I haven't posted for a while, but once again, I feel compelled. There has been a lot of talk lately on radio and TV about "people who hate Barack Obama." In truth, unless Mr. Obama's personal sphere of influence is much larger than I can believe, I seriously doubt that there are enough people who actually hate Barack Obama to warrant any public comment.

Most of America hates, despises, and fears Barack Obama's policies, and for excellent reasons. Personally, none of us really give a fig about the man himself. We will probably not meet at church, our kids don't play with his kids at school, we are not neighbors, and neither he nor his wife are likely to be occupying the next cubicle at work. On a personal level, he is completely irrelevant, and we have no feelings about him either for or against.

No, what we hate is the idea that we have a communist in the White House, and he is determined to spread that particularly disgusting social disease by whatever means necessary. Yes, we do want him stopped cold, but it is nothing personal. We just don't want to live in a communist country. Most of us find that position quite reasonable, and not ideologically blind at all, especially considering the last hundred years or so of world history.

Yes, I am well aware that I have dropped the dreaded "C" bomb twice in one paragraph. I am also well aware that we are not supposed to notice the socialist tendencies of nearly every appointee in the current administration, but come on, people! He may not have a hammer and sickle tattooed on his forehead, but Stalin's Five Year Plans were less socialistic and totalitarian than Obama's ideas of economic stimulus, energy policy, and health care.

Communism can be defined as a fully socialized economy enforced by a fascist dictatorship. It embodies the worst of both economic and political worlds. President Obama has taken majority stockholder positions in two of the nation's three largest automobile companies, has exercised de facto control over the management of most of the financial industry, and has vigorously promoted a socialized medical system to replace private health insurance. He has voided legal contracts and international treaties for his own personal convenience, apologized to our enemies for defending ourselves and our allies, and has proposed legislation designed to bankrupt both producers and consumers of energy, simply by government fiat. And that was only his first hundred days.

Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is clear, and has been since even before the Democratic Primaries. The current Presidential administration wants to force socialism down the throats of America, and sees no reason to let trivia like freedom and the Constitution stand in the way. I think the time has come for the Naming of True Names. Our President, ladies and gentlemen, is a communist.

So, yes, we do want him stopped. Yes, we do hate everything he stands for. But no, the simple truth is, the man himself is nobody special, and we don't really care about him one way or another. If we could make him retreat to the Oval Office and be quitely Presidential while the rest of us go about our business, that would suit most of us just fine.

 

Heh-heh. "More on health care." "Moron health care." I crack myself up.

I was just listening to the fact that the White House claims that the single payer communist health system they want to install will cost $1 trillion over ten years. Something bothered me about that, so I grabbed a calculator.

In the 2000 census, there were about 450 million Americans total. Let's assume that that number will become 500 million in 2010. Now, the big selling point is that everybody will be covered by the government plan, no exceptions. That means that $1 trillion (12 zeroes) divided by 500 million (6 extra zeroes) is, um, $2000 per person.

Barack Obama says that every man, woman and child in the United States will receive all necessary medical services, including any necessary major surgery, for $200 per Year.

Friends, delivering my oldest child, which occurred with no complications, cost over $5000, including the insurance company's payment. How is the President planning to make that entire process cost less than dinner and a movie? Something is not right here, and my daughter has not smelled like that since before she was two!

Moron health care, indeed. For some reason, I'm not laughing any more.

I have noticed something about the much touted need to reform health care. Very few people see a need to reform the way doctors are trained. I have heard little about changing the way hospitals, emergency rooms and neighborhood clinics deliver health services. I have heard absolutely nothing criticizing the way drugs and medical equipment are dispensed to the patients who need them

Nope. The only thing about the health care system in America that anyone finds serious fault with is that it costs money. Nobody wants to pay for medical services, drugs, or necessary medical equipment. What we need, apparently, is a system where doctors, nurses, orderlies, drug manufacturers, and everyone else associated with the health care system provides everything a patient might need for free. Or maybe for the price of a Big Mac.

If we "control costs," that will mean that we limit the salaries that can be earned by doctors, surgeons, specialists, nurses, and other medical professionals. That will mean that medical professions are less financially attractive. Who is going to put up with four grueling years of pre-med, four more tortuous years of medical school, and another four agonizing years of internship, for an auto mechanic's salary? How are these people even supposed to pay for their student loans?

