Monthly Archives: April 2009

More Tea Party Commentary

Thanks to Instapundit, I saw this today.

Judging from the left’s hysterical reaction, something really big must have happened. But the only way to really understand the left’s misinformed and paranoid attacks is to realize that the protests represent tangible proof that basic libertarian values continue to resonate with the American electorate. That, apparently, is a difficult thing for some to accept.

Yes, that seems right to me. It’s been almost surrealistic for the Left — as a whole — to be so venomous about the tea party protests. Isn’t this the People Power Party? I guess only when you’re protesting on the right side of things. And I’ll paste in a piece that Glenn pasted into his post, because it’s perfect:

What were the tea parties about? Reading the signs and talking to people (unlike CNN’s incredibly hostile Susan Roesgen, I actually let folks answer my questions in their own words), the “agenda” was crystal clear. Tea party activists were worried and angry about government bailouts for the irresponsible, about spending that “stimulated” record growth in government and not much else, and about government borrowing that will place unconscionable burdens on future generations of Americans. My favorite sign of the day: “Give Me Liberty, Not Debt.”

Some tried to diminish the tea parties as misguided tax protests. In reality, the protestors demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of economics that went well beyond objections to higher tax rates. You can’t spend money you don’t have, the tea party attendees understood, and government spending above current revenues must be paid for with higher taxes, more borrowing (to be paid for with higher taxes in the future), or artificial government expansion of money and credit, which can only debase the currency and make everyone poorer through inflation.

Yes! That’s exactly what I’ve been saying ever since these protests started. It’s not about the taxes we’re paying now — it’s about the future. Listen: you can’t run 2 trillion dollar deficits without eventually increasing taxes on the middle class. The only other option is inflating the value of the dollar to make 2 trillion dollars not as scary, which 1) makes everyone’s savings worth less and less, and 2) is exactly what tin pot dictators do when the going gets tough.

Tell me this isn’t scary. I dare you.

You’re Welcome!

From FuturePundit yesterday, this story: Neurotic Men Improve Health of Women. (And no, the reverse doesn’t seem to be true, unfortunately for dudes out there.) You’re welcome, my wife! I can feel you getting more and more healthy every day.

From the linked article:

Conscientiousness is a good thing in a mate, researchers report, not just because it’s easier to live with someone who washes the dishes without being asked, but also because having a conscientious partner may actually be good for one’s health. Their study, of adults over age 50, also found that women, but not men, get an added health benefit when paired with someone who is conscientious and neurotic.

How about making the bed without being asked? Is that a sign of a neurotic man? And how does neurotic map to obsessive-compulsive?

The Fourth American Republic

Every once in a while, you read something that opens a door in your mind, allowing you to see things around you with noticeably more clarity. I haven’t had time to get this up of late, but I read this last week and the more I think about it, the more I think James DeLong has it nailed. He believes that a new governmental structure — a new polity — is coming, and fairly soon, and that the one that’s existed since the New Deal is just about dead. You know what? I agree. Read it all, and let me know what you think.

Obama talks about change, but really, his policies are just business as usual turned up to 11. Bush pushes through a medication plan? He wants to socialize medicine. Clinton wanted to increase taxes? He wants to cut deductions on charitable giving. The 90′s had a tech bubble, the 00′s, had a real estate bubble — I think Obama is ushering in the government spending bubble, pushing things to rediculous levels that cannot be sustained. I mean, 2 trillion deficit? Break out your Dr. Evil pose, pinky up with a smirk. It’s crazy. The only positive thing is that bubbles break, and when that happens, sanity and equilibrium come back into vogue.

When will the transition come and what will it look like? In a perfect world, it would be peaceful and very soon. I sure hope so. Mr. DeLong makes a good point, though: in each of the last transition, they were marked with lots of blood spilt, either on American soil or overseas, each on a scale that makes the Iraq War look like a small theater battle. But past performance, as they say, isn’t indicitive of the future, right? Have we learned from the past?

One thing to note about his writing: he’s not breaking things down to the tired old Republican vs. Democrat sides. The past 70 years are all the same thing, differing only in intensity of the special interest pain. So, before leaping to defend your favorite politician, realize that this piece isn’t an rah rah go Republicans piece. Back away from the dogmatic lens slowly and open your eyes.

