One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Palin "A Cancer On The Republican Party?" - David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube and his personal site .
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qforjC64Hfs and his personal site http://sethadamsmith.blogspot.com/
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qforjC64Hfs and his personal site http://sethadamsmith.blogspot.com/
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
Monday, October 6, 2008
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Friday, September 12, 2008
About Gibson's Palin Interview and "The Bush Doctrine"
A friend posted Don't Poke the Bear? at his Blog, rekative to Charles Gibson's interview of Sara Palin and specifically about his question about "The Bush Doctrine." And I commented
Tony:
"The Bush Doctrine" is no textbook or dictionary certified term. It's how some popular culture commentators referred to Bush's explanation in the wake of 9/11 that he will act proactively if he perceiv3es a threat in another country. Some threw into that bag Bush's assertion that states that harbor terrorists or terrorist activity will be guilty and accoountable. But, there is no official definition.
I thought of the preemptive strike assertion, but I am a freak who watches this stuff full-time. I'm no longer even distracted by a career. With MS, I walk with a walker for a few hundred yards and haven't driven for a dozen years. I had stopped driving when I met you in Iowa in 1995.
For a definition to not have been on the tip of Palin's toungue is not a matter of any kind of illiteracy. Also, I am 51. Palin is 44, which means that she was a working mom in her 30's when Bush was explainibg himself.
All of this stuff about foreign policy experience, knowing world leaders and such is garbage. Joe Biden for instance, supposedly has decades of "foreign policy experience." So, he has decades of foreign policy experience being wrong. SO WHAT?
As I told a friend, what matters is character, sobriety, judgment, and an understanding of human nature. Anyone who has worked with human organizations, from businesses to civic groups to churches, is experienced with human nature. PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. They play with the same tactics. Some just play with bigger marbles.
Tony:
"The Bush Doctrine" is no textbook or dictionary certified term. It's how some popular culture commentators referred to Bush's explanation in the wake of 9/11 that he will act proactively if he perceiv3es a threat in another country. Some threw into that bag Bush's assertion that states that harbor terrorists or terrorist activity will be guilty and accoountable. But, there is no official definition.
I thought of the preemptive strike assertion, but I am a freak who watches this stuff full-time. I'm no longer even distracted by a career. With MS, I walk with a walker for a few hundred yards and haven't driven for a dozen years. I had stopped driving when I met you in Iowa in 1995.
For a definition to not have been on the tip of Palin's toungue is not a matter of any kind of illiteracy. Also, I am 51. Palin is 44, which means that she was a working mom in her 30's when Bush was explainibg himself.
All of this stuff about foreign policy experience, knowing world leaders and such is garbage. Joe Biden for instance, supposedly has decades of "foreign policy experience." So, he has decades of foreign policy experience being wrong. SO WHAT?
As I told a friend, what matters is character, sobriety, judgment, and an understanding of human nature. Anyone who has worked with human organizations, from businesses to civic groups to churches, is experienced with human nature. PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. They play with the same tactics. Some just play with bigger marbles.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Distressing Stories, The Polls, And A Typically Misleading TV Report
I completed the comments below on Monday, which related my distress at reports from people of whom I would expect differently, who affirm or even dabble with the intention to support Obama and/or oppose McCain. At the bottom, I report current national polls which show McCain having moved into a lead over Obama, while acknowledging that they still suggest a definite Obama lead from an Electoral College standpoint. Monday, even the Rasmussen poll which Sunday showed a tie in its daily tracking poll shows McCain to have nudged into a 1% lead, which they conceded is statistically insignificant. But more notably, in Rasmussen’s current Electoral College breakdown, McCain is shown to have moved within ten points of Obama. And further, with some awareness of the status of these states, I would conjecture that McCain will take at least two of the three states listed as toss-ups which would imply a narrow victory. In every analysis I have looked at, that third state is the most clearly and evenly divided and up-in-the-air: Virginia. I will say that relative to Virginia, Obama needs to maintain the emotional magic that has driven much of his support, because I think those emotionally stoked in Virginia about McCain-Palin will reliably turn out. Further, among the states listed as “leaning” Republican, I would at this point agree that McCain will win them all, while among those listed as “leaning” Democrat, I would consider 3 or 4 of them still in play. In short, for the first time (and this could still change with a dramatic event or report), I would project that McCain would win were the election held today.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
Friday, September 5, 2008
McCain-Palin And What Conservatism Means
A friend who was a fellow Huckabee supporter left a few comments about McCain and Palin. The first few raised questions about McCain playing more to the right, so as to lose the Independent and conservative Democrat support he once enjoyed, and also questioning Palin’s record on “values” issues. I have heard these sorts of remarks before, usually from the Democratic left. Actually, though sometimes I wish he would and still hope he will, McCain has not recanted on any of his supposedly moderate positions that defy conservative orthodoxy, save for offshore drilling, and I doubt the doubling of gas prices is incidental to that. He has always expressed a pro-life disposition. He has always been one of the biggest spending hawks in The Senate, even confronting his own party and if Republicans retook Congress, I don’t think that would stop. And, he has NEVER supported a tax-increase. Some report his support for continuing the “Bush” tax-cuts, since he originally voted against them. As he often explains, he voted against the tax cuts because despite his warnings, they were not offset with spending cuts.
Anyone who really starkly regards his support for continuing a lowered tax rates, as a turnabout from his insistence on spending cuts at the beginning, has a very unrefined view of economics, as most Democrats do, assuming they are sincere. At bottom, economic principles and incentives are about human nature. Taxes and spending should both be cut, but to discontinue a tax reduction is to support what will be a tax increase and the related reactions of human nature. Evidence of the psychological component of human nature is that Bull Clinton increased tax increases while pursuing free trade and other reforms that managed to maintain the positive outlook and healthy economy that many conservatives would have expected to be injured.
I have also seen questions from the left about Palin having cut ostensibly good (when they are passed, aren’t they all?) But, a seemingly worthy objective f a program is no guard whatsoever against wasteful and inefficient consumption of resources. For a large example, any true student of The Constitution understands that national defense is a primary responsibility of the federal government. Yet anyone over forty who has paid attention recalls stories of outlandish expenses on defense department items. John McCain was a third-generation member of the military in his family (his sons are a 4th generation) and a defense hawk. Yet he has opposed unnecessarily extravagant defense spending. Many decades ago, General Eisenhower who saw the Word War ii victory, warned against the growth and appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”
Whether an ostensive objective is worthwhile or not, we are after all, talking about federal government bureaucracies, about which conservatives are rightly guarded. Coming from a social conservative, these expressed concerns sound like an expression of the reported expanded agenda of social conservatives these days. We can debate which interest the federal government should pursue and how those interests might be effectively addressed. But, it’s never wise to be unwatchful of ANY government program. And, to fall into the popular culture measure of concern and expression for a nominal cause based on the number or percentage of dollars spent is a critical mistake, Based on what I’ve seen, I’m more inclined to see Palin having worked to squeeze waste of taxpayers’ dollars, wherever possible, the ostensive cause notwithstanding. I’m sorry, but to ascribe indifference to an individual based on prudence in investments is a misguided and crude way to view things, however popular it may be.