If we "control costs," that will mean that drug companies can only expect to realize a fixed amount of revenue for any drug. Who is going to pay for the years of basic research, followed by more years of animal testing, followed by clinical trials, federal reviews and approvals, and other procedures that can easily take another two years, just to invent a drug to cure a measly three or four thousand people? Scientists will be working at subsistence wages, facilities will be small and poorly maintained, and new drug research will be a financially disastrous proposition. It is hard to do stellar science while living at the Y and dining in a soup kitchen. And again, where is the motivation for bright young minds to study biology, chemistry and medicine for eight to twelve years when they can never expect to repay their student loans?

The bottom line is, the American health care industry is one of the fairest, most efficient, and I dare say cheapest health care systems in the world. Not everyone can afford every procedure they might need, but then not everyone can afford a Lexus, either. No system is perfect, but our health care system is pretty good, taken as a whole.

 

My son asked me that question a few days ago, and this was more or less what I told him.

The idea behind socialism is actually rather attractive. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It sounds fair and compassionate, almost utopian. Everyone contributes, and everyone gets everything they need to be content. Right? Let's take a closer look.

First, in a capitalist system, if I am a baker then the bread I produce in my bakery is mine, and I can sell it to anyone who is willing to pay for it. To make more money for my bread, I can raise prices and sell the same number of loaves, or I can increase my production somehow and sell more loaves at the same price. If I can find a way to reduce costs and increase production, then I can sell more loaves at a lower price to make even more money.

The point here is that in a capitalist system, I own the bakery, I own the product, and I get to benefit from my labors. If I do a good job, I get more benefit than if I do a bad job. Under a capitalist system, I have a powerful motivation to always do a better job than I did before.

In a socialist system, I do not own either the bakery or the bread. Those belong to society. Under socialism, the theory is that I should produce as much bread as I can, of the best quality I can produce, and then I just turn it over to be distributed to everyone who needs bread. In turn, I get a place to sleep, a ration of food, clothes, and whatever else the distributors agree that I need.

If I increase production, reduce costs, or both, I do not get anything more as compensation, because it is my socialist duty to do these things. Remember, the concept is "From each according to his ability." So, if I am able to produce more, it is only expected that I should do so. I still only need my ration of food, shelter, clothing, and whatever, and that ration will not be changed because I work harder, or smarter.

It won't be long before I realize that I get no benefit from working harder and producing more, so I will begin to produce less. After all, "To each according to his need." I still need my ration of food, clothing, shelter and whatever, even though I am producing less. I have no motivation to produce more. Why should I work harder than necessary if that work is not going to result in some sort of reward?

Over time, more and more people will see that hard work is not rewarded any differently than laziness. Quality will suffer, production will go down, and shortages will appear because people just do not see any reason why they should work hard, if at all. The socialist system will quickly collapse.

To keep the system going, you now need communism, the government-enforced flavor of socialism. With communism, you have a central committee that decides what everyone needs, and what everyone is able to produce. They have the power to set quotas for each person to produce, and to punish those who do not meet their quotas.

Now, under communism, I have a motivation to work hard again. That motivation is simply the fear of punishment for failing to work hard. I still have no reason to expect a reward for working harder, but I know that I will be punished for not working hard enough. Now, what is another name for a system where people are forced to work but are not allowed to benefit from that work?

If you said, "Slavery," give yourself a gold star.

Socialism is a system where people are forced to work but are not allowed to own or benefit from the products of that work. Slavery is a system where people are forced to work but are not allowed to own or benefit from the products of that work. Socialism is slavery, pure and simple.

The only people who like socialism are the ones who think it will give them the products of other people's labor for free. In other words, anybody who likes socialism really wants to be a slave owner, and those people should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

As discussed in Part 1, there are many obstacles to making oneself the unquestioned master of a free people. The obstacles described can not be overwhelmed in a single cataclysmic event, but they can be eroded over time. We will now begin to describe the tools and techniques that will be required to prepare the populace to actually participate willingly in its own subjugation.

The process will require at least four generations, if successful. This time span is dictated by the need to wait for a majority of the initial happy, certain, productive and successful people to die off. You must change attitudes slowly, generation by generation, until the necessary climate of fear, distrust and general dissatisfaction is achieved.