The Angry Left

I’ve read a lot of reports of late about the Angry Left. I even wrote about it on this very blog a long time ago. There was a difference then, however: Republicans controlled things. Now the Left is in power across the political spectrum in the USA, and they are still spitting venom and pointing fingers wildly at any conservative that might be in their vision (read: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, presently). It’s like a CEO blaming some of their stockholders for the company under performing. Sure, they have some votes, but dude, you’re in charge.

Here’s a note from Transterrestrial Musings about it. Here’s a introspective note to his readers by Dana Milbank at the Washington Post. And finally, yeah, Janeane Garofalo is still flipping out.

So, what is it that makes them do this? A bunch of people protest spending 2 trillion dollars this year than we’re taking in, and they just don’t respectively disagree, but they are MAD about those that dare question it. It’s surreal. Dissent is patriotic, right?

Two Diet Articles Worth Reading

The old saying goes that as soon as the experts say that such and such is good for you, a new study comes out completely wiping that old conventional wisdom away. That’s somewhat true, but still, there has been a consensus slowly evolving about what makes a good diet, and how best to lose weight. One thing to understand is that there are powerful forces at play that work against the right answers being found and applied across humanity. Long held ideas sometimes can take generations to be displaced. Powerful business interests get in the way of changes in the American diet. And most obviously, people don’t like to be told that what they like to eat is bad for them and is probably killing them. I know I don’t. All these things slow down transitions to different eating patterns, regardless of what research is showing.

Still, as I said, consensus is building. Eat less refined sugars. Pay attention to the glycemic index of what you eat, and aim lower. Eat more protein for losing weight. Olive oil, nuts, green vegetables, and whole grains are fantastic for you. All obvious things if you pay attention, but study after study underlines this.

Here’s one linked by FuturePundit, focused upon what’s good for you, and another on the WSJ focused upon how better to lose weight.

Graphical Representation

If you read my last post about the tea party movement and were still thinking, “Well, I still think they’re shills for Rush and FOX, and I don’t see a problem with what President Obama and Congress are doing,” well, click through to this post by Jimmy Akin and watch the video. Then tell me that you have complete trust in our government that it’ll be alright, and it’s just the super rich that are going to pay for this.

Butcher’s bill on our wallets and our way of life. Everyone’s.

The Tea Parties — Just What They Appear To Be

The amount of craziness and rage coming from the Left (in general) about the tea parties is pretty amazing. Ironic, to say the least. I don’t have a lot of time today for blogging, but considering it’s Tax Day, I just want to make some quick points about this:

1. This isn’t a Republican thing, period. A lot of the people protesting today are fed up with both parties. Get that idea out of your head. It may be characterized as a mostly conservative thing with a strong libertarian bent, but not Republican. There’s a pretty big difference (sadly).

2. This isn’t about how high our taxes are right now. This is about the incredible spending going on in Washington, D.C. right now, and fears about financial butcher’s bill that will come due for this spending, probably in the form of oppressive taxes. So, if you hear people say that the protesters are stupid because taxes are low right now, they’re either obfuscating or they are lying.

3. This movement is not primarily underwritten by FOX News. That’s really a non-starter.

If you’d like a primer on this whole thing got started (and no, it doesn’t involve overweight pasty males smoking tobacco in unventilated areas), go here.

Why ironic? Well, I think it’s just incredible that for years, especially in Portland, Oregon, we’ve had very regular marches against Bush, against the war, against capitalism, against you-name-it. I’ve seen countless bumper stickers that informed me that “Dissidence is the highest form of patriotism”. I’ve been warned that any minute now we’re going to lose the right to protest and to speak our minds about what concerns us, all due to Evil Republicans. Now the Democrats hold almost all the levels of power in government, there are people that wish it to be known that they aren’t happy with what that government is doing, and dark, evil purposes are suddenly behind it.

Listen, I may have disagreed with the anti-war protesters (and still do, for that matter), but I never thought they were under cover operatives sent here by Saddam Hussein, or that NGO’s and non-profits were nefariously behind the whole thing. I always recognized that a vast majority of the people out there were citizens that really wanted their voice heard, and were trying to find a way to amplify it. Now there’s another concern and another roar that wants to be heard. If you disagree, well, get out of the way. Knock it off with the ad hominem attacks and grow up.

