insurance rates up and drives doctors out of the market because he has enough money to pay cash for whatever healthcare he needs.  No matter how many Americans are inflicted with shrunken horizons, diminished opportunities and restricted freedoms, Whedon and his fellow wealthy progressives will live out their lives in comfort, congratulating themselves for being enlightened enough to support progressive politicians and policies.

My second objection is that, while Whedon may be an Obama fan, Malcolm Reynolds definitely is not.  Reynolds fought for the Independents in the Unification War.  Reynolds thinks governments are for "gettin' in a man's way."  Reynolds has contempt for elites who think they can make people 'better."  He aims to misbehave.

Obama is so Alliance I expect to see Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod wearing blue gloves.  He's an arrogant elitist who doesn't hesitate to attempt wholesale re-engineering of an economy or a society but refuses to acknowledge his responsibility for the entirely predictable negative outcomes.  He rolls the dice on a massive overhaul of the health insurance market that will only result in increased costs, decreased service and government rationing.  He attempts to conceal the negative consequences by postponing implementation of some aspects of the law until after the election and illegally exempting favored constituencies from compliance with other sections.  He has engaged in a ham-handed and cynical cover-up of the Benghazi debacle because it exposes the flaws in his Middle East policy.  He subjected the entire population of a planet to the experimental drug G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate causing most of the people to give up and die and converting the survivors into a race of subhuman cannibals.  No wait, that wasn't Obama; but it's the kind of thing he'd try.

Obama isn't just the Alliance.  He's the Watchers' Council, or rather he admires and respects institutions like the Council - a self-appointed unaccountable cabal of European busybodies who have arrogated to themselves the right to regulate vampire slaying here in the United States.  Obama seems to think that America is a destructive, disruptive force in the world and needs to be restrained by international institutions.  He gazes enviously at foreign governments that intrude far more deeply and regularly into the lives of their citizens than the U.S. government has historically been allowed to.  He often defends his policies, like health care nationalization or green energy cronyism, by saying that other countries do it and the United States need to catch up.  One of his chief acolytes, Thomas Friedman, famously wished that the U.S. could be "China for a day," taking orders from the central government without that messy Constitution getting in the way.

In short, Obama is a classic Joss Whedon villain.  He's Wolfram and Hart, twisting and perverting the law.  He's Loki, the god who aims to 'liberate' us from freedom.  The fact that Whedon can't see this isn't really surprising, but it's still sad.

UPDATE:  Kevin Williamson has a better, more comprehensive takedown of the Whedon video over at National Review Online.

The 'R' Word

I was just watching Ann Coulter being interviewed on Piers Morgan's show on CNN.  Morgan is one of the most insufferably PC characters on TV today.  He was berating Coulter for using the word "retard" in a recent tweet.  He couldn't resist copping a "more-sensitive-than-thou" attitude - averring that "retard" is as offensive to disabled people as "the 'n' word" is to blacks.  Coulter had several reasoned responses to Morgan's charge.  She pointed out that she had never heard a disabled person complain about the use of the word "retard," only self-appointed spokespeople for the disabled.  She also noted that retard is no different than idiot, imbecile or moron; all of which were once clinical terms for persons with mental disabilities.  But she uncharacteristically missed an obvious rejoinder.  How can retard be equivalent to "the 'n' word" when Morgan can't bring himself to say the 'n' word but he apparently has no problem throwing the word "retard" around.  This is prima facie evidence that Morgan's outrage is completely manufactured.

Aqui y Ahora

It's very sad that if an American citizen wants to see his president face serious questions from a professional journalist he has to learn Spanish.  Now Univision has shown up its English-language counterparts again by airing the results of its investigation into the impact of the Justice Department's "Fast and Furious" gunwalking operation on Mexicans.  The short answer: dead Mexican teenagers.

