Hammer, Nail, Assembly Required

U.S. News and World Report's Peter Rolff puts steel to work:

It is true that the U.S. economy was in bad shape when Obama came into office. But he and his top appointees want us to believe that their preferred solution—pushing huge increases in federal spending in his so-called economic recovery act and his budget for the upcoming fiscal year though Congress to prime the Keynesian pump, putting money in the hands of their political constituencies—are in no way related to the just announced record $1.8 trillion federal deficit.

Perhaps the worm is turning. RTWT.

w/t TPM

Sphere: Related Content

No, Rick.

Rick Moran, writing at The Next Right:

I will say frankly that this is the nuttiest part of Limbaugh's speech. There is probably no one answer to what ails conservatism but there is widespread agreement among profressionals (sic) that people like Rush, who wish to repeal not only the Great Society but also the New Deal, are anachronisms. It is not going to happen - ever. The question then becomes do conservatives chase a will o' the wisp goal that guarantees them permanent minority status or do they apply conservative principles to government as it is and not as we would wish it to be?

We stand on principle, Rick. The government is doing things it should not be doing. The fact that it has been doing these things since before we were born does not make them right. The fact that the majority currently supports them does not make them right.

You go ahead and stand for the status quo. I will stand for liberty.

Sphere: Related Content

Oh, Dear.

The megolobamania has begun. Barack Obama personifies change.

Thanks, but I liked the old America.

Sphere: Related Content

What's the Use?

Ross Douthat at The Atlantic writes of Armageddon, and the choice to retaliate or not to retaliate after the fall of a national capitol.

As Douthat has it, the British Prime Minister has break-the-glass orders with nuclear submarine commanders at the bottom of the ocean for what to do in case London were vaporized, King and Parliament with it. Ross wonders what Reagan would have done, and speculates that after his country were razed, Reagan may not have retaliated. He suggests that the Lion of Reykjavik would have lain down with the Wolf of Glasnost, saying that at that point, "What's the use?"

The utility of following through with destruction of their following destruction of ours is simple: lovers of liberty must oppose tyranny with every tool at their disposal. If the submarine fails to deliver retribution, evil men will dictate the history books. There, done.

The more interesting question is if the submarine commander would be bound to follow the orders of a dead Prime Minister.

Military doctrine, upon which the Geneva Conventions are based, holds that an officer's legitimacy stems from his loyalty to the State. Supposing that State no longer to exist, or to have been captured by opposing forces, the commander would be a rogue actor, or a member of the armed resistance, should he choose to obey the orders written in the safe.

But does the State no longer exist once its administrative offices and its Head are so much glowing dust? I think no easy answer to this question is possible, because there are levels of existence. If a State loses its monarch, bureaucracy, executive leadership and entire flag officer corps, does the State exist? Perhaps the question can only be answered post hoc, should the citizens of the State reformulate it into something able to control its territory.

Supposing the entirety of the nation's is land rendered inhabitable, or during the time in which the State is nonfunctional, we still have our submarine (or lunar base) commander, out of communication with the rest of the race. He may have information as to the source of the destruction that came upon his nation, or he may lack it, and in any case he will be confronted with some amount of uncertainty.

During the Cold War, he might safely have assumed that the former Soviet Union were the responsible party, and could be counted blameless for expending his arsenal against any high-value targets he could reach.

But in the 9/11 era, even a worldwide intelligence network may fail to uncover the source of mass destruction. An incommunicado commander, wishing to remain hidden, would have somewhat less certainty over how to retaliate, and against whom.

But such a commander would be loyal not just to a chain of command or the laws of a particular nation, but first to the noblest lady of our civilization: Liberty herself. If he could band together with like-minded warriors at sea, and perhaps find some undefended shoal to call home, they could once again breath the air as free men. Their war would continue until victory or defeat, by enemy or age.

Sphere: Related Content

Key Unemployment Forecast Rises as Illinois Leads Nation

Unemployment among the nation's governors is expected to rise by 2% next month, a level not seen since the 1980's. The Illinois rate is forecast at 100% following action by the State Legislature.

Gubernatorial unemployment has been at a historical low of 0% for the past two decades or more. The move in Illinois is expected to dramatically increase the unemployment numbers, experts agree.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-Chicago) blamed the move on a conspiracy by those who oppose his efforts to take care of sick people. The conspirators, meanwhile, blamed the move on the Governor's personal inability to tell the truth.