A third comment more directly raised a feeling of discomfort with Sarah Palin. In fact, I saw a very positive report today, from one polling organization. But regardless, here’s the comment and response:
“Weren't you just a bit disturbed by Palin's speech last night, and the almost total lack of addressing issues? Obama listed the issues out, cited facts that pointed to the problem, and offered a solution to each one. Palin resorted to attacks, defensiveness, and left me wondering if she even believes there are problems with the economy, or the war, or if she lives in the same world we do. I was disappointed, not only with the content, but with the resorting to attacks, which is almost an admission that you don't have anything to talk about.”
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "disturbed" about Sarah Palin's speech. Although, I would have been happy if she could have made persuasive points while perhaps being a tad less "tart." But, generally, I am very taken with her.
I'd like to clarify what you are thinking, and let me clarify myself.
A visceral reaction might wonder if you only differ with Obama on social issues, as of course do I. But, I want to be clear about on what things I agree with Obama. Interpret rhetoric how you will. But, in terms of policy I agree with Obama on precisely NOTHING.
I frequently have to engage accusations or insinuations that I am a "one issue voter," because I think the respect and protection of human life is a primary value of a civil society. It isn’t ONLY about dead babies, which historically God has always dealt with. But, a society that behaves with disregard for this primary value is infected with a "Sickness unto Death," as Kierkegaard described the more general human existential condition. Civility is driving on cruise control on the path to social destruction: conscience is in a decline that will be manifest in myriad expressions of social conduct.
But because I see abortion as an extreme and paradigmatic expression of social illness, does not mean that I am a "one issue voter." As I have repeatedly explained, I have been conservative as long as I have been conscious. Politics does not matter to me ONLY because abortion offends me. You are my age: I did not just come to conservatism because of Roe v. Wade and the social activism that was injected into the Reagan campaign.
People talk about social, economic, and defense conservatives. I was conservative before "social" conservatism existed. At bottom, it has to do with my convictions about human nature and practical treatment of it.
NOW, a popular caricature of conservatism is that it implies hostility or indifference to other human beings. Also given human nature, there naturally ARE people like that. But, that has NOTHING to do with conservative philosophy. That's why I felt so strongly about Huckabee: he emphatically expressed the opposite idea, while at the same time acknowledging those elements of human nature that made him become a Republican in the first place.
More specifically, if I believed that the prescriptions advocated by the left would actually help people, I would favor them. But, it isn't adequate to say that I don't believe that. I KNOW that the underlying propositions are false and the programs themselves are not only unhelpful, they are destructive. AND, THEY ARE MOST DESTRUCTIVE TO THE PEOPLE THEY PRESUME TO HELP!
On one end, they dampen the initiative for improving one's own life circumstance. On the other end, they constrict opportunity in the society in general. It's a double-whammy. This imperishable idea that we are going to help those without by taxing those with is, to use a more innocuous word, twaddle. You will never punish successful people by taxing them 5, 10, or even 50 percent more. The very wealthy will not miss one glass of wine, one luxury car, or one world-traveling vacation. No, what dies is the money that is invested into the economy that opens new opportunities for those less fortunate. Envy is not good for the soul OR FOR THE BODY! The world was created that way.
So, it doesn't matter what Obama lists or talks about or advocates. NONE OF IT WILL HELP! I don't know the man, personally, so I can't and should say what he thinks. But logically, I can say that if he believes what he says, he has breathed deeply of an academic unreality: it's foolishness. And obviously, if he DOESN'T believe what he's saying, he is a fraud and a manipulator: a charlatan.
Honestly, I still wish Huckabee were the nominee and HE had picked Palin. But, John McCain is not without compassion. His is just not as meticulous a mind. However, in the executive branch for the next four years, McCain-Palin may go farthest in undermining extravagance and corruption in Washington. We need to abandon the misguided impulses and construct new and positive ones.
I was also glad that Romney was not selected. In his latest incarnation, he plays that caricature of the aggravated conservative. We need a positive conservative like Huckabee. If Palin isn't already, I think with age she can become that.
Anyone who really starkly regards his support for continuing a lowered tax rates, as a turnabout from his insistence on spending cuts at the beginning, has a very unrefined view of economics, as most Democrats do, assuming they are sincere. At bottom, economic principles and incentives are about human nature. Taxes and spending should both be cut, but to discontinue a tax reduction is to support what will be a tax increase and the related reactions of human nature. Evidence of the psychological component of human nature is that Bull Clinton increased tax increases while pursuing free trade and other reforms that managed to maintain the positive outlook and healthy economy that many conservatives would have expected to be injured.
I have also seen questions from the left about Palin having cut ostensibly good (when they are passed, aren’t they all?) But, a seemingly worthy objective f a program is no guard whatsoever against wasteful and inefficient consumption of resources. For a large example, any true student of The Constitution understands that national defense is a primary responsibility of the federal government. Yet anyone over forty who has paid attention recalls stories of outlandish expenses on defense department items. John McCain was a third-generation member of the military in his family (his sons are a 4th generation) and a defense hawk. Yet he has opposed unnecessarily extravagant defense spending. Many decades ago, General Eisenhower who saw the Word War ii victory, warned against the growth and appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”
Whether an ostensive objective is worthwhile or not, we are after all, talking about federal government bureaucracies, about which conservatives are rightly guarded. Coming from a social conservative, these expressed concerns sound like an expression of the reported expanded agenda of social conservatives these days. We can debate which interest the federal government should pursue and how those interests might be effectively addressed. But, it’s never wise to be unwatchful of ANY government program. And, to fall into the popular culture measure of concern and expression for a nominal cause based on the number or percentage of dollars spent is a critical mistake, Based on what I’ve seen, I’m more inclined to see Palin having worked to squeeze waste of taxpayers’ dollars, wherever possible, the ostensive cause notwithstanding. I’m sorry, but to ascribe indifference to an individual based on prudence in investments is a misguided and crude way to view things, however popular it may be.
A third comment more directly raised a feeling of discomfort with Sarah Palin. In fact, I saw a very positive report today, from one polling organization. But regardless, here’s the comment and response:
“Weren't you just a bit disturbed by Palin's speech last night, and the almost total lack of addressing issues? Obama listed the issues out, cited facts that pointed to the problem, and offered a solution to each one. Palin resorted to attacks, defensiveness, and left me wondering if she even believes there are problems with the economy, or the war, or if she lives in the same world we do. I was disappointed, not only with the content, but with the resorting to attacks, which is almost an admission that you don't have anything to talk about.”
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "disturbed" about Sarah Palin's speech. Although, I would have been happy if she could have made persuasive points while perhaps being a tad less "tart." But, generally, I am very taken with her.
I'd like to clarify what you are thinking, and let me clarify myself.
