Before Hollywood turns the story into yet another movie that makes Houston parents look bad, I wanted to get my two cents worth in on the Cheerleader Hazing saga at Katy's Morton Ranch High School. I read with dismay the latest developments in the case of the 7 varsity cheerleaders brought up on criminal charges for hazing some younger cheerleaders by throwing them - bound and blindfolded - into a backyard pool. Granted, the act was cruel, and some kind of punishment was in order, but criminal prosecution, complete with jail time and a Perp Walk? Prosecutorial files "several inches thick"? The same charges against all seven, even though some of them had only minimal involvement?
Well, that's not stopping uber-prosecutor Marc Brown from protecting the good citizens of Harris County from the depredations of Dangerous Cheerleaders. And thank God he's on the job. Had he not heroically stepped in to stop these criminals, who knows where it all might have ended? Packs of roving Cheerleaders ravaging the City? One shudders to think.
Shades of the Duke University LaCrosse saga, where yet another Prosecutor Run Amok ruined the lives of other people in pursuit of his personal ambition. And call me crazy, but once you've got a criminal file "several inches thick", your life is pretty much ruined.
Another important detail: the junior cheerleaders were not innocent victims. They were as much a part of the culture that allowed those senior cheerleaders to think this was a great idea, right up until the moment that they were pushed into the pool. Think about it: nobody forced those bonds and blindfolds onto the Junior cheerleaders, and were they so "innocent" that they thought it OK to be manacled? Of course, that doesn't stop the parents of said JV cheerleaders from their self-righteous Media Moment, portraying the Senior cheerleaders as so very different from their precious babies, demanding "justice", and contemplating the million dollar settlement from the inevitable lawsuit.
Speaking of parents, where was the adult supervision that would have prevented this event? The party was held at "a private residence", surely that of one of the cheerleaders. Doesn't that cry out for criminal prosecution of the homeowners? Mind you, I'm not advocating for it other than in the "Mountains Out Of Molehills" mindset that Prosecutor Brown and the JV parents bring to the table. If this affair needs to be criminalized, let the criminalization begin, and let it begin with adults. And while we're at it, let's have a full investigation of the parents of the so-called "victims", who let their children out of the house at 4:00 a.m. for this adventure.
And let's not forget that the Media is wallowing in the story like so many hogs in a mudhole. Newspapers and TV stations gleefully publish the photos and names of the girls, all 17 and 18, and reveal personal details about their lives. Just because The Media are allowed to publish such personal information regarding girls in high school, does it necessarily follow that they must? Once again, the lack of common sense, good judgment and simple decency is just staggering.
But, back to Marc Brown. What the hell is going on with this prosecution, other than the enthusiastic fulfillment of his career goals? Where is the sense of proportionality, either in the pursuit of prosecution relative to the misdeed, much less in the arguably tens of thousands of dollars the County is spending to pursue this? How many years would one taxpayer have to pay County taxes to pay for this one prosecution? If it costs a hundred grand, the answer is 50 years. It will likely be much more than that, and of course, the families will all go out of pocket at least that much to defend their daughters.
That's a damn high price for taxpayers to pay so Marc Brown can posture for the cameras.
And what of the school district? So paranoid about the inevitable lawsuits from the parents of the "victims", they've been silent on recommending more sensible administrative punishment for the Senior cheerleaders. But, by allowing them to be tried as criminals, they've made a multi-million dollar "settlement" - at taxpayer expense - a virtual inevitability.
Me, I blame the Democrats. From the idiocy of Zero Tolerance, to the criminalization of simple misdeeds, to the gargantuan expenditures of public treasure in pursuit of the ludicrous, this has Liberal fingerprints all over it.
I only wish that they were the only ones who had to pay.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Prosecutor Wings It
What is it about federal prosecutors with Irish surnames that make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up? Going back to the days when Patrick Fitzgerald told the entire nation a running series of lies in order to nail Scooter Libby for the actual crimes of the Democratic Party, an Irish surname these days is a warning flag for prosecutorial overreach and misconduct, and all too often, somebody ends up convicted as a felon and facing jail time for no better reason than that a Federal Law Enforcement official wanted to play God.