Activist Propaganda

The heart of the plot is a steady, implacable, and consistent program of propaganda. To spread this propaganda, it will be necessary to recruit a significant number of people who will faithfully repeat the "ideals" that the cunning Evil Genius will provide.

The people used in this manner should be a group that is generally dissatisfied with its lot in the current system, but is only vaguely aware, if at all, of the reasons for that dissatisfaction. Candidate groups include unpopular religious groups (including atheists,) marginalized ethnic groups, people with lower than average income, the poorly educated, the lazy, the overly educated, and others. If possible, more than one of these groups should be cultivated to spread slightly different versions of the main theme.

The group or groups selected should be able to identify with one another in a manner that will promote a sense of unity among themselves. At the same time, the groups' sense of community with the population at large should be as tenuous as possible, so they can more easily be alienated from the social mainstream. Because their purpose is to slowly alter the thinking of the mainstream population, the selected groups must not be too much at variance with the common culture. The selected victim group will be used over a long time to generate sympathy and agreement in the mainstream culture, while maintaining a separation from that culture.

Initially, the message to be propagated should be some variation of "Unfair! Equal Rights for All!" The precise content can be adjusted to fit the malcontents for which it is intended, but the primary focus must be kept on the "unfair" part of the message. Once the message has been introduced, it will appeal to the greed and envy of the subject group, and they will claim the message for their own.

Once the message has been adopted by the selected victim group, ever more strident repetition will bring the message to the awareness of the social mainstream. Anger and resentment within the victim group should be promoted if it does not spontaneously appear. Limited incidents of violence may be helpful, as long as tensions do not reach the point of actual civil war.

At this point, intellectual and political leaders should be cultivated or created to give the message greater credibility and importance. Initially, these leaders can position themselves as voices of reason, using real or imagined authority to promote a sense of guilt in the mainstream society with public speeches and legal and scholarly publications. When the time is right, they can propose changes in law that provide special privileges to the victim group in the interest of fair play and equal rights. Of course, these laws will foster anger and resentment in the mainstream against the victim group, and will do nothing to promote real social equity.

As the movement succeeds, other victim groups will surface not under your direct control. This is not a problem, as long as these groups continue to maintain their victim mentality. Some of these groups may in fact succeed in integrating themselves into the social mainstream, thus achieving actual equality of opportunity for success. This is a major problem, since such groups will acquire an interest in maintaining the existing system.

Fortunately, should any victim group appear to be in danger of acceptance and integration, it will be a simple matter to magnify individual failures and isolated disputes to demonstrate a continuing pattern of oppression. The silliness and insignificance of these trivial incidents is irrelevant. The important thing is to project the illusion of unrelenting oppression to play upon the guilt of the social mainstream, and the paranoia and isolation of the victim group.

As progress toward equal treatment is made, it will be useful to occasionally call for reparations in redress of past injustices. These calls will only rarely meet with any success, and are intended only to promote confusion and make the "social injustices" seem more intractable.

Over time, with surprisingly little guidance, this strategy will result in a fragmented society consisting of fragmented subcultures divided by mutual suspicion. By referring to each of these subcultures by a unique name in news reports and other public discussions, the separation can be maintained and amplified indefinitely. Eventually, the once unified society will become a shattered mosaic of mutually exclusive camps, each group constantly alert for opportunities to promote its own welfare at the expense of the others.

To Be Continued....

Like at least several dozen Americans, I have been following the recent Presidential campaign, the economic news, and the political news since the elections with some interest and attention. The general pattern puzzles me.

What the heck is our new President really up to? First he campaigns on the idea that the previous administration is irresponsible because they ran up a $5 trillion debt over an eight year period. Then, to fix the cash shortage, he insists that hundreds of billions of dollars be spent in such a mad rush that nobody even knows what the money is being spent for. Then he introduces a new era of financial responsibility with a proposed budget that makes the most profligate spenders in history look like a bunch of tightwads. This from a man who wants direct control over the salaries of people who actually work for a living because he thinks it is unreasonable that they should be paid at all.