A visceral reaction might wonder if you only differ with Obama on social issues, as of course do I. But, I want to be clear about on what things I agree with Obama. Interpret rhetoric how you will. But, in terms of policy I agree with Obama on precisely NOTHING.
I frequently have to engage accusations or insinuations that I am a "one issue voter," because I think the respect and protection of human life is a primary value of a civil society. It isn’t ONLY about dead babies, which historically God has always dealt with. But, a society that behaves with disregard for this primary value is infected with a "Sickness unto Death," as Kierkegaard described the more general human existential condition. Civility is driving on cruise control on the path to social destruction: conscience is in a decline that will be manifest in myriad expressions of social conduct.
But because I see abortion as an extreme and paradigmatic expression of social illness, does not mean that I am a "one issue voter." As I have repeatedly explained, I have been conservative as long as I have been conscious. Politics does not matter to me ONLY because abortion offends me. You are my age: I did not just come to conservatism because of Roe v. Wade and the social activism that was injected into the Reagan campaign.
People talk about social, economic, and defense conservatives. I was conservative before "social" conservatism existed. At bottom, it has to do with my convictions about human nature and practical treatment of it.
NOW, a popular caricature of conservatism is that it implies hostility or indifference to other human beings. Also given human nature, there naturally ARE people like that. But, that has NOTHING to do with conservative philosophy. That's why I felt so strongly about Huckabee: he emphatically expressed the opposite idea, while at the same time acknowledging those elements of human nature that made him become a Republican in the first place.
More specifically, if I believed that the prescriptions advocated by the left would actually help people, I would favor them. But, it isn't adequate to say that I don't believe that. I KNOW that the underlying propositions are false and the programs themselves are not only unhelpful, they are destructive. AND, THEY ARE MOST DESTRUCTIVE TO THE PEOPLE THEY PRESUME TO HELP!
On one end, they dampen the initiative for improving one's own life circumstance. On the other end, they constrict opportunity in the society in general. It's a double-whammy. This imperishable idea that we are going to help those without by taxing those with is, to use a more innocuous word, twaddle. You will never punish successful people by taxing them 5, 10, or even 50 percent more. The very wealthy will not miss one glass of wine, one luxury car, or one world-traveling vacation. No, what dies is the money that is invested into the economy that opens new opportunities for those less fortunate. Envy is not good for the soul OR FOR THE BODY! The world was created that way.
So, it doesn't matter what Obama lists or talks about or advocates. NONE OF IT WILL HELP! I don't know the man, personally, so I can't and should say what he thinks. But logically, I can say that if he believes what he says, he has breathed deeply of an academic unreality: it's foolishness. And obviously, if he DOESN'T believe what he's saying, he is a fraud and a manipulator: a charlatan.
Honestly, I still wish Huckabee were the nominee and HE had picked Palin. But, John McCain is not without compassion. His is just not as meticulous a mind. However, in the executive branch for the next four years, McCain-Palin may go farthest in undermining extravagance and corruption in Washington. We need to abandon the misguided impulses and construct new and positive ones.
I was also glad that Romney was not selected. In his latest incarnation, he plays that caricature of the aggravated conservative. We need a positive conservative like Huckabee. If Palin isn't already, I think with age she can become that.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Come To McCain and a REAL CHANGE
As I recall, the last time I wished to post an exchange, this person preferred not to be identified and I haven’t a last name, anyway. Anyway, I thought this discussion with a heretofore McCain doubter was important. Many should consider what is at stake. And ironically, what is at stake is CHANGE. Here is the comment and my response:
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Experience Schmexperience!
It was predictable that the other side would try to light on the “experience” issue relative to Governor Sarah Palin, which they’ve reliably done. And frankly, for that reason, I expected her inevitable time was “not yet.” I was wrong about that, but am elated about the choice. I’ve known for a year that she was a positive force and as I’ve learned and seen more of her, she looks progressively better, now seemingly every day: from good to great to inevitable and now to terrific and unprecedentedly promising for the nation.
As for the experience matter, as I said, I thought we’d leave this filet mignon on the grill for a little while longer. But as is now known, she has significant executive leadership experience: more than Obama, who has NONE. But, however one gauges the “experience” matter, I’ve been saying for many days that Republicans should not have been emphasizing the “experience” issue above the philosophical one. “Experience” is WAAAY overrated. Why do I care what supposed experience someone has if it is a long record of being wrong?
Based on this supposedly preeminent qualification of experience, suppose the Democrat ticket were what might then be called “right-side up,” with Joe Biden at the top who has more experience in elected office and national foreign policy than even John McCain. Would I then question whether Biden was better qualified than John McCain to be president? Of course not!
Don’t we all have personal contacts (lots in my case) that we think would be a more clear and resolute than the majority of politicians present and past, stained as most of term are by the calculations of politics? The bottom-line is that in fact, “experience” (whatever that is – you know some faces and names?) matters relatively little.
Sarah Palin has proven herself extremely qualified personally, practically, philosophically and as an assertive executive. Subsequent to McCain’s selection of her, I have gone from tentative and hopeful to inspired and enthused about the future. I have judged that McCain seems genuinely passionate and decent, while apparently philosophically ambiguous, and have often questioned his judgments. Whether we credit him or God, I judge that McCain could not made a more effective and productive selection. A potentially murky future now looks bright and promising.
As for the experience matter, as I said, I thought we’d leave this filet mignon on the grill for a little while longer. But as is now known, she has significant executive leadership experience: more than Obama, who has NONE. But, however one gauges the “experience” matter, I’ve been saying for many days that Republicans should not have been emphasizing the “experience” issue above the philosophical one. “Experience” is WAAAY overrated. Why do I care what supposed experience someone has if it is a long record of being wrong?
Based on this supposedly preeminent qualification of experience, suppose the Democrat ticket were what might then be called “right-side up,” with Joe Biden at the top who has more experience in elected office and national foreign policy than even John McCain. Would I then question whether Biden was better qualified than John McCain to be president? Of course not!
Don’t we all have personal contacts (lots in my case) that we think would be a more clear and resolute than the majority of politicians present and past, stained as most of term are by the calculations of politics? The bottom-line is that in fact, “experience” (whatever that is – you know some faces and names?) matters relatively little.
Sarah Palin has proven herself extremely qualified personally, practically, philosophically and as an assertive executive. Subsequent to McCain’s selection of her, I have gone from tentative and hopeful to inspired and enthused about the future. I have judged that McCain seems genuinely passionate and decent, while apparently philosophically ambiguous, and have often questioned his judgments. Whether we credit him or God, I judge that McCain could not made a more effective and productive selection. A potentially murky future now looks bright and promising.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
No Windsock Romney for Republican VP Candidate
A Romney fan commented on my last post. I hope it’s just wishful thinking on the part of some who have bought all of the barely coherent Romney conservative froth, But, most every commenter mentions Romney as a strong possibility for McCain’s Vice-Presidential candidate. I think that would be a big mistake. I think McCain’s campaign is making a mistake in concentrating on trying to heighten the aggravation of Hillary voters and focusing on Biden’s history of Obama comments and “gotcha” blunders, instead of on vital policy distinctions and their implications. And as far as Biden’s Obama comments are concerned, they ain’t seen nothin’ till they see what Democrats whip our on Mitt Romney. And Romney has shown me no analytical facility to make those cases to Independent voters.