Sphere: Related Content

It's A Dreadful Life

At Yahoo! (w/t Dan Collins), Barbara Curtis writes about her year downsizing and discovering that happiness is learning to appreciate what you have.

But here is this quote:

For many, 2008 marked the end of our American Dream of home ownership. Faced with houses worth less than we owed, we had to backtrack. No bailout for us, but plenty of lessons to be learned.

The American Dream is not home ownership. That's just one minor, unnecessary part of it. The American Dream is that here we can make of ourselves whatever we desire, whether that is running a fruit stand to make enough money to buy vodka, or rising to become a captain of industry or President. Home ownership is a tangible sign that we are living that life, but it is not the Dream.

The politicians with their lies of ensuring the American Dream have actually stolen the dreams of millions. By giving people stuff, they have robbed their victims of the chance to make it on their own. It's despicable.

Sphere: Related Content

Fisking the White House Bailout of GM and Chrysler

President Bush has decided to give some number of billions of dollars of TARP money, which was supposed to be used for financial firms, to two failing car companies.

In doing so, he said ... well, let us fisk, shall we?

Bush said in normal economic circumstances

What are "normal" circumstances? Is there any set of circumstances that we could call "normal" that would cause companies the size of GM and Chrysler to fail, while other companies are not failing? Or would the fact of two of these companies failing be considered evidence that circumstances were not "normal"?

he would not intervene to save the automakers

Intervening is one word, "meddling in private business by Executive fiat to favor two companies over their competitors with an unconstitutional bill of attainder" describes it better. And saving the automakers may be what he says he's doing, but it's really his own image he's worried about. "Something must be done, this is something, therefor this must be done." These steps are neither necessary nor sufficient to save the automakers from anything except a painful, newsworthy Christmas. In these times of pain avoidance, Mr. Bush is just doing the expedient thing: borrowing money to loan to people who have no clear means to pay it back.

but "in the midst of a financial crisis

The financial crisis has very little to do with the automakers problems, except that their problems were caused primarily by the run-up in oil prices, making people unwilling to buy inefficient but high-markup trucks and SUVs that they had previously wanted as toys and status symbols.

To the extent that the financial crisis is a cause of the GM and Chrysler problems, it's because they have continued to make ever-more-expensive vehicles believing that people would continue to buy them on credit. When people suddenly became credit-wary, realizing the foolishness of taking a loan against a depreciating asset, the car makers were sunk.

But now that people have realized that it's foolish to pay interest on something which is losing value, no amount of Federal credit assistance is going to rescue the car companies.

"and a recession,

Again, would there ever be a car maker failure during some other economic phase?

"allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse

The collapse bogeyman, too big to fail, etc. If these companies cannot make it, they should be allowed to fail now before we dump huge amounts of money we don't have into propping them up. We will be paying the interest on the debt we incur propping up the failing companies long after they go under anyway.

"is not a responsible course of action."

Saying it doesn't make it so. The responsible thing is to let people face the consequences of their actions. Call it compassion, call it anything else, but responsible it is not.

Sphere: Related Content

Limited Government and Social Conservatives

Over at Power and Control, M. Simon asks:

How do you enforce traditional values and at the same time promote limited government? Until Republicans resolve that question neither the traditional values people nor the limited government people are going to trust the party.

I reply:

The question presupposes that traditional values (a term I will use without scrutiny) need to be enforced, and that social conservatives by their nature want government to enforce their values.

However, most social conservatives want merely not to have laws which are opposed to those values, and possibly for the government to advocate traditional values, as opposed to advocating non-traditional ones.

That is what Prop 8 was all about, I thought. It's not that we care what other people do, really, it's that we don't want the government actively supporting, with legal protection, nontraditional values. That's very different from saying we don't want anyone doing nontraditional things.

It's true that on some level we don't want anyone doing nontraditional things, but since of course we recognize tolerance and pluralism and limited government as higher Enlightenment principles, it's best to keep government away from that area. [I add here that for "tolerance" to have any meaning as a Virtue, we must be forced to make some sacrifice to obtain a worthy goal. The sacrifice we make is to allow something we dislike in order to obtain permission for our own faulty behavior, for no one is perfect. Those who deny wanting to control the behavior 0f others thereby turn tolerance into a nonce.]

So the answer is that we should all oppose government action which would change social mores, rather than supporting government action enforcing them.

Sphere: Related Content

And They Say Liberals Are Humorless Curmudgeons

There is an ongoing series of posts at Talking Points Memo about which State is the leader in the important Government Corruption category.

Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada -- all of these are nicely corrupt little places, it's true. But one State towers over the others as a jackal stands among mere rats:

Look, if you want, the New Orleans bloggers can put together a comprehensive file for you. But you need to know it will be thick.

In the many categories that people argue for (cash involved, historical entrenchment, recent scandal, profile, fed/state/local), each of your wannabe states points out that the category they happen to be strongest in really matters the most. And that's why they're wannabes...they need special consideration.

Louisiana will let any state in the union pick the turf and the time. You want state level corruption? Local? Bring it. Historical tradition? Game on. Recent scandal? Easy money. You name the category, any category, and we'll have a big dog in that fight. And that is why Louisiana is the all time champ.

Speaking for the citizens of Illinois: we are not worthy.

Sphere: Related Content

Immigration

In her 2006 bid to unseat John Murtha, Diana Irey said,

I want a tall fence with a wide gate.

That line resonated for me, and still does.

Because I want to believe in America as the beacon of hope, the shining city on a hill.

But there are two parts to that phrase: the shining city and the hill on which it sits. The hill, from time immemorial, was the place to build a city if you wanted to defend it from attack. The hill made entering the city marginally more difficult to approach for peaceful commerce, but a great deal more difficult to invade.

The hill also makes the shining city more visible, and more attractive as real estate for other reasons. Who doesn't like a nice view? Who doesn't appreciate good munipal use of hydrodynamics?

I want to know that everyone who lives in the United States is a citizen. I want no underclass, barred by reason of citizenship from engaging in any but the duties of their assigned caste, herded about under the watchful eye of some Congressional committee.

America must call for immigrants to come. We must demand that they be allowed to come. If necessary, we must plead with them to come, to see what they can do here.

We must not adopt the zero-sum belief that limited resources imply limited population. Our population is our greatest resource.

And likewise, we must not allow them to be enticed by governmental handouts, which are indeed limited, despite the current tendency to spend money we don't have.

Instead, we must fight tooth and nail against the notion that people -- and corporations -- who are able to support themselves deserve support from the government to retain a specific lifestyle. Restore the image of America as a place where only diligence and discipline are rewarded, and sloth is discouraged.

We must build a tall fence, and watch it with an eagle's eye. We must deport anyone found here without legal reason. We must punish those who lure people here in denial of our laws.

And then we must with just as much vigor beg immigrants to come in through the wide gate, to pledge with us to defend our nation with their calloused hands, vibrant minds, and sacred honor.

Sphere: Related Content

The Trouble with the Base

Reading this Corner piece from the great Ramesh Ponnuru, two things struck me.

First, I noticed a trend: people are picking apart the Republican party and the conservative movement into constituent groups -- Married Anglo-Saxon Protestants, conservative Catholics, et al. Seeing a lack of physical diversity, they then prescribe as remedy the abandonment of foundational ideology.

The troubles with that line of thinking are legion, but the main thing about it is the continual confusion of the Republican Party with the conservative movement.

The Republican Party is a liberal organization. It was founded in the liberal furnace of Abolition, tempered by war with the truly conservative forces of Southern aristocracy, and had its new car smell become malodorous with the stench of Reconstruction. It was the party of the intellectual, of noblesse oblige, and of the black voters they freed from bondage.

Nowadays, the Republican Party exists as a vehicle to win elections, based primarily around the popularity of laissez faire economics. That social conservatives largely identify with it is because A) social conservatives are largely free-market types, as well, and B) they have nowhere else to go.

Modern Conservatism, forged by Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan, is an alloy of the conservative notion of not fixing what is not broken with the ideas of Enlightenment and classical liberalism. It attempts to keep America fixed in its foundational form. It's a bit of a coincidence that conservative in America means classical liberal.

This unification of the Republican Party and conservatism is a holdover from Ronald Reagan, so forged by the power of his ideas and his steadfast support of them. People are naturally wont to label themselves, and to adopt the ideas of those peers and leaders with whom they largely agree. This, too, welds the Republican Party and conservatism.

But even with the difference between the Republican Party and the conservative movement, it must be recognized that the people who make up these groups are motivated by a set of beliefs. Almost all Republicans have as a core belief that people are better off when they can fend for themselves economically. Government, in this mindset, exists to defend us from each other and from outsiders. As Reagan said, government is not the solution, but the problem.

Another core Republican belief is that all men are created equal. We do not want discrimination, even if it is intended to remedy earlier discrimination in some other direction.