At the same time, he preaches the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, but refuses to permit development of massive domestic oil resources. While sitting on an energy cornucopia that could guarantee cheap energy for the next couple of hundred years, he demands that only the most expensive and least practical energy sources be actively developed. He is pushing for a thinly disguised punitive energy tax that will double, or perhaps triple the cost of energy from existing sources. This, at a time when any cost increase will put more people out of work.

Meanwhile, he is pushing for government control of the entire health care system. That may be great if you have a cold, and all you need is plenty of fluids and some aspirin, but what happens when something is really wrong? I for one do not relish the prospect of waiting for three months or more to have my inflamed appendix removed because surgery requires two specialist opinions and operating rooms are booked for weeks in advance.

Not neglecting foreign affairs, he sends hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas to buy more weapons for their terrorist activities, tells the radical Moslem world that he will do nothing to inhibit their quest for nuclear weapons, and informs North Korea that they may test intercontinental missile systems at will. Unsatisifed with his progress in destabilizing the Middle East and the Pacific Rim, he tries to sell out our Eastern European allies for diplomatic favors from a belligerent Russia. He also offers several pointed insults to the British Prime Minister, of all people, during a traditional state visit. Even now, he is busily exhorting the governments of the rest of the world to join him in trashing their currencies in order to prevent their economies from outperforming the one he is trying to impoverish as fast as possible.

Ever the patriot, he has authorized the deployment of half the troops required to do more than hold the line in Afghanistan. Nobody can figure out what his policy toward Pakistan will be, but we can be sure that neither the Pakistani people nor their government will like it. The Malignant and Evil Bush plan to withdraw from Iraq has now become the Wise and Benevolent Obama withdrawal plan, which is obviously a completely different thing. And, those poor unfortunates whose only crime was to plot destruction against the United States and her allies are being released as quickly as possible. We all may rejoice that they will no longer be subjected to the intolerable abuse of three square meals a day, relatively comfortable sleeping quarters, and constant media attention at Guantanamo Bay.

So you tell me. Is Barack Obama the most carefully stupid anthropological specimen ever to walk the earth, or is he the most dangerous enemy the free world has ever faced? I honestly do not know, but I don't see a lot of room for middle ground here.

In early 2002, when the Homeland Security Agency was first proposed, I sounded a warning that its duties, responsibilities, and even its innocuous name indicated that it would inevitably become an instrument of oppression. If anyone paid attention, it was only to laugh and dismiss my paranoid fantasies.

Today, this story appeared on Fox News. Sometimes I hate being right.

I have never heard of a fusion center. I did not know the Department of Homeland Security was in the business of defining anyone who might think personal liberty is good as a terrorist. I did not know they were developing justifications for the idea that anyone who disagrees with current public policy, promotes a different public policy, or even supports a candidate from a different party than the one currently in power, as a terrorist. I am not, however, the least bit surprised.

In the words of Jane Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, "That's why we started this.... Now we know that it's not just the 9/11-type incidents but many, many other types of incidents that we can benefit from having fusion centers that share information and product and analysis upwards and horizontally." Be afraid.

I did not realize the extent of the secrecy enveloping the activities of the Department of Homeland Security. Once again, I am not the least bit surprised. Secret police organizations whose purpose is to suppress all opposition to the ruling regime through intimidation, kidnapping, torture and murder rarely wish their activities to be publicized.

It does not have to be this way. In cryptography, there is a rule that any code must follow to be taken seriously. The rule is, any good code algorithm must be public knowledge. It must be something that anyone can implement. At the same time, even with that knowledge, it must still be impossible to decode a message without the key in a useful amount of time.

The Department of Homeland Security could and should operate in much the same way. Their guiding principles, if not their actual methods, must be public knowledge. They need to be subject to the same laws that govern any other police organization in the country. They need to be subject to public scrutiny to keep them honest. Or, they need to be disbanded for our own safety and that of the Republic.

As things stand, a mere six years after its inception the Department of Homeland Security is showing undeniable signs that they are planning to crack down on dissenters. Any dissenters. That means you.

By the criteria outlined in "The Modern Militia Movement" I am a potential terrorist because I am writing this blog. You are a potential terrorist because you are reading it. Between us, we are conspirators in an underground militia.

I don't know what worries me more, the idea that I could be profiled as a potential threat to my own country, or the idea that people who actually make and use bombs, and who fly airplanes into crowded office buildings, are not.