From the Darker Side of Parish Politics: Scandal

Jeff Miller over at the Curt Jester points his readers to a sad story about a Catholic journalist doing some investigation in a small town in Georgia and ending up being driven from his parish via restraining orders. Now, reading both sides, it’s apparent that one party is not telling the truth. My gut tells me that the journalist — Robert Kumpel — is the truth teller here, and as a humble blogger, I have that right. It’s just a hunch, though. I wouldn’t do justice summarizing, so go and read, and come back. Jeff has all the relevant links in his post.

You’re back? Good. A pretty amazing story. Several things come to mind. First, this is essentially denying of sacraments over a civil disagreement. Isn’t there some appeal that Mr. Kumpel can make with higher ecclesiastical authorities than his local bishop? There has to be some structure in place to check misuse of authority of local bishops. Second, this is certainly indicative of the kind of behavior that a small number of priests from the old generation suffered from. Back then, with a large Catholic family, one boy would be all but forced into the priesthood, resulting in a lot of priests that really were going through the motions. A priest and bishop from the Old Country, both of the pre-Vatican II generation? Bingo. I think I’m warm here. And lastly, if I were him, I’d move out of the diocese. It sounds as though his faith and exercise thereof is a central thing in his life, so it’s either that or wait the bishop out. Even if there is a process that the Church has to resolve these matters, it would probably take years to do so, and would be a long shot.

I will say that it sounds like the only thing that could move this case without involving the Vatican would be either very high powered Catholic lawyers working for free, or a campaign to publicize this and keep the light shining on this parish for a long, long time to come.

A sad story, and brings into relief how human the Church is. Honestly, they’re acting like children, and not as adult Christians.

Half Way with the Social Networking

Last week I read an interesting post from one of my favorite authors: Charles Stross. I’m actually reading one of his first published novels right now, the Atrocity Archives. Freaky book. Back on topic now. In last week’s post he talks about he doesn’t do the whole social media thing. Basically, he recognizes his inability to control himself, and such activity would lead to, well, not doing anything else. Given that I look forward to his future work, I’m completely behind this work ethic.

While I certainly have a social media presence online — Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. — I do share one ethic with him: all these games and other various side things that some of these services have. Mafia Wars! Poker! Complete your profile! Yeah, whatever. There’s just too much. I have over a 100 friends on Facebook right now — a vast majority of them I’m fortunate to either call friend, or did call friend at some point in my life. That’s great, and I’m blessed. Still, I don’t see myself giving out energy packs to my friends just because someone gave me the same earlier today. I mean, great, thanks, but I don’t play. And Facebook Causes are just weird most of the time. I get invited to join Causes (note the capital) that I have no or almost no connection to. I mean, it’s very sad that little kids get cancer. I understand that desire to help, and I can only imagine the pain that families in that situation go through, but if I were to join every Cause that qualifies as Sad or Enraging with a simple click on Facebook, well. What good am I doing? What good are you doing? Nada. I guess you’re making yourself feel better, right? Unless you also happen to give money/time/energy to that cause, it’s pure platitudes.

Don’t get me started on Green Patch. I mean, what?

This isn’t do bring down the great things that Facebook and all the rest bring to me and mine. I’ve talked to people recently that I hadn’t heard from in well over a decade — maybe two. That’s powerful stuff. Bring able to let your friends and family follow your day-to-day life in all it’s boring detail: that’s fantastic. But seriously, I just don’t see myself playing poker online any time soon.

Why Unarmed?

I just read a news article on the LA Times site saying that the the U.S. crew for that ship that was hijacked by Somalia pirates have taken control back. Good for them. This stuck out, though:

Less than 12 hours later, the 20-member crew — which was unarmed, according to the ship’s owner — managed to overpower the pirates and regain control of the vessel, according to U.S. officials.

OK, now, why in the world would you send a shipping vessel loaded full of stuff past Somalia these days, and not arm your crew? It’s great that they fought back without arms, but why should they? No where in the article says why this would be, and I would think it’s a pretty obvious question, don’t you?

These pirates aren’t SEAL teams. I’m not saying they aren’t tough and aren’t killers, but they aren’t that professional. Perhaps one of the reasons they’re pirating with such impunity is because there doesn’t seem to be much danger involved.

My dollar will win you two that one of the reasons these crew members are unarmed involves the risk of lawsuits.