And it is these ideas which fundamentally bind us together, and these ideas we seek to further.

We cannot therefore reach out to other "groups" without recoiling in horror at the thought of dividing mankind up into groups. It stinks of the corpse of that war we fought in our youth, and it is not our way.

We believe our ideas are of universal appeal, and do not need to be packaged to pander to people based on their personal place in the nation's demography.

The second thing that struck me is that Ramesh Ponnuru is for some reason still reading Kathleen Parker.

Sphere: Related Content

Texas Prosecutor and Judge Seem Not To Be In Complete Harmony

The Texas judge assigned the corruption case against Vice President Dick Cheney signalled that he may wish to try the case before agreeing with District Attorney Juan Guerra on the Vice President's guilt. The judge's position follows State of Texas tradition that no one, not even those in power outside of the State's jurisdiction, should be presumed guilty before their case is argued.

The judge actually went so far as to entertain motions from the defense, a decision about which Guerra hinted a certain lack of enthusiasm. Guerra also appeared to dissent over being removed as prosecutor from the indictments in the case for which he is also a victim, even though Texas allows pro se legal represention:

And now all of a sudden, there is urgency. 18 months we kept this indictment, past my election. And I asked this court [to say if it would be] dismissed on a technicality. You already decided! You refused.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Is It So Hot?

And why are we in this handbasket?

The government response to the credit crisis is going to destroy our economy. It may unravel the nation itself.

These companies should have been allowed to fail. It's not PC to say I don't care about the people involved losing their jobs, but I don't care about the people involved losing their jobs.

I've lost jobs before. Sometimes you find another, sometimes you declare personal bankruptcy, sometimes you start your own business. You never die from it, and you are always better for it.

We have lost the freedom to fail. Without failure, there is no success -- just a lifelong muddling. We're to be a civilization of muddlers.

But the direct consequences are to be just as bad. In order to fight the specter of deflation, the government is pumping money into the economy right off the printing press -- except without even the need to actually mint anything. They're pretending that they have the money.

Eventually, someone is going to demand that they show it. When that happens, they'll lose their credit rating, and the ability to borrow along with it.

Without the ability to borrow, the US Government goes bankrupt.

Sphere: Related Content

Government is the Devil's Evil Twin

Over at Power and Control, Simon says:

The government IS the Devil. Not metaphorically. Really.

Everything you get from government will have a price much larger than the value of the object gained. Some times the price will not be extracted from you. Sometimes it will be from your children, your grand children, or ten generations hence. But the full price the government wants will be extracted at compound interest.

We are still paying the price for trying to be a free people while holding slaves. My great great grand parents lived on another continent when all that went on. And yet the price is being extracted from me.

I think I blogged a generalization of this a while back, but maybe I just thought of it and never did. Ah, found it, in that link.

Government creeps. Given power in one area, it will keep that power as leverage to extend its reach into another.

You cannot deficit spend without an eventual tax increase -- or the lack of an otherwise obvious decrease.

You cannot say that drunk driving (without actually harming anyone or breaking any traffic laws) is illegal without eventually losing the right to take any other risky action.

You cannot have Roe v Wade and not later get Kelo.

And you cannot grow a bureaucracy big enough to manage the health care system without surrendering your right to criticize the government. You watch.

At least the devil lets you enjoy the crap you sold your soul for. Government doesn't even give you that.

Government is not the Devil -- it's the Devil's evil twin.

Sphere: Related Content

We Already Subsidize The Auto Industry

By subsidizing roads, bridges, and streets, we subsidize the auto industry.

I'll ignore the cost of defending oil shipping lanes, wars in the Middle East, ethanol subsidies, and other things that are arguably not subsidies for automobiles, but for general energy production. Ethanol is subsidized for the farm vote, not for Detroit.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, States spent over $100 Billion in 2006 on transportation. almost all of which was on roads. A third of that came from the Federal government.

A hundred billion dollars, ach and every year.

Sphere: Related Content

Big Three Bailout Options

Mary Katherine Ham follows the usual logic of the false dilemma as she writes:

For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment, not just for individual families but the repercussions across the economy would be dire. So it's my belief that we need to provide assistance to the auto industry. But I think that it can't be a blank check.

Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection allows a company to continue its operations under some framework approved or managed by a court. It should be distinguished from Chapter 7, which forces a company to dissolve (or in Ham's phrasing, to completely collapse). Chapter 11 forces a business to admit the failure of its business model, restructuring it to become a going concern.