Watch and listen to this video where White House Press Secretary Gibbs "explains" the difference between a "sound" economy and a "strong" one.

Having watched this display, I can not help wondering, do these people ever listen to anything they say?

He confirms that Candidate McCain (notice the diminutive title as he refuses to even call him Senator) was completely deluded to refer to any part of the national economy as "strong." I can only assume he intends us to understand that the economy is definitely and inarguably weak.

In the next breath, he asserts, "Nobody exceeds the United States in our production capacity, uh, in our untrapranool....entrepreneur'l (sic) capacity, in our capacity to innovate, in our research universities, in the depth and the breadth of our capital markets, umm...." Is it just me, or does that not sound pretty strong, as economies go? And am I the only one who heard how the man just could not choke out the word "entrepreneurial?"

Visibly nervous, he stumbles on, "But as the president, addressed in the debates later that fall, ah, he said that the strength of our fundamentals should be med-measured as to whether, um, the middle class is getting a fair shake." Dude! The guy you are talking about was only a candidate then, too! Also, would you mind defining the term "fair shake?" I'm middle class, and I go to work, get paid, and pay my bills. It doesn't get much more fair than that, does it?

Appearing to gain confidence with the ole campaign slogans, he continues,"Unh, are we taking steps to create jobs? Are we taking steps to prevent home foreclosures?" Son, one of these days somebody has got to explain to you where jobs come from, and why foreclosures happen.

He has to think hard again to make this next bit sound even a little acceptable. "Are we taking steps, ahh, to put money back in people's pockets who most deserve it, rather than to continue, unh, tax cuts that reward those that have done, just fine over eight years?" WHAT WAS THAT?

So, now you have it. A sound economy is one that has all the elements required for everyone who participates to succeed to one degree or another. A strong economy, however, seems to be one where the government "takes steps" to create jobs and prevent home foreclosures. Notice that these government "steps" need not succeed in their purpose. They need only be taken.

Above all, a strong economy, as opposed to a sound but weak one, seems to be an economy where the deserving, whoever they are, are given money by government fiat. At the same time, a strong economy ensures that those who have succeeded to any degree in a sound economy are "not rewarded." Lovely.

Let's just skip ahead to the next significant bit.

"The question was, are we going to, uhh, move forward in, uhh, a plan that would create jobs, a plan that would stem home foreclosures, a plan that would reward the middle class with tax cuts..." Hold it right there! Ten seconds ago you said rewarding the middle class with tax cuts had to be stopped to make the economy strong. You want to make up your mind, there, Sparky?

"...and a plan that would reregulate our financial industry, or were we not? I think that debate is largely over? I think that campaign was...won? Uh, by, a particular side...." Then he starts stumbling and mumbling even worse than before.

We need to get one thing straight, guys. What you "won," as you are so fond of saying, is nothing more than the award of a four year employment contract. That contract includes a termination clause, and you people seem to be doing everything in your power to invoke the conditions of that clause. Your objective is simple. It is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, so help you God. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nowhere in your terms of employment is there any reference to redistributing money to those of whom you approve, and nothing in those terms suggests that you are permitted to beggar the nation, punish the productive, cripple and alienate the military, or apologize to the implacable enemies of the very Constitution that you are sworn to defend.

Under no circumstances are you granted unlimited power over any part of the American nation, its people, its economy, or its relations with other nations. You are specifically required to work with the Congress of the United States of America in equal partnership to promote the freedom, prosperity, and general well being of those United States. So far, you do not seem to Play Well With Others, and you seem a bit unclear regarding the duties and responsibilities of the President of the United States.

Ladies and gentlemen of the White House, you have been hired to do one specific job. Would you care to share with us when you might be ready to get started?

For the benefit of any evil genii (plural of genius) reading this blog, I think it is time to explain the proper way to seize absolute power from a democratic republic such as is popular in the allegedly freedom-loving nations of the world.

The Problem

Democratic republics are designed specifically to prevent absolute power from being invested in any single individual. Of course, this limits the opportunities for total control within such a system. For example, the President of the United States is said to be the most powerful person in the world, and yet nearly every significant thing he does must be ratified by Congress before it can take effect. If one wishes to rule absolutely with an iron fist, one needs a political system that does not allow endless second-guessing of one's every utterance.