Here’s the comment and my response:
Encompassed said...
Aw come on, aren't you impressed by Mitt Romney: Relating to the People?
August 23, 2008 8:42 AM
Larry said...
I have been conservative all of my life, and am very driven by systematic thinking. I saw Romney for all of the campaign and at my state convention. And, I don't see it. I see boilerplate recitation of a windsock measure of conservative hot-buttons, just like his windsock recitation of boilerplate liberal hot-buttons in MA.
Obviously, he's a handsome man with innovative business inclinations, and a great family. But, he came (pragmatically) to decisions in his forties and fifties that I came to systematically as a teenager. Somewhat ironically after his primary season attacks on McCain, the only hope I see for a selection of Romney for VP is McCain's own propensity to occasional philosophical ambiguity.
Here’s the comment and my response:
Encompassed said...
Aw come on, aren't you impressed by Mitt Romney: Relating to the People?
August 23, 2008 8:42 AM
Larry said...
I have been conservative all of my life, and am very driven by systematic thinking. I saw Romney for all of the campaign and at my state convention. And, I don't see it. I see boilerplate recitation of a windsock measure of conservative hot-buttons, just like his windsock recitation of boilerplate liberal hot-buttons in MA.
Obviously, he's a handsome man with innovative business inclinations, and a great family. But, he came (pragmatically) to decisions in his forties and fifties that I came to systematically as a teenager. Somewhat ironically after his primary season attacks on McCain, the only hope I see for a selection of Romney for VP is McCain's own propensity to occasional philosophical ambiguity.
Friday, August 22, 2008
McCain's VP Pick: Romney, Huckabee...?
The Politico has reported a planned meeting with McCain in Missouri of Huckabee and Romney just before the convention and after NcCain’s projected announcement of a running-mate. Actually, I’m pretty weary of all the speculation and supposed eagerness about McCain’s VP pick. Obviously, I’m a big Huckabee fan and would personally think the country would be better off with him poised as an advisor and presumptive heir. And, I also think Huckabee would animate what is as large and vital constituency as either party has: not only for voting themselves but for providing essential campaign elbow grease.
But, I’m also well-aware of the buzz out there for Mitt Romney, which I only marginally understand. To me, Romney is neither philosophically clear nor, partially consequentially, reliable. Actually, I wouldn’t speculate that either will be the pick. And, I wouldn’t terribly blame McCain for passing on Huckabee, even though I think he is manifestly the best candidate, both for the general election campaign and the future of the country. But, the facts are these:
Huckabee and Romney both have large activist Republican followings. However, and if “hate” is too strong a word it is only partially and marginally so, Romney’s supporters hate Huckabee and Huckabee supporters don’t like Romney. That includes me. It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with Romney’s words and actions. Romney strikes me as plainly philosophically ambiguous (and that’s the last thing that McCain needs) and apparently quite politically malleable. Even if he’s entirely genuine is his most recent manifestation (as Dick Morris says: his flip-flop-flip, from A to B and back again) that displays an ambiguous mind and a late embrace of what has been clear as a bell to me for forty years. And, he’s supposed to be this economic genius. Well precisely, he’s proven at the micro-success of individual companies and investors. As for the prosperity of the macro-economy in general and all Americans, I have seen nothing from him. Huckabee on the other hand advocated for The Fair Tax, which would open up both a great capital infusion into the economy and multiply opportunities for everyone. That’s another thing that doesn’t excite me about Romney: he is a caricature of a rich man for the rich that the Democrats will pummel, and they are to some small degree right about that. Heck, they are already trying to portray McCain as an out-of-touch rich man!
But as for Huckabee, there are both LDS people who are (unjustifiably but honestly, I think) distrustful of him, and economic conservatives who bought the phony and unjust “Huckabee’s a liberal” political smears and/or smart at his mere mention of concern for “Main Street” or average people and attention to Democrat-dominated Demographic groups, which are ironically the people that we must sell on conservatism. Obviously, many people on both sides of the Democrat-Republican divide prefer a more conventional blood- hatred: the kind in which both decency and Republicans lose. I think Huckabee can himself, address those populations, and should be charged to do so. But, that may be too complicated for McCain and his advisors.
If Huckabee and Romney are off the table, I’d probably favor Pawlenty.
But, I’m also well-aware of the buzz out there for Mitt Romney, which I only marginally understand. To me, Romney is neither philosophically clear nor, partially consequentially, reliable. Actually, I wouldn’t speculate that either will be the pick. And, I wouldn’t terribly blame McCain for passing on Huckabee, even though I think he is manifestly the best candidate, both for the general election campaign and the future of the country. But, the facts are these:
Huckabee and Romney both have large activist Republican followings. However, and if “hate” is too strong a word it is only partially and marginally so, Romney’s supporters hate Huckabee and Huckabee supporters don’t like Romney. That includes me. It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with Romney’s words and actions. Romney strikes me as plainly philosophically ambiguous (and that’s the last thing that McCain needs) and apparently quite politically malleable. Even if he’s entirely genuine is his most recent manifestation (as Dick Morris says: his flip-flop-flip, from A to B and back again) that displays an ambiguous mind and a late embrace of what has been clear as a bell to me for forty years. And, he’s supposed to be this economic genius. Well precisely, he’s proven at the micro-success of individual companies and investors. As for the prosperity of the macro-economy in general and all Americans, I have seen nothing from him. Huckabee on the other hand advocated for The Fair Tax, which would open up both a great capital infusion into the economy and multiply opportunities for everyone. That’s another thing that doesn’t excite me about Romney: he is a caricature of a rich man for the rich that the Democrats will pummel, and they are to some small degree right about that. Heck, they are already trying to portray McCain as an out-of-touch rich man!
But as for Huckabee, there are both LDS people who are (unjustifiably but honestly, I think) distrustful of him, and economic conservatives who bought the phony and unjust “Huckabee’s a liberal” political smears and/or smart at his mere mention of concern for “Main Street” or average people and attention to Democrat-dominated Demographic groups, which are ironically the people that we must sell on conservatism. Obviously, many people on both sides of the Democrat-Republican divide prefer a more conventional blood- hatred: the kind in which both decency and Republicans lose. I think Huckabee can himself, address those populations, and should be charged to do so. But, that may be too complicated for McCain and his advisors.
If Huckabee and Romney are off the table, I’d probably favor Pawlenty.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Dennis Prager - Michael Behe, Flawed Creation, and The Evolution Black Box
Today, Dennis Prager had Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe on his radio program and discussed his now year-old book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism . I have read Behe’s books and articles and observed him at lectures and other forums. Behe is a microbiologist explorer and writer on “Intelligent Design.” A few things stood out in my mind relative to the discussion.