In particular, GM needs to renegotiate its labor contracts.

It would be very helpful if GM could decide what kind of cars to make, as well. But that won't happen, since it can't renegotiate the CAFE standards with Congress.

I've predicted that if GM were to get bailout money, there would be nothing stopping them from entering bankruptcy protection anyway. That's right, Madam Speaker-In-Law, they could take the money you want to give to your union thug pals and declare a fat dividend followed by bankruptcy. In fact, the board would be fiduciarily remiss not to do so.

But in the NY Times, Harvard economist Edward L. Glaeser has another suggestion.

There is a middle path between bailout billions and car company catastrophe: the possibility of limited government aid after automobile companies have entered Chapter 11.

I don't think he's right. There is no need for a bailout, and if one comes it will worsen the losses.

But if we have to accept one, it would sure be nice if GM could admit the failure of its business model before getting it.

Sphere: Related Content

Sent to EPA

Via StopEPA:

EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act is unneeded. The Earth is not warming, and if it were warming, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING.

Climate scientists have predicted continued warming with an increase in atmospheric CO2, methane, and water vapor, but this has not happened. There is something wrong, therefore, with the reasoning that led to the conclusion that it would happen.

What is wrong with the reasoning is one of two things, and possibly both: 1) that the Earth's climate is an intensely complicated mechanism, with built-in mechanisms that keep it stable and 2) the greenhouse gas effect is a lot smaller than previously thought.

More study is needed to determine what is in fact happening to the Earth's climate. Even if it turns out that the Earth is warming but that carbon dioxide is not at fault, having jumped on CO2 as the culprit we will not be able to respond to the true cause when it is discovered.

Throughout human history, we have struggled in cold climates and thrived in warm ones. Today there are vast areas of the world shut off from agriculture by the cold.

Climate activists have used scare tactics about sudden harm such as floods and violent weather to arouse the public in furtherance of their agenda. EPA may choose to ally with these activists to safeguard and expand its institutional power base, but this course would be costly and destructive to the rest of American society.

Sphere: Related Content

Murtha Attorney: Congressman Above The Law

Legal counsel for aged Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) claimed in open court that his client is immune from laws which limit ordinary citizens.

Murtha is being sued for saying that Marines involved in an incident at Haditha, Iraq, were "murderers" guilty of "war crimes".

From the via Malkin:

Assistant U.S Attorney Darrell Valdez, who represents Murtha, argued that a member of Congress is “absolutely immune” from a defamation suit because there’s no circumstance in which speaking to the media is not within the scope of a lawmaker’s employment.

That is, a lawyer representing the United States Government asserted that his client is above the law.

It's not clear from the claims if the Congressman claims immunity for all defamation, or only that against members of the Armed Services in time of war. In particular, the question of whether members of Congress are free to say that government lawyers are guilty of malpractice will have to go unanswered.

Clearly, according to the United States Government lawyer, Murtha would be free to allege that the lawyer in question were guilty of murder and crimes against humanity, but alleging malpractice and incompetence may be a line even a Congressman must not cross.

Sphere: Related Content

Just Because You Say It, Mr. Ayers, Doesn't Make It So.

In an interview on ABC's Good Morning America, William Ayers says:

“Let’s remember that what you call a violent past, that was at a time when thousands of people were being murdered by our government every month,” he argued. “And those of us who fought to end that war were actually on the right side.”

Ayers denied that the bombings carried out by the group amounted to terrorism.

“We tried to end that war. And in trying to end it, we did cross lines of propriety, of legality, maybe even of common sense. But we never committed terror,” he stated.

Ayers claimed that the actions taken by his group were not terrorism because they did not “target people.”

Terrorism is violence against civilian targets to effect political change. That distinguishes it from free speech (non-violent acts such as sit-ins and marches against civilian targets), war crimes (acts by military personnel against civilians, or vice versa), and mere criminal behavior (the same act minus the call for political change).

Whether the action was intended to target people, or merely ended up killing policemen by accident, is irrelevant. Targeting civilian private property to make a political point is terrorism.

Ayers is a self-righteous liar.

Sphere: Related Content

Bailout Bait and Switch

Not going to purchase troubled assets.

Psych!

No, they're buying stock in banks.

It was such an emergency. Had to be done right this minute, no time for discussion.

Not only did they not have to do it right that minute, they didn't have to do it at all.

Sphere: Related Content