To maintain rule, one must acquire the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the people to be ruled. Support can be purchase through a "bread and circuses" approach, by creating the illusion that the leader is somehow superior to all others, by outright deceit, or as a last resort, by intimidation.

One difficulty in assuming total control in a republic is that the populace at large is generally satisfied with their governmental system. These governments usually permit a relatively free market economic strategy, which tends to promote prosperity. Satisfied, prosperous people do not hope for change, they are happy with the status quo. They will vigorously resist any attempt to significantly change that status quo because it is working.

Another problem is that republics tend to support quality education. From a young age, a vast majority of the people are instructed in language, history, arts, sciences and mathematics. They are treated to balanced and accurate descriptions and analyses of current and historical social systems, with advantages and disadvantages of each. They are, above all, taught and encouraged to think critically, logically, and productively about everything they experience, and to debate openly and fearlessly on any subject. People educated in this manner will tend to resist any effort to establish unlimited central control over their lives.

Finally, most allegedly "free" nations support, or at least fail to discourage, the free practice of religion. This allows the vast majority of the population to receive a firm grounding in ethical and moral principles that provides each individual with more or less uniform concepts of good and evil, justice and mercy, and other virtues and failings. These concepts form the basis for a certainty of word, thought and deed that effectively counteracts any attempt to establish control based on moral authority.

People who have become prosperous through their own autonomous control of their economic decisions will have no motivation to relinquish that control to a central authority. People who trust and believe in their system of government will resist attempts to change that system. People who are well educated and believe in their own judgement will not respond to bribes, demonstrations of superiority, or other deceptions because they possess the mental tools to immediately perceive the fallacies involved. Such people will also fail to respond appropriately to the application of direct force, unless it is ruthless and overwhelming. In today's world, such levels of force are generally impossible to achieve.

To Be Continued....

I hardly know where to start with this story. If I tried to address everything that is wrong with it, I would be writing a small book. For now, I will try to restrict myself to one or two points.

For example, America's B.O. wafted out, "I don't think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say." He actually used those very words. There is even video. I am sorry I can not seem to find the original, but here it is presented as part of Hannity's America.

OK, fine. Where was this attitude last October? Yes, the banking industry was hit with a series of paper liabilities that translated into real losses far out of proportion to their actual values. Yes, some banks teetered on the edge of bankruptcy, and a couple fell over that edge. A couple more probably would have followed suit. Resoundingly NO, the banking system was never in any danger at all.

We saw the exact same thing happen to the tech industries in 2001. Huge losses were realized as the "assets" of many companies were found to be without real value and entire corporations were discovered to be hollow shells. Thousands of companies closed, billions of investment dollars were lost, nearly every company that dealt with computers enjoyed massive layoffs, and unemployment skyrocketed. I was one of the unemployed for a while. It could have been said that our technological civilization was imperiled, in the same way that our banking system was imperiled last October.

Interestingly, there was never a suggestion that any of these technology companies should be bailed out by the government. The industry just took its lumps and carried on. Investors were generally skittish about technology stocks for about three years, then cautiously started dipping their toes, and their dollars, back into the technology pool. As, I might add, was fully expected by those of us in the industry.

Those of us who could, got new jobs with healthier companies in the same industry. Those of us who could not for whatever reason, found different career opportunities in other industries. The assets of the failed companies were sold off, the losses absorbed, and lessons were learned. We now have a more educated class of tech investor, and a more robustly profitable digital technologies industry.

I would also like to point out that through it all, even with a huge sector of the economy floundering, the overall economy grew steadily at a healthy pace between one-half and one-and-one-half points above inflation. You can check this yourself at the Federal government's own economic indicators website.

The banking "crisis," left to itself, would have played out in a similar way. Individual banks would have collapsed. Their assets and employees would have been redistributed among the remaining healthier banks. "Toxic assets" and liabilities would have been shunned or disposed of, and the related losses absorbed. The unemployed would, sooner or later, move on to other opportunities, not necessarily in the same industry. We would have ended up, after six months to two years, with a wiser class of lenders, and a less exuberant class of borrowers.

Instead, America's B.O. was one of the first and loudest to proclaim disaster to our very way of life if the government failed to Do Something Now. Even, or maybe especially, if it is wrong.