First, like Prager who was driven to controlled but admitted anger by the nonsense of a caller’s point that science and medicine, for example, depend on a fully Darwinist account of evolution, I quickly dismiss such dogmatically-inspired foolishness. But, the reason it is important to contain your anger and mildly engage such a supposition is precisely what Behe referred to after the break: Many people, both the secularist scientific clerisy and the often young pop-acolytes that populate and flood the Internet, believe exactly that line of thought. And, they hold it with the ardor similar to that of theists who believe that God has set forth moral standards to which we are accountable. That’s why I referred to a “dogma” and a “clerisy”: they say the authority of "science" dictates that it is so. “Authority” is defined as it is in theological discussion: “those who agree with me” on foundational metaphysical axioms. In this case, the only acceptable metaphysical axiom is, “No metaphysical axiom other than this particular one is valid.”
This is a restatement of an absurdity that analytical philosophy confronted long ago: Positivist empiricists insisted that “Only empirically testable assertions are meaningful,” which is not itself, an empirically testable assertion. Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon)still fervently embraces the idea. But, he well knows this justification problem. Dennett thinks that appeals to transcendent powers and principle are superfluous for a rational explanation of reality. Obviously, some of us disagree. But, Dennett’s statement that God or any transcendent principle is ontologically gratuitous is just a restatement of his premise: “I don’t believe…” which is hardly a startling revelation. Another caller complained as many do that the supposed design has flaws. But of course, it’s hardly news to most theists that both creation and people are flawed. That is much of what The Bible is about. What is perfect is our free will, which naturalist atheists are exercising perfectly well. What requires refining is not creation but our choices in challenging circumstances.
Another contemporary apostle of atheism is Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Hitchens is very historically and literarily well trained. But, he is admittedly thin on scientific scholarship. I believe I read and would not be surprised that he has some awareness of historical philosophy. But, his philosophical standards would be considerably less complete, though similar in kind to Dennett’s, in that his standards are selective according to his a priori postulates.
I am also very familiar with Hitchens. And what is rarely discussed but very striking about Hitchens’ contention is that he brazenly appropriates the language of morality and wields it as a cudgel against “religious” beliefs, institutions, and people. This is arresting because it has traditionally been the challenge of naturalist (no transcendent reality) philosophers to justify the validity and compulsion of moral assertions. You might expect and would be correct that usually their efforts have been less-than-convincing to common-sense.
But, Hitchens, assumedly targeting a philosophically untrained audience, blithely hurdles this matter. Quite to the contrary, Hitchens insists that we know right from wrong independent from religious instruction and it is an audacity for the “religious” (I use the quotes because though it reflects ordinary language and understanding today, particularly as a Christian I do not prefer or use that language) to presume otherwise. He is correct that people have an independent sense of right and wrong outside of tutoring. But in fact, The Bible teaches exactly that: that men are naturally endowed with certain basics of knowledge.
For us, that awareness is the endowment of their creator; of God. At first brush with Hitchens’ polemic, the thoughtful person will ask, “With no God, how does he justify his moral talk?” Well, we can go back to a reference from Behe, here. Behe’s first book, in 1996, was called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution . A black box is a coarsely or inadequately defined element of an account or explanation of some process. Coming from the perspective of a microbiologist, Behe identifies Darwin’s black box as the cell, the basic component of biological structures. Behe points out that in Darwin’s time, he understood the cell to be a sort of basic piece of protoplasm which combined in different arrangements to form the varieties of living things.
However in the context of contemporary biology, we now know that the cell is not simple at all. It is infinitely complex, with a veritable factory of entities and interdependent functions for each particular biological element in the millions of varied biological species. So complex are cells and their interactions that Behe describes then as “irreducibly complex.” In other words, there is too much diversity to have evolved step by step through random and undirected mutations AND the interrelated functions are so interdependent that they could not have arisen and persisted independently of one another. His simple analogy is of a mousetrap: without any single vital element of the mousetrap, the entire contraption does not operate. And needless to say, such a dysfunctional biological organism would not survive, let alone reproduce. So, the black box of “evolution” is precisely a fill-in word for an unexplained or inexplicable process.
Now, in his later book, “The Edge of Evolution” (above), Behe describes his assent to the Darwinian notion of “common descent.” Like Francis Collins who directed the human genome project (but also, incidentally, confesses a faith in God: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology) Behe sees the similarity in DNA sequences and acknowledges an appearance of biological relationship. But, he rejects the idea that this process is unplanned and undirected. Myself, I don’t feel compelled to accept common descent. I’m not prepared to make an argument against it, but the matter is not so vital as to merit intense investigation. Whatever I might conclude, it would minimally affect the conduct of my life. To me it is plainly designed, one way or the other. I’m much more concerned about the relative efficacy of taxation proposals than the question of common descent.
But, much is made over the commonality of DNA. Without it being an obsessive question for me, I will say that prima facie that says little to me. It’s like saying all buildings have blueprints with walls and plumbing and electricity, etc. Yes, so what? All biological organisms are living, ingest, excrete, breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. They say that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are highly similar. Let’s see: two eyes, two ears, two legs, two lungs, etc. If the DNA is the software code to direct development and function, pray, how might it be other than very similar? It’s like saying a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen are very similar because the blueprints both have four wheels, a horn, headlights, an internal combustion engine…
A few things are different in humans and chimpanzees. But, those few things are a BIIIG deal! Try getting a chimpanzee to appreciate art or literature. See what its favorite ethnic food or style of music is. Take it on a date. Or have a philosophical discussion. How similar are we, now?
Anyway, the astonishing thing about Hitchens is that when he is asked about how morals came about, he says that morality “has evolved.” Forget all of the historical moral obstacles of naturalism. He has stowed away moral imperatives on Darwin’s black box of “evolution.” Surely, he will go for all the gusto and put aesthetics on the ship, too. Why not? It worked for getting God out of biology, which is the prized objective. Perhaps he can appreciate that chimpanzees practice NO religion.
I note that supposedly thoughtful men such as these or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have declined even to engage someone like David Berlinski who has raised simply rational questions about their rash assertions. Heck, Berlinski’s book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not even a year old. Going back a few more years, the longtime atheist philosopher Antony Flew of Britain, who is in terms of both history and reasoning is a relative giant next to Dawkins (even Dennett, who wrote some thoughtful and engaging books before mounting his zealous crusade) has concluded in his age that the evidence indicates that there must be a designer of creation, after all: “There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”
Noting that Flew had been influenced by the evidence presented by people like Behe, Dawkins sniffed that he obviously was no longer credible and may be under the influence of senility’ a shame for a once-great thinker. YouTube video of Dawkins For future reference, you might do well to suspect that there are limits to one’s rational case when one quickly resorts challenges of moral or intellectual defect. Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris and others do this readily. It’s a dietary staple. And alas for Dawkins, this seems near to all that he has on the platter.