Since the Fast and Furious story first broke, I have thought that this story is in many ways even bigger than the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  I have also found it interesting that the Mexican body count attributable to Fast and Furious has gotten little or no press up to now.  The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the groups that would be expected to raise the issue, the American press, Hispanic organizations and the Mexican government, have been more interested in protecting Obama than in exposing the ATF's contribution to the unbelievable violence in Mexico.  Obama must have thought, when he agreed to be interviewed by Univision, that he would be fielding the same softball questions he gets from the View, the Pimp with a Limp and Brian Williams.

As usual Mark Steyn gets right to the gut of the matter and pulls no punches tying this story together with several other that seem to have escaped the attention of the elite media:

So the Left’s it’s-different-when-we-do-it card applies not just to unmanned drones on Waziristani villagers, but Mexican adolescents gunned down at a birthday party. Would it be too much to ask one of the Pulitzer-laden bores at the New York Times or the Emmy-garlanded chaps at the network news divisions to look into this? Oh, no, wait! Look, over there! The coolest president ever is doing a photo-op with Beyonce!

How many dead Mexican teenagers does it take to change a light news day? As the Pundette says:

I guess none of those 14 kids killed or 12 injured looked enough like Obama’s hypothetical sons to matter?

Indeed. If only George Zimmerman had shot Trayvon Martin with an ATF gun, all his problems would have gone away . . .

 

Dead men tell no tales

Since the September 11 attack on the Benghazi consulate, and quite frankly for a long time before that, the president's political defenders have been loudly touting the administration's record of drone attacks against senior jihadists.  South Carolina Democrat Party chair Dick Harpootlian was particularly graphic when he boasted of the president's sending Osama Bin Laden and hundreds of other terrorists "to Hell," as if the drones' body count somehow insulates the administration from criticism for an intelligence/security failure like Benghazi.

The problem I have with this line of argument - and I haven't heard any journalists or pundits raise this yet - is that you can't interrogate people in Hell.  While Obama has been dispatching jihadists to Hades, he hasn't sent any to Gitmo that I'm aware of.

Defense against terror requires an aggressive human intelligence program.  Terrorists prepare their operations in secret.  They blend into the surrounding population.  There are no armored columns that can be spotted by satellite or aerial reconnaisance.  Security and counter-terror officials need to get hold of people with inside information and extract that information from them.  Obama's early and vocal opposition to key elements of the Bush counter-terror strategy, like Gitmo, classified overseas detention facilities and enhanced interrogation have likely compromised our ability to gather information from jihadists who fall into our hands.  Obama's heavy reliance on killing rather than capturing Al Qaeda's senior leadership seems designed to avoid embarrassing questions about the handling of prisoners.  Several highly-publicized leaks have made potential sources and allied intelligence services wary of trusting us with sensitive information.

Did any of this contribute to the intelligence failure at Benghazi?  I don't know.  In fact recent revelations in the news suggest that there really wasn't a failure of intelligence since the CIA and Ambassador Stevens were both warning of an increased threat level in Benghazi.  Instead there might have been plain old negligence in failing to take proper precautions in the face of a known threat.  But I think we should be asking to what extent our intelligence operations have been degraded, in this specific incident as well as in the wider war on terror.

Changing Roles

English diplomat Henry Wotton (1568-1639) famously defined an ambassador as "an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country."  Thanks to Barack Obama and Susan Rice we now know that an ambassador is a political hack sent to the Sunday morning talk shows to lie to her country.

Chick-fil-A

This past Wednesday I went to Chick-fil-A in Lancaster, PA for dinner.  While I like Chick-fil-A's chicken and don't normally need an excuse to eat there I will freely admit that I went there on account of the recent controversy over CEO Dan Cathy's comments and Mike Huckabee's idea to declare August 1 "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day."  A large part of why I went was simple curiosity to see how people in this area would respond to the whole issue.  But I was also personally motivated to participate in this event for reasons which I will explain below.

While waiting on line I took pictures of the large crowds standing on line and the procession of vehicles backed out onto the Lincoln Highway.  When I got home I posted one of the pictures to Facebook.  Several other Facebook friends posted various items generally supporting the Chick-fil-A event.