As a result of this panicked clamor to Do Something, even if it is wrong, we start with an economy battered by a sucker punch to the overrated derivatives, a $1 trillion deficit from last year, and a $10 trillion outstanding debt. We immediately hand out another $700 billion to our political supporters, letting the rest of the banks sink or swim on their own. As soon as the Shadow Presidency ends, we demand that another $787 billion be spent without time for discussion, debate or even full awareness, lest we face the End of Civilization as We Know It. We then pass a pork-bloated "regular" omnibus spending bill of $470 billion, this time with a sort of decent debate period consisting mostly of, "Shut up, you obstructionist Republicans, and vote as you are told!"

Oh, yes, and the nation's leading tax dodger, er, Secretary of the Treasury, is working on a plan to make another $1 trillion in government funds available as loans. OK, sure, why not? Thus, a nation whose primary problem is a temporary shortage of liquid cash assumes another $1.75 trillion dollars in debt within a six month period, with another trillion waiting in the wings. What will the next six months bring? Wow, indeed.

If this "plan" works, it will prove once and for all that, when faced with a cash shortfall, the correct solution is to start spending like a drunken sailor. Since I don't think anyone has any doubts about how that plan will work, I think we can extrapolate what our economy will look like by the end of the year.

So I wind down with another quote from the article that started this whole diatribe, where America's B.O. was addressing the Business Roundtable, a group of top business executives. The article reports that B.O. said his health and energy changes would build a foundation for lasting recovery, arguing that the current economic crisis was precipitated by an "illusion of prosperity."

Well, Mr. President, I think we can be sure that, unless somebody changes their spending habits in the next few weeks, there will be no illusions of prosperity during your term in office.

As I was perusing the comments on another blog, one unusually lucid commenter struck me as typical of the liberal mindset. This mindset needs to be addressed. And redressed.

In his somewhat wandering post, he took pains to declare that "I even name high-profile conservatives I think are intelligent." How generous of him. He went on to notice that conservative posters "never assume they ... are more intelligent than I am. Why is that?" Somehow, he derives from this that conservatives are opposed to higher education.

What an incredible load of pony poo! Can you believe this clown is actually trying to pay us a compliment? Even when making nice, liberals just can't seem to get over their self-righteousness long enough to take the sneer out of their tone. And this in a text-only message, even yet!

Forgive, if you can, the grammatical errors in the first and third paragraph. Having gradjyated Six Grade, and larned to cipher and all, I talk like that, but I don't always choose my words so carefully when speaking. Oh, dear. I fear I have lost my liberal audience to my failure to prove that the weight of my brain can sink a battleship. How sad.

OK, now that the ADD crowd is gone, let's look at why conservatives don't make a big deal out of who is more intelligent than whom. It's simple, really. We consider it a well known fact that the size of your diploma is not necessarily related to the size of your contribution.

Boy, that was simple! Maybe I should elaborate.

We conservatives do not need to feed our own egos at the expense of others. We are simply too caught up in making the best of ourselves, and encouraging the best in those around us. We know that the lady who never graduated from high school, yet raised a family, put her kids through college, and now owns a successful card shop may have something to teach us. We also know that the Nobel Prize winner physicist could, if he so desires, benefit from our skills or knowledge. We are, in short, emotionally and intellectually secure.

When I walk into a group of people, I do not worry about how I can prove I am more intelligent, or better educated, than another person in that group. I don't care. Further, anyone who is thinking that way is not worth my time. People like that are so busy trying to prove they are better than me that there is just no way to pass time with them pleasantly or constructively.

Long ago, when I still thought that "liberal" meant "in favor of liberty," I had already learned that anyone who declares himself the smartest person in the room is in fact a pompous, arrogant fool. If a third party declares him the smartest in the room, he is most probably still pompous and arrogant, but the fool part is not as certain. The third party making the declaration, however, is either a sycophantic fool, or going for a laugh. No, people who can be taken seriously just present their contributions, and those contributions are accepted on their own merits. They never, ever, try to use a diploma to make themselves seem superior.