First, like Prager who was driven to controlled but admitted anger by the nonsense of a caller’s point that science and medicine, for example, depend on a fully Darwinist account of evolution, I quickly dismiss such dogmatically-inspired foolishness. But, the reason it is important to contain your anger and mildly engage such a supposition is precisely what Behe referred to after the break: Many people, both the secularist scientific clerisy and the often young pop-acolytes that populate and flood the Internet, believe exactly that line of thought. And, they hold it with the ardor similar to that of theists who believe that God has set forth moral standards to which we are accountable. That’s why I referred to a “dogma” and a “clerisy”: they say the authority of "science" dictates that it is so. “Authority” is defined as it is in theological discussion: “those who agree with me” on foundational metaphysical axioms. In this case, the only acceptable metaphysical axiom is, “No metaphysical axiom other than this particular one is valid.”
This is a restatement of an absurdity that analytical philosophy confronted long ago: Positivist empiricists insisted that “Only empirically testable assertions are meaningful,” which is not itself, an empirically testable assertion. Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon)still fervently embraces the idea. But, he well knows this justification problem. Dennett thinks that appeals to transcendent powers and principle are superfluous for a rational explanation of reality. Obviously, some of us disagree. But, Dennett’s statement that God or any transcendent principle is ontologically gratuitous is just a restatement of his premise: “I don’t believe…” which is hardly a startling revelation. Another caller complained as many do that the supposed design has flaws. But of course, it’s hardly news to most theists that both creation and people are flawed. That is much of what The Bible is about. What is perfect is our free will, which naturalist atheists are exercising perfectly well. What requires refining is not creation but our choices in challenging circumstances.
Another contemporary apostle of atheism is Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Hitchens is very historically and literarily well trained. But, he is admittedly thin on scientific scholarship. I believe I read and would not be surprised that he has some awareness of historical philosophy. But, his philosophical standards would be considerably less complete, though similar in kind to Dennett’s, in that his standards are selective according to his a priori postulates.
I am also very familiar with Hitchens. And what is rarely discussed but very striking about Hitchens’ contention is that he brazenly appropriates the language of morality and wields it as a cudgel against “religious” beliefs, institutions, and people. This is arresting because it has traditionally been the challenge of naturalist (no transcendent reality) philosophers to justify the validity and compulsion of moral assertions. You might expect and would be correct that usually their efforts have been less-than-convincing to common-sense.
But, Hitchens, assumedly targeting a philosophically untrained audience, blithely hurdles this matter. Quite to the contrary, Hitchens insists that we know right from wrong independent from religious instruction and it is an audacity for the “religious” (I use the quotes because though it reflects ordinary language and understanding today, particularly as a Christian I do not prefer or use that language) to presume otherwise. He is correct that people have an independent sense of right and wrong outside of tutoring. But in fact, The Bible teaches exactly that: that men are naturally endowed with certain basics of knowledge.
For us, that awareness is the endowment of their creator; of God. At first brush with Hitchens’ polemic, the thoughtful person will ask, “With no God, how does he justify his moral talk?” Well, we can go back to a reference from Behe, here. Behe’s first book, in 1996, was called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution . A black box is a coarsely or inadequately defined element of an account or explanation of some process. Coming from the perspective of a microbiologist, Behe identifies Darwin’s black box as the cell, the basic component of biological structures. Behe points out that in Darwin’s time, he understood the cell to be a sort of basic piece of protoplasm which combined in different arrangements to form the varieties of living things.
However in the context of contemporary biology, we now know that the cell is not simple at all. It is infinitely complex, with a veritable factory of entities and interdependent functions for each particular biological element in the millions of varied biological species. So complex are cells and their interactions that Behe describes then as “irreducibly complex.” In other words, there is too much diversity to have evolved step by step through random and undirected mutations AND the interrelated functions are so interdependent that they could not have arisen and persisted independently of one another. His simple analogy is of a mousetrap: without any single vital element of the mousetrap, the entire contraption does not operate. And needless to say, such a dysfunctional biological organism would not survive, let alone reproduce. So, the black box of “evolution” is precisely a fill-in word for an unexplained or inexplicable process.
Now, in his later book, “The Edge of Evolution” (above), Behe describes his assent to the Darwinian notion of “common descent.” Like Francis Collins who directed the human genome project (but also, incidentally, confesses a faith in God: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology) Behe sees the similarity in DNA sequences and acknowledges an appearance of biological relationship. But, he rejects the idea that this process is unplanned and undirected. Myself, I don’t feel compelled to accept common descent. I’m not prepared to make an argument against it, but the matter is not so vital as to merit intense investigation. Whatever I might conclude, it would minimally affect the conduct of my life. To me it is plainly designed, one way or the other. I’m much more concerned about the relative efficacy of taxation proposals than the question of common descent.
But, much is made over the commonality of DNA. Without it being an obsessive question for me, I will say that prima facie that says little to me. It’s like saying all buildings have blueprints with walls and plumbing and electricity, etc. Yes, so what? All biological organisms are living, ingest, excrete, breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. They say that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are highly similar. Let’s see: two eyes, two ears, two legs, two lungs, etc. If the DNA is the software code to direct development and function, pray, how might it be other than very similar? It’s like saying a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen are very similar because the blueprints both have four wheels, a horn, headlights, an internal combustion engine…
A few things are different in humans and chimpanzees. But, those few things are a BIIIG deal! Try getting a chimpanzee to appreciate art or literature. See what its favorite ethnic food or style of music is. Take it on a date. Or have a philosophical discussion. How similar are we, now?
Anyway, the astonishing thing about Hitchens is that when he is asked about how morals came about, he says that morality “has evolved.” Forget all of the historical moral obstacles of naturalism. He has stowed away moral imperatives on Darwin’s black box of “evolution.” Surely, he will go for all the gusto and put aesthetics on the ship, too. Why not? It worked for getting God out of biology, which is the prized objective. Perhaps he can appreciate that chimpanzees practice NO religion.
I note that supposedly thoughtful men such as these or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have declined even to engage someone like David Berlinski who has raised simply rational questions about their rash assertions. Heck, Berlinski’s book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not even a year old. Going back a few more years, the longtime atheist philosopher Antony Flew of Britain, who is in terms of both history and reasoning is a relative giant next to Dawkins (even Dennett, who wrote some thoughtful and engaging books before mounting his zealous crusade) has concluded in his age that the evidence indicates that there must be a designer of creation, after all: “There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”
Noting that Flew had been influenced by the evidence presented by people like Behe, Dawkins sniffed that he obviously was no longer credible and may be under the influence of senility’ a shame for a once-great thinker. YouTube video of Dawkins For future reference, you might do well to suspect that there are limits to one’s rational case when one quickly resorts challenges of moral or intellectual defect. Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris and others do this readily. It’s a dietary staple. And alas for Dawkins, this seems near to all that he has on the platter.