My sister took offense to all this in a Facebook status post:

I have never been one to use Facebook as a forum to voice my personal beliefs, convictions and opinions. I am hesitant to start now but I feel the need to respond to family and friends who have decided to use this forum, whether directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally to support discrimination. So, to those of you who have decided where to buy your chicken based on the words of one man and because two other men told you too I’m curious how far you are willing to take this. Have you called the CEO of your local supermarket to ask their opinions about marriage equality? If you have, then good for you, I support your conviction and consistency even if I don’t agree with your views. If not, enjoy your ride on the bandwagon and I’ll see you when you get off at the next stop. You should also realize that your convictions appear to be stronger than those of Mr. Carey. His company bowed out of the controversy as quickly as they started it stating that they will be leaving “the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.” Mr. Carey also pointed out that the company executives are all on their first wives, so am I Mr. Carey and our relationship is as strong as any I know. I like the idea of a business founded on Christian principles. Christ taught us to be fair and kind and not to judge. I won’t judge your marriage if you don’t judge mine. There is so much more I can say on the issue but Facebook will only allow me so much space so I will end with a note to those of you who have chosen to publicly state your opposition to marriage equality. I do respect your right to have any opinion you want and I commend your conviction to express your opinion but it does hurt me. To know that people I love are willing to take such a public stand regarding an issue that directly effects me and will never effect them hurts.

I attempted twice to respond by comment on Facebook but both times the website crashed on me so I am returning to my long-neglected blog to explain my view of the situation.

I am sorry that I offended Lesley with my post.  That was not my intention.  In fact, the whole Chick-fil-A thing wasn't even about same-sex marriage.  Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A's CEO, gave an interview in which he stated his opinion about same-sex marriage; the same opinion recently held by Barack Obama.  If people opposed to Mr. Cathy's views had chosen to criticize him, publicly denounce him, or even try to organize a boycott of his business, I don't think you would have seen the response you did on Wednesday.

But a gaggle of local politicians, chiefly Rahm Emmanuel and Tom "Mumbles" Menino, chose to make not-so-subtle threats to use the power of government to punish a business for the religious/moral/political views of one of its officers and shareholders.  This is what offended me as well as the people I spoke with while waiting on line.

Rahm Emmanuel famously said that "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values."  Frankly, that sounds like an endorsement to me given what I know about "Chicago values."  But Emmanuel surely meant it as a condemnation.  So what organization would be compatible with Chicago values?  Emmanuel recently embraced the Nation of Islam, whose views on homosexuality make Dan Cathy look like Perez Hilton.  Tom Menino made land belonging to the City of Boston available for a mosque run by an organization whose leader thinks homosexuals should be executed.  But these reprobates posed as champions of gay rights because they saw political advantage in it.

By the way, Chick-fil-A never "bowed out" of the controversy because Chick-fil-A was never in it.  Mr. Cathy stated his personal view.  Chick-fil-A merely restated its existing policies against discrimination.

Finally, because this is an issue of free speech, I disagree with the assertion that it doesn't affect me.  What these government hacks attempted to do is unconstitutional, un-American and a flagrant violation of our liberties.  This affects all of us.  Whatever your position on same-sex marriage, I would hope that you would condemn any attempts to use the power of government to enforce ideological conformity.

Flag Day

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burn'd,
As home his footsteps he hath turn'd
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung.

Sir Walter Scott - My Native Land

Today is Flag Day.  It's an easy day to miss.  Unlike on other federal holidays, the banks and post offices remain open.  I remember it mainly because it used to be my job to remember it.  As a Coast Guard quartermaster my responsibilities included all manners of honors and ceremonies, including making sure that my ship displayed the appropriate flags and ensigns on Flag Day as well as other days of observance.