Conservatives believe that education is a wonderful thing. In a sense, we never really leave school because we are constantly learning, both from the world around us and from our own experiences. At the same time, we are aware that not everyone needs a twelve year degree to achieve what they want in life. We are also very well aware of how difficult it is to get an actual education in a college or university. As a result, we generally have far more respect for a person's accomplishments than for their office wallpaper. We expect others to feel the same way.

That, my little-minded liberal mystery commentator, is why I do not automatically assume I am more intelligent than you. It is also why I expect you to show some intelligence, too. I emphatically expect you to show some respect for people who may someday have something you need. A diploma does not prove intelligence, and far too often, a useful education is not found in a school.

 

 

 

Wow. Big word. Macroeconomics. Rolls off the tongue. Sounds impressive. Must be complicated. It means "big trade."

Big trade is not really any different from little trade. In little trade, you have a fistful of dollars and you want some things from the store. You go to the store, realize you don't have enough dollars to buy everything you want, so you get what you need first. With the dollars you have left over, you decide if you want to buy a few luxuries (things you want but don't need) or if you want to keep the dollars for another time.

Meanwhile, you know you are going to need more dollars, so you find something that you have that other people will pay for, and sell it. Usually this is the application of a skill or a product of your own labor. When you find someone who will pay you for applying your skill or producing things with your labor, you are "employed." After you get your new dollars, you can go back to the store and get more things you need and/or want.

Macroeconomics, or big trade, is what happens when millions, or even billions, of people become employed so they can go to different stores to buy things they need or want.

An economic boom happens when most of those people get more dollars from their employment and feel free to spend them on things they want. An economic downturn happens when a lot of those people discover that they have spent too many dollars on things they don't need, and are afraid they might not have enough dollars to buy the next things they do need. An economic depression can occur when people who are employed providing things people do not need discover that too many people are afraid to buy things they do not need will no longer employ them. This is usually accompanied by people buying less of the things they do need, which means that everyone gets fewer dollars from their employment.

Recovery from an economic depression, recession, or downturn almost always comes from some number of unemployed people finding another skill or product for which other people are willing to give them dollars. These people then become employed again, and once again everyone has enough dollars to buy what they need, plus a few things they don't. This happy situation is called "prosperity."

Notice that nowhere in this process is anyone forced against their will (by taxation, for example) to buy a particular skill or product.  Think about that for a while, and we will talk again soon.

This is my first post. I am inclined to take a paragraph or two to introduce myself, but a lot of things happened today that simply demand comment. So, in the interests of brevity, let's just get started.

The AP reported that the House approved the waste of yet another 410 billion dollars of your money. What a shock.

In the course of the "debate," Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., is quoted to have said, "The same people who drove the economy into the ditch are now complaining about the size of the tow truck." This was his response to the ridiculous notion that maybe we should consider slowing the pace of spending, considering that the money involved doesn't exist and all.

OK, Mr. McGovern, let's make sure I understand this correctly. Spending 1 trillion dollars more than we have creates economic ruin. However, spending 2.2 trillion dollars that we don't have puts us on the road to riches. Is that how it works?

On a local note, a couple of days ago in Orange County, California, a grand jury determined that Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is right to take gun permits away from people who already hold them. To justify this violation of trust, not to mention the Constitution, the grand jury report is quoted to say, “An orderly society is the goal. Public safety is the paramount consideration. The fact that public clamor has reached the ears of politicians is irrelevant.”

Who are these people who believe that only a helpless society can be orderly or safe? And what does Sheriff Hutchens intend to do to the people of Orange County that requires they be unable to defend themselves? And what nation is Orange County, California a part of such that the will of the people is irrelevant?

Finally, I just can't help myself. I have to take this cheap shot. Get ready, here it comes....

<CHEAPSHOT>The Obamas are going to get a dog. Not just any dog. It seems that only a Portuguese Water Dog will do, whatever that is. Apparently, an American Mongrel is not good enough for their Imperial Highnesses. After all, they won, and we didn't.</CHEAPSHOT>

For future reference, cheap shots will always be surrounded by the pseudo HTML tag <CHEAPSHOT> and </CHEAPSHOT>. I hope this will separate the baseless sarcasms from the serious commentary.

That's all I have to say for the moment. I would like to ask a personal favor, though. Don't just quote slogans you heard from NBC. Keep your chin up, be well, and think about things for yourself.