Dennis Prager - Michael Behe Flawed Creation, and The Evolution Black Box
Today, Dennis Prager had Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe on his radio program and discussed his now year-old book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism . I have read Behe’s books and articles and observed him at lectures and other forums. Behe is a microbiologist explorer and writer on “Intelligent Design.” A few things stood out in my mind relative to the discussion.
First, like Prager who was driven to controlled but admitted anger by the nonsense of a caller’s point that science and medicine, for example, depend on a fully Darwinist account of evolution, I quickly dismiss such dogmatically-inspired foolishness. But, the reason it is important to contain your anger and mildly engage such a supposition is precisely what Behe referred to after the break: Many people, both the secularist scientific clerisy and the often young pop-acolytes that populate and flood the Internet, believe exactly that line of thought. And, they hold it with the ardor similar to that of theists who believe that God has set forth moral standards to which we are accountable. That’s why I referred to a “dogma” and a “clerisy”: they say the authority of "science" dictates that it is so. “Authority” is defined as it is in theological discussion: “those who agree with me” on foundational metaphysical axioms. In this case, the only acceptable metaphysical axiom is, “No metaphysical axiom other than this particular one is valid.”
This is a restatement of an absurdity that analytical philosophy confronted long ago: Positivist empiricists insisted that “Only empirically testable assertions are meaningful,” which is not itself, an empirically testable assertion. Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon)still fervently embraces the idea. But, he well knows this justification problem. Dennett thinks that appeals to transcendent powers and principle are superfluous for a rational explanation of reality. Obviously, some of us disagree. But, Dennett’s statement that God or any transcendent principle is ontologically gratuitous is just a restatement of his premise: “I don’t believe…” which is hardly a startling revelation. Another caller complained as many do that the supposed design has flaws. But of course, it’s hardly news to most theists that both creation and people are flawed. That is much of what The Bible is about. What is perfect is our free will, which naturalist atheists are exercising perfectly well. What requires refining is not creation but our choices in challenging circumstances.
Another contemporary apostle of atheism is Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Hitchens is very historically and literarily well trained. But, he is admittedly thin on scientific scholarship. I believe I read and would not be surprised that he has some awareness of historical philosophy. But, his philosophical standards would be considerably less complete, though similar in kind to Dennett’s, in that his standards are selective according to his a priori postulates.
I am also very familiar with Hitchens. And what is rarely discussed but very striking about Hitchens’ contention is that he brazenly appropriates the language of morality and wields it as a cudgel against “religious” beliefs, institutions, and people. This is arresting because it has traditionally been the challenge of naturalist (no transcendent reality) philosophers to justify the validity and compulsion of moral assertions. You might expect and would be correct that usually their efforts have been less-than-convincing to common-sense.
But, Hitchens, assumedly targeting a philosophically untrained audience, blithely hurdles this matter. Quite to the contrary, Hitchens insists that we know right from wrong independent from religious instruction and it is an audacity for the “religious” (I use the quotes because though it reflects ordinary language and understanding today, particularly as a Christian I do not prefer or use that language) to presume otherwise. He is correct that people have an independent sense of right and wrong outside of tutoring. But in fact, The Bible teaches exactly that: that men are naturally endowed with certain basics of knowledge.
For us, that awareness is the endowment of their creator; of God. At first brush with Hitchens’ polemic, the thoughtful person will ask, “With no God, how does he justify his moral talk?” Well, we can go back to a reference from Behe, here. Behe’s first book, in 1996, was called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution . A black box is a coarsely or inadequately defined element of an account or explanation of some process. Coming from the perspective of a microbiologist, Behe identifies Darwin’s black box as the cell, the basic component of biological structures. Behe points out that in Darwin’s time, he understood the cell to be a sort of basic piece of protoplasm which combined in different arrangements to form the varieties of living things.
However in the context of contemporary biology, we now know that the cell is not simple at all. It is infinitely complex, with a veritable factory of entities and interdependent functions for each particular biological element in the millions of varied biological species. So complex are cells and their interactions that Behe describes then as “irreducibly complex.” In other words, there is too much diversity to have evolved step by step through random and undirected mutations AND the interrelated functions are so interdependent that they could not have arisen and persisted independently of one another. His simple analogy is of a mousetrap: without any single vital element of the mousetrap, the entire contraption does not operate. And needless to say, such a dysfunctional biological organism would not survive, let alone reproduce. So, the black box of “evolution” is precisely a fill-in word for an unexplained or inexplicable process.
Now, in his later book, “The Edge of Evolution” (above), Behe describes his assent to the Darwinian notion of “common descent.” Like Francis Collins who directed the human genome project (but also, incidentally, confesses a faith in God: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology) Behe sees the similarity in DNA sequences and acknowledges an appearance of biological relationship. But, he rejects the idea that this process is unplanned and undirected. Myself, I don’t feel compelled to accept common descent. I’m not prepared to make an argument against it, but the matter is not so vital as to merit intense investigation. Whatever I might conclude, it would minimally affect the conduct of my life. To me it is plainly designed, one way or the other. I’m much more concerned about the relative efficacy of taxation proposals than the question of common descent.
But, much is made over the commonality of DNA. Without it being an obsessive question for me, I will say that prima facie that says little to me. It’s like saying all buildings have blueprints with walls and plumbing and electricity, etc. Yes, so what? All biological organisms are living, ingest, excrete, breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. They say that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are highly similar. Let’s see: two eyes, two ears, two legs, two lungs, etc. If the DNA is the software code to direct development and function, pray, how might it be other than very similar? It’s like saying a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen are very similar because the blueprints both have four wheels, a horn, headlights, an internal combustion engine…
A few things are different in humans and chimpanzees. But, those few things are a BIIIG deal! Try getting a chimpanzee to appreciate art or literature. See what its favorite ethnic food or style of music is. Take it on a date. Or have a philosophical discussion. How similar are we, now?
Anyway, the astonishing thing about Hitchens is that when he is asked about how morals came about, he says that morality “has evolved.” Forget all of the historical moral obstacles of naturalism. He has stowed away moral imperatives on Darwin’s black box of “evolution.” Surely, he will go for all the gusto and put aesthetics on the ship, too. Why not? It worked for getting God out of biology, which is the prized objective. Perhaps he can appreciate that chimpanzees practice NO religion.
I note that supposedly thoughtful men such as these or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have declined even to engage someone like David Berlinski who has raised simply rational questions about their rash assertions. Heck, Berlinski’s book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not even a year old. Going back a few more years, the longtime atheist philosopher Antony Flew of Britain, who is in terms of both history and reasoning is a relative giant next to Dawkins (even Dennett, who wrote some thoughtful and engaging books before mounting his zealous crusade) has concluded in his age that the evidence indicates that there must be a designer of creation, after all: “There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”
Noting that Flew had been influenced by the evidence presented by people like Behe, Dawkins sniffed that he obviously was no longer credible and may be under the influence of senility’ a shame for a once-great thinker. YouTube video of Dawkins For future reference, you might do well to suspect that there are limits to one’s rational case when one quickly resorts challenges of moral or intellectual defect. Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris and others do this readily. It’s a dietary staple. And alas for Dawkins, this seems near to all that he has on the platter.