I also remember it because I have a strong emotional attachment to the flag and this country.  I really believe in American exceptionalism.  I believe that the founding and the history of the United States are truly unique among the nations of the world.  I take perverse pleasure in the way that the rest of the world seems to look upon us with a mixture of horror and disdain.  I think many foreigners wish that we were less "militaristic," less committed to Israel's security, less wealthy, less free, less religious, less American.  I, however, am glad that we are all those things.  I have traveled abroad several times during my life and I can remember experiencing pride and relief every time I return to the United States.  I can't stand bureaucrats and petty functionaries and yet for some reason the sight of U.S. customs and immigration agents at the airport makes me glad because it means I'm home.  And all these emotions are recalled whenever I sight the American flag.

However, I confess to experiencing some mixed feelings on this latest Flag Day.  The flag, any flag, really is just a symbol, a piece of cloth.  It derives its meaning from the country and the values it represents.  And unfortunately I think we are losing sight of the values that make America exceptional.  In my last post I described my newfound appreciation for James Garfield.  Garfield once said "Territory is but the body of a nation.  The people who inhabit its hills and valleys are its soul, its spirit, its life."  My Garfield post also described how he said that the citizens of this country are ultimately responsible for its government.  If our government is dysfunctional, incompetent, profligate or corrupt, it is because we tolerate it.

Our government is dysfunctional because it long ago abandoned any pretense of fidelity to the Constitution that established it.  Most members of Congress give no thought whatsoever to the question of whether or not a particular exercise of congressional power is actually authorized by the Constitution.  In their more unguarded moments they will admit this.  The fact that these people took an oath to uphold the Constitution appears to be completely lost on them.  They get away with it because most citizens are equally derelict in their duties.

So this Flag Day I'm actually feeling a little snarky.  To me, honoring the flag seems rather hollow when we've turned our backs on what it stands for.  I'm reminded of the words of Jesus: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin.  But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faithfulness.  You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."  Matt. 23:23 (NIV).  The outward shows of patriotism are important, but more important is the responsible exercise of citizenship.

Just sayin'.

James A. Garfield

While watching Your World with Neil Cavuto a guest mentioned a quote by President James A. Garfield of which I was not previously aware.  This is not surprising since Garfield is not one of the better known presidents.  His presidency lasted only 200 days and he spent the last 80 of those dying from a gunshot wound.  In fact, although he isn't mentioned in the lyrics, the children of Springfield Elementary undoubtedly had him in mind when they sang about "The Mediocre Presidents" (song begins at 3:45)

What got my attention was the guest's relating of a quote by Garfield to the effect that the people are themselves to blame for the deficiencies of the American government.  I have often made this point myself and I was pleased to hear that the concept of holding citizens accountable for the governments they elect has an established pedigree.  Anyway, I went searching for the exact quote and here it is:

Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature ... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation...it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

Well put; but not something you're likely to hear from most politicians, who prefer to flatter voters rather than challenge them.  As an aside, in the course of my research I came across another Garfield quote almost as profound: "Man cannot live by bread alone; he must have peanut butter."

The transformation of "cool"

Ian Tuttle has a piece over at National Review Online discussing recent comments by Angela Rye, executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus claiming that opposition to Obama is motivated largely by racism.  That's nothing new.  Nor is her claim that racism is disguised by various "codewords" that white people use as substitutes for epithets and prejudices that are no longer socially acceptable to express openly.  What is remarkable is one of the codewords she discerns in recent discussion of the President.

There's an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there's this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses," Rye said. "And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren't asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that's the number one person they'd love to have a beer with. So, if that's not cool I dont know what is.

She added that "even 'cool,' the term 'cool,' could in some ways be deemed racial [in this instance].  (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbc-staff-opposition-obama-racist/592346)

So for those of you keeping score at home, "cool" used to be good; now it's bad.  Much like "dissent," which according to a bumper sticker once standard on Volvos and Priuses, used to be "the highest form of patriotism."  However, on January 20, 2009 it became the lowest form of racism.

That Obama's coolness should have been transformed from an asset to a liability is not unprecedented.  As a newly elected president, Jimmy Carter assiduously cultivated an image as a "man of the people" by, among other things, walking instead of riding in his inaugural parade, wearing sweaters instead of suit coats and carrying his own luggage when deplaning from Air Force One (although it was later revealed that the bags he carried were empty).  At first the American public approved of these gestures as a refreshing change from what many saw as the "imperial presidency" of Richard Nixon.  However, by the end of Carter's term, with unemployment, inflation and interest rates all in double digits and country after country falling to Communist takeovers, they seemed to symbolise the country's overall decline and lack of respect in the world.

Obama was blesseed with a similar honeymoon in which his obsession with celebrity and image was seen as "cool."  But image can only go so far without results to back it up.  George Costanza's failure to make any progress on the Penske file was not expiated by his act of humility in taking the smaller office.  Obama's failure to address the economic troubles bedevilling the American people is only exaggerated by the fact that he has chosen to take the biggest office in the land and is ostentatiously revelling in the perks afforded by that office.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

Got a reminder today from Fox News Sunday of the hazards of accepting statistics at face value.  Chris Wallace was interviewing Romney adviser Ed Gillespie and he asked him about the claim, frequently made by the Obama campaign, that Massachussets ranked 47th among the states in job creation during Mitt Romney's term as governor.  Gillespie broke down the data differently and provided a omewhat different picture.

Apparently Massachussets ranked last in job creation when Romney took office in 2003 but ranked 30th by the end of his term in 2006.  The Obama campaign's figure of 47th is technically accurate but it obscures a trend that arguably favors Romney.

This illustrates the chief strength and weakness of statistics.  That is that statistics operate to distill large amounts of data into gross generalizations.  These generalizations can summarize but they can also conceal important details.

Of course the larger question is the extent to which any governor can be blamed or credited for his states job performance.  But this issue reminds me to look more critically at any statistics proffered to support a given position.

Premortem Donation

Over at Anchor Rising Monique Chartier has a post reporting on a proposal by a professor of bioethics at Brown University to allow the harvesting of both kidneys from brain trauma patients on life support.  The patient would then be removed from life support so that he could die from his brain injury and not from losing both kidneys.  This rather chilling suggestion put me in mind of this bit from The Meaning of Life:

So once again life imitates art.  We ought to give careful thought to what happens if premortem donation is combined with government control of health care.  I know that sounds paranoid but I've lived long enough to see ideas once dismissed as paranoia become reality.

Wisconsin's Recall - and California's

Newsbusters has a post this morning comparing the national media's treatment of the Wisconsin recall election, which wraps up on Tuesday, with the 2003 campaign to recall Governor Gray Davis of California.  As might be expected, the major media, who served as Davis' palace guards, trying mightily to hold off the barbarians at the gate, are much more sympathetic to the gaggle of union thugs seeking to protect their perks by removing Scott Walker from the state house in Madison.  Of course leftists would no doubt point to conservative media figures whose inconsistency runs in the opposite direction.  One exception is the always-refreshing Jonah Goldberg who was opposed to the California recall despite being a conservative at odds with the left-wing Davis.

Jonah's reasoning was that recalls devalue the significance of scheduled elections.  He figures voters should take their responsibilities seriously and not be afforded a "do-over" if they realize they made a mistake.  In Goldberg's inimitable phrasing, "[T]he people of California elected Gray Davis and now they must be punished."  Of course I don't view retaining Scott Walker in office as a punishment for the people of Wisconsin.  I don't even really think of it as punishment for the public sector employees who are screaming the loudest about Walker's reforms.  But Jonah's larger point is still valid.

As I argued in this space two weeks ago, American citizens have come to see their franchise as a property right to be used for personal advantage, not as a public trust to be exercised with due regard for the rights of fellow citizens and the rule of law.  What we need is to revive a spirit of public spiritedness and respect for constitutional government.  When voters take their responsibilities seriously the recall election will become a vestigial relic much like Congress' power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister

I have long been a fan of British comedy, from Monty Python and Fawlty Towers, through Spitting Image, Drop the Dead Donkey and The Office.  But my favorite Britcom of all time would have to be Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister, two comedy series sharing the same cast of characters.  YM/YPM is a treasure because it is not only funny, it is also educational.