First, like Prager who was driven to controlled but admitted anger by the nonsense of a caller’s point that science and medicine, for example, depend on a fully Darwinist account of evolution, I quickly dismiss such dogmatically-inspired foolishness. But, the reason it is important to contain your anger and mildly engage such a supposition is precisely what Behe referred to after the break: Many people, both the secularist scientific clerisy and the often young pop-acolytes that populate and flood the Internet, believe exactly that line of thought. And, they hold it with the ardor similar to that of theists who believe that God has set forth moral standards to which we are accountable. That’s why I referred to a “dogma” and a “clerisy”: they say the authority of "science" dictates that it is so. “Authority” is defined as it is in theological discussion: “those who agree with me” on foundational metaphysical axioms. In this case, the only acceptable metaphysical axiom is, “No metaphysical axiom other than this particular one is valid.”
This is a restatement of an absurdity that analytical philosophy confronted long ago: Positivist empiricists insisted that “Only empirically testable assertions are meaningful,” which is not itself, an empirically testable assertion. Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon)still fervently embraces the idea. But, he well knows this justification problem. Dennett thinks that appeals to transcendent powers and principle are superfluous for a rational explanation of reality. Obviously, some of us disagree. But, Dennett’s statement that God or any transcendent principle is ontologically gratuitous is just a restatement of his premise: “I don’t believe…” which is hardly a startling revelation. Another caller complained as many do that the supposed design has flaws. But of course, it’s hardly news to most theists that both creation and people are flawed. That is much of what The Bible is about. What is perfect is our free will, which naturalist atheists are exercising perfectly well. What requires refining is not creation but our choices in challenging circumstances.
Another contemporary apostle of atheism is Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Hitchens is very historically and literarily well trained. But, he is admittedly thin on scientific scholarship. I believe I read and would not be surprised that he has some awareness of historical philosophy. But, his philosophical standards would be considerably less complete, though similar in kind to Dennett’s, in that his standards are selective according to his a priori postulates.
I am also very familiar with Hitchens. And what is rarely discussed but very striking about Hitchens’ contention is that he brazenly appropriates the language of morality and wields it as a cudgel against “religious” beliefs, institutions, and people. This is arresting because it has traditionally been the challenge of naturalist (no transcendent reality) philosophers to justify the validity and compulsion of moral assertions. You might expect and would be correct that usually their efforts have been less-than-convincing to common-sense.
But, Hitchens, assumedly targeting a philosophically untrained audience, blithely hurdles this matter. Quite to the contrary, Hitchens insists that we know right from wrong independent from religious instruction and it is an audacity for the “religious” (I use the quotes because though it reflects ordinary language and understanding today, particularly as a Christian I do not prefer or use that language) to presume otherwise. He is correct that people have an independent sense of right and wrong outside of tutoring. But in fact, The Bible teaches exactly that: that men are naturally endowed with certain basics of knowledge.
For us, that awareness is the endowment of their creator; of God. At first brush with Hitchens’ polemic, the thoughtful person will ask, “With no God, how does he justify his moral talk?” Well, we can go back to a reference from Behe, here. Behe’s first book, in 1996, was called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution . A black box is a coarsely or inadequately defined element of an account or explanation of some process. Coming from the perspective of a microbiologist, Behe identifies Darwin’s black box as the cell, the basic component of biological structures. Behe points out that in Darwin’s time, he understood the cell to be a sort of basic piece of protoplasm which combined in different arrangements to form the varieties of living things.
However in the context of contemporary biology, we now know that the cell is not simple at all. It is infinitely complex, with a veritable factory of entities and interdependent functions for each particular biological element in the millions of varied biological species. So complex are cells and their interactions that Behe describes then as “irreducibly complex.” In other words, there is too much diversity to have evolved step by step through random and undirected mutations AND the interrelated functions are so interdependent that they could not have arisen and persisted independently of one another. His simple analogy is of a mousetrap: without any single vital element of the mousetrap, the entire contraption does not operate. And needless to say, such a dysfunctional biological organism would not survive, let alone reproduce. So, the black box of “evolution” is precisely a fill-in word for an unexplained or inexplicable process.
Now, in his later book, “The Edge of Evolution” (above), Behe describes his assent to the Darwinian notion of “common descent.” Like Francis Collins who directed the human genome project (but also, incidentally, confesses a faith in God: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology) Behe sees the similarity in DNA sequences and acknowledges an appearance of biological relationship. But, he rejects the idea that this process is unplanned and undirected. Myself, I don’t feel compelled to accept common descent. I’m not prepared to make an argument against it, but the matter is not so vital as to merit intense investigation. Whatever I might conclude, it would minimally affect the conduct of my life. To me it is plainly designed, one way or the other. I’m much more concerned about the relative efficacy of taxation proposals than the question of common descent.
But, much is made over the commonality of DNA. Without it being an obsessive question for me, I will say that prima facie that says little to me. It’s like saying all buildings have blueprints with walls and plumbing and electricity, etc. Yes, so what? All biological organisms are living, ingest, excrete, breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. They say that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are highly similar. Let’s see: two eyes, two ears, two legs, two lungs, etc. If the DNA is the software code to direct development and function, pray, how might it be other than very similar? It’s like saying a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen are very similar because the blueprints both have four wheels, a horn, headlights, an internal combustion engine…
A few things are different in humans and chimpanzees. But, those few things are a BIIIG deal! Try getting a chimpanzee to appreciate art or literature. See what its favorite ethnic food or style of music is. Take it on a date. Or have a philosophical discussion. How similar are we, now?
Anyway, the astonishing thing about Hitchens is that when he is asked about how morals came about, he says that morality “has evolved.” Forget all of the historical moral obstacles of naturalism. He has stowed away moral imperatives on Darwin’s black box of “evolution.” Surely, he will go for all the gusto and put aesthetics on the ship, too. Why not? It worked for getting God out of biology, which is the prized objective. Perhaps he can appreciate that chimpanzees practice NO religion.
I note that supposedly thoughtful men such as these or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have declined even to engage someone like David Berlinski who has raised simply rational questions about their rash assertions. Heck, Berlinski’s book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not even a year old. Going back a few more years, the longtime atheist philosopher Antony Flew of Britain, who is in terms of both history and reasoning is a relative giant next to Dawkins (even Dennett, who wrote some thoughtful and engaging books before mounting his zealous crusade) has concluded in his age that the evidence indicates that there must be a designer of creation, after all: “There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”
Noting that Flew had been influenced by the evidence presented by people like Behe, Dawkins sniffed that he obviously was no longer credible and may be under the influence of senility’ a shame for a once-great thinker. YouTube video of Dawkins For future reference, you might do well to suspect that there are limits to one’s rational case when one quickly resorts challenges of moral or intellectual defect. Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris and others do this readily. It’s a dietary staple. And alas for Dawkins, this seems near to all that he has on the platter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)