I'm only half joking when I say that watching every episode of these series (38 in all) will give you a better understanding of government than a four-year degree in political science from any of our undergraduate institutions.  This is so because, even though the relationship between politicians and career civil servants, which is the main dynamic driving the plot lines, is different in the United Kingdom and the United States, there are certain tendencies common to people everywhere that manifest themselves in unique ways once those people acquire political power.

YM/YPM follows the ministerial career of the Rt. Hon. James Hacker, MP, a moderate, well-meaning politician of indeterminate party who finds himself appointed to a cabinet ministry when his party regains the majority after years in the political wilderness.  He is appointed to helm the fictitious Ministry of Administrative Affairs.  This rather superfluous-sounding department with its amorphous brief is a plot device that allows the writers to involve the main characters in stories arising out of the whole range of government activity.  Whether the issue of the day is foreign relations, trade, city planning, government secrecy and surveillance, transportation, the arts or sports, the Ministry of Administrative Affairs seems to have its hand in it.

As I said before, the stories in these series arise out of the relationship between the British Civil Service, consisting of non-partisan career bureaucrats, and ministers, Members of Parliament who are appointed by the Prime Minister to head the various cabinet departments.  Although the minister is nominally in charge of the department, and in fact is held responsible for its actions, real day-to-day control is held by the Permanent Secretary, a senior civil servant.  Because the Permanent Secretary has spent his career rising through the ranks in his department, his knowledge and expertise far exceed that of the minister.  This puts the political leadership at a severe disadvantage if it wants to implement policies that are opposed by the permanent bureaucracy.

All We Gotta Do

Yesterday afternoon President Obama held a press conference at the conclusion of the NATO summit in Chicago. Someone on The Five noted that he spent six minutes describing the problems in Afghanistan without offering a solution or a strategy. That reminded me of this classic bit:



Constitutional Restoration

When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, all the people assembled as one man in the square before the Water Gate.  They told Ezra the scribe to bring out the Book of the Law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded for Israel.So on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand.  He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand.  And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law. . . .

 Ezra opened the book.  All the people could see him because he was standing above them; and as he opened it, the people lifted their hands and responded, "Amen! Amen!"  Then they bowed down and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.  Neh. 7:73b - 8:3, 8:5, 6 (NIV)

The people of Judah had fallen away from following God and they had suffered the judgment of being conquered and carried into exile in Babylon.  In time the Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians and a series of Persian Emperors allowed groups of Jews to return to Israel and to rebuild the city of Jerusalem.

One of the observances that had been neglected for a long time was the command that the Book of the Law be read to all the people assembled every seventh year during the Feast of Sukkot (Deut. 31: 10-13).  In 444 B.C. the people decided to remedy this breach.  They called on Ezra, who had led a group of returnees from Babylon fourteen years earlier, to bring out the Book of the Law and read it aloud to the whole assembly.  As the people heard the Law read they repented of their sins and resolved to follow God's commands.

Why am I telling this story?  Because we Americans have neglected our Constitution in much the same way that Judah neglected the Law of God.  And I think what we need as a nation is to rediscover the Constitution and decide whether we will follow it or junk it.  Whatever we do we should at least be honest with ourselves.

Every two years we elect a bunch of politicians to federal office and, almost without exception, they all perjure themselves as their first official act when they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.  Most of them go through their terms of office never giving a thought as to whether their actions are permitted by law to which they pledged fidelity and from which they derive their authority.

On Democracy

Andrew McCarthy has an excellent article in National Review Online this weekend about democracy in the Arab world.  McCarthy contrasts the optimism surrounding last year's "Arab Spring" with the reality taking shape in the newly democratic Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood is gaining political power while Shiite and Christian minorities are subject to increasing discrimination and oppression.  The fact that so many people are surprised by this development shows how little we understand democracy compared with the Founding Fathers.

The founders were very suspicious of democracy.  We all learn this at some point in social studies class but I don't think we internalize it or even understand it.  This is partly because the definition of democracy in the popular mind has changed over the centuries.

When the founders criticized democracy, they had in mind the ancient Greek model in which every citizen took a direct role in governing the affairs of the city state.  James Madison summarized the weaknesses of democracy in Federalist No. 10 thusly:

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

 Benjamin Franklin put it more succinctly:  "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."  Or as Tommy Lee Jones put it in Men in Black: "People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

Craig Ferguson

Craig Ferguson is one of the funniest and most talented personalities in late night television.  Although his humor often veers towards the crude he is still a joy to watch for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Ferguson has the simple patriotism of an immigrant.  He became a naturalized American citizen in 2008 and he frequently refers to the event with obvious pride.  Benjamin Franklin's "Join or Die" political cartoon is tatooed on his right forearm.  From 2007 to 2010 he hosted the Boston Pops Fourth of July concert and fireworks show.  But what I especially like is that he opens every show with the line "It's a great day for America," regardless of what is actually happening in the news.  It's an expression of indomitable optimism.

Secondly, his comedy is inventive and absurd.  He does a few impressions well, notably Michael Caine, Sean Connery and Prince Charles.  But his chief talents lie in always doing the unexpected and in making the hackneyed fresh.  Even his recurring gags never seem to get old.  His sidekicks include an effeminate robot skeleton named Geoffrey Peterson (who has his own twitter account) and a pantomime horse named Secretariat who makes an appearance in most every show, running out on stage and then off again while Craig and the studio audience dance to the horse's theme music.  Every show begins with a cold opening that might feature Craig talking to camera, subjecting audience members to a mock interrogation or a musical number involving puppets like this one.

But Ferguson's chief asset is that he doesn't take sides or play favorites when it comes to political humor.  He will make fun of any politician regardless of party or ideology.  In this respect he contrasts sharply with his boss, David Letterman.  Letterman's production company, Worldwide Pants, owns Ferguson's show.  Ferguson is the comedian Letterman used to be, taking no prisoners and respecting no persons.  Letterman, like many left-wing comedians, has a blind spot when it comes to left-wing politicians, particularly President Obama.  Ferguson is under no such handicap.

Sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude.

Jeopardy is broadcasting its "Power Players Tournament" this week and next featuring fifteen Washington, DC movers and shakers.  The contestant list skews heavily to the left with Dana Perino being the closest thing to a conservative in the whole lineup.  The first round of the tournament aired last night and it was a real treat mainly due to the presence of Chris Matthews.

Matthews is arguably the smuggest personality in cable news.  Last night he faced off against Lizzie O'Leary of CNN and Robert Gibbs, Pres. Obama's former press secretary whose chief accomplishment was making Scott McClellan look competent.  Matthews came in last with a disappointing total of $2,300.

Newsbusters, which could probably devote an entire web site to Matthews' antics, put together a compilation of his lowlights from last night's show and, for the icing on the cake, recounted four instances where Matthews disparaged Sarah Palin's intelligence, suggesting that she would perform poorly on Jeopardy.

For the record, Chris Matthews got 13 correct responses and 4 incorrect, not including final jeopardy.  Lizzie O'Leary got 17 correct and 2 incorrect and Robert Gibbs got 16 correct and 1 incorrect.  All three got the final jeopardy response wrong.

Tune in tonight to watch The Five's Dana Perino square off against Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and CNBC's David Faber.

Rosy Scenarios

Yesterday I noted that politicians have a habit of employing overly optimistic assumptions about the growth of the economy in order to assert that their budget plans would bring deficit spending under control.  Today Nash Keune has an article over at National Review Online examining this phenomenon in some depth.

Diane Feinstein has lost her capacity for shame.

Perhaps that's putting it too strongly but I saw Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) interviewed on Fox News Sunday this morning and I was struck by her answer to a question from Shannon Bream (sitting in for Chris Wallace) about the Senate's failure to pass a budget for the past 1,130 days:

Well, we in essence have a budget. The numbers are solid. I'm an appropriator and my appropriation subcommittee which is energy and water gets an allocation based on that law that we passed, the budget law. So, it's passed and it's functioning.

So, there is no annual budget and that is true in that sense. But the allocations have gone out. My bill has just passed out of committee. I think there are four Senate appropriation bills that are now out of the committee awaiting for action.

So, nothing has stopped. The government is moving.

What the senator is saying is that because the Congress has adopted certain measures such as continuing resolutions and "emergency appropriations" that enable it to continue on a fiscal autopilot, all is well.  Her subcommittee gets its allocation, the "allocations have gone out," "nothing has stopped," "[t]he government is moving."  Notice the heavy use of the passive voice, an apt illustration of the Congress' passive attitude towards its fiduciary obligations.

There seems to be no recognition that members of Congress have a responsibility to govern.  To govern is to choose.  But choosing necessarily involves provoking opposition.  The modern politician is concerned mainly with prolonging his own career in office so he is averse to taking any position that might offend an important constituency.

In the current situation, Congress cannot afford to coast on autopilot.  The United States have incurred unsustainable debt and there appears to be no serious effort to control the accumulation of further debt.  Even when a plan is touted as addressing the deficit problem, it is usually based on economic assumptions that appear unreasonably rosy based on recent performance.

Of course, as with most things in government, we have only ourselves to blame.  When any half-serious attempt is made at controlling spending, such as Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget proposal, it is instantly demonized by the Democrats and the NFM (Non-Fox Media) (HT Ann Coulter) follow right along in denouncing it as a medieval scheme to kill off the undesirables.  A substantial portion of the American public will accept this characterization uncritically, repeating bumper sticker slogans as if they were intelligent arguments.

If the United States are to avoid going down the route pioneered by Greece, Americans will have to begin acting like adults and electing politicians who will treat them like adults.

Why Backsplice

This is my first stab at blogging.  I've been opinionated for as long as I can  remember.  I love a good argument and I frequently contribute to other blogs through commenting.  Once I got a post published on Anchor Rising under the "Engaged Citizen" byline but, either through fear, procrastination or some other character defect I've been loath to put my own writing on the web on a regular basis.  Lately I've been trying to change a number of things about me so I figure it's about time for this.

My first choice for the title of this blog was "Seasmoke."  Sea smoke is a meterological phenomenon usually seen in colder climates consisting of a layer of mist no deeper than one or two feet resting on the surface of some body of water.  I first saw sea smoke while stationed aboard the Coast Guard Cutter Reliance, home ported in New Castle, NH.  While traveling to and from the ship I would see the mist covering the ponds and streams along the roads of Maine and New Hampshire.  I later adopted the term as my CB handle because it reminded me of one of the Coast Guard's nicknames - "The Smokies of the Sea."  Unfortunately, when it came time to name my blog, someone had already taken the name.

So I cast about for another image, preferably from my Coast Guard days, that would hold some significance and I came up with "Back Splice."  A back splice is a splice put in the end of a length of rope to prevent it from unraveling.  Depending on how the splice is made, it can also prevent the end of the rope from running through a block.  Essentially, a back splice stops a situation from deteriorating.

I believe that our country is deteriorating economically, politically and socially so the back splice is a good illustration of the need I see for something to prevent us from losing the blessings we inherited as Americans.

I don't know if anyone will actually read this but, if nothing else, this will be a good exercise to develop my writing and rhetoric skills.  If someone should view this site, know that I welcome comments.  I especially welcome arguments.  If you choose to comment please observe simple courtesy.  Stick to the point.  I don't like ad hominem arguments and I don't like non sequiturs and irrelevancies.