For today's instance, I give you Thomas O'Brien, federal prosecutor from L.A. He is the prosecutor who handled the so-called "Cyberbully" case, where a woman posed as a teenage boy on MySpace so as to play a cruel joke on a teenage girl. The girl later committed suicide after arguing with her mother.
Whether she caused the girl's death or not, the hoax perpetrated by the adult Lori Drew on teenager Megan Meier was despicable, but despicable doesn't equal illegal. It also does not justify a Fed using laws for other than their intended purposes and reading into them whatever the hell he wants to in order to pursue a prosecution, which is what O'Brien did.
After state of Missouri prosecutors determined no law had been broken and refused to prosecute the woman, O'Brien decided to do a little free-styling and proceeded to prosecute Drew with a law designed to punish Hackers and others using the Internet for explicitly criminal enterprises. There is nothing in the statute regarding harassment of individuals or minors. If this sounds a lot like Fed abuse of the RICO statutes, it’s because it is.
What Mrs. Drew did was not hacking, and thus, the premise for its use in a manner totally unintended by lawmakers was unwarranted. Not that that could stop O'Brien. Unconcerned about such niceties as waiting for the Legislature to actually reflect the will of the people on Cyberbullying, by, say, passing a law, O'Brien instead used the time-tested legal principles known as "Condita sursum res" and "Vestitus planto sententia", which roughly translated mean "making it up as I go along" and "flying by the seat of my pants".
On Tuesday, he secured a conviction, albeit one that had most of the jury in a dither as to whether justice had been served. And, not content to merely bend the law to his mighty will, O'Brien then mounted his lectern to give a scolding to the good citizens of America: "If you have children who are on the Internet and you are not watching what they are doing, you better be".
I wait with bated breath for the next words of wisdom to spring from O’Brien’s giant legal brain, including "look both ways before crossing the street", "floss regularly", and "don't get up from the table until you've eaten all your vegetables".
And let's put aside the patronizing tone of voice for the moment. Can we be entirely sure that O'Brien didn't intend his remarks as a threat? After all, this is the guy who conspired to put a woman in prison based on a crime that he invented. If we don't "watch what our children are doing on the Internet", what's going to happen to us?
Democrats, boys. They're everywhere.
For today's instance, I give you Thomas O'Brien, federal prosecutor from L.A. He is the prosecutor who handled the so-called "Cyberbully" case, where a woman posed as a teenage boy on MySpace so as to play a cruel joke on a teenage girl. The girl later committed suicide after arguing with her mother.
Whether she caused the girl's death or not, the hoax perpetrated by the adult Lori Drew on teenager Megan Meier was despicable, but despicable doesn't equal illegal. It also does not justify a Fed using laws for other than their intended purposes and reading into them whatever the hell he wants to in order to pursue a prosecution, which is what O'Brien did.
After state of Missouri prosecutors determined no law had been broken and refused to prosecute the woman, O'Brien decided to do a little free-styling and proceeded to prosecute Drew with a law designed to punish Hackers and others using the Internet for explicitly criminal enterprises. There is nothing in the statute regarding harassment of individuals or minors. If this sounds a lot like Fed abuse of the RICO statutes, it’s because it is.
What Mrs. Drew did was not hacking, and thus, the premise for its use in a manner totally unintended by lawmakers was unwarranted. Not that that could stop O'Brien. Unconcerned about such niceties as waiting for the Legislature to actually reflect the will of the people on Cyberbullying, by, say, passing a law, O'Brien instead used the time-tested legal principles known as "Condita sursum res" and "Vestitus planto sententia", which roughly translated mean "making it up as I go along" and "flying by the seat of my pants".
On Tuesday, he secured a conviction, albeit one that had most of the jury in a dither as to whether justice had been served. And, not content to merely bend the law to his mighty will, O'Brien then mounted his lectern to give a scolding to the good citizens of America: "If you have children who are on the Internet and you are not watching what they are doing, you better be".
I wait with bated breath for the next words of wisdom to spring from O’Brien’s giant legal brain, including "look both ways before crossing the street", "floss regularly", and "don't get up from the table until you've eaten all your vegetables".
And let's put aside the patronizing tone of voice for the moment. Can we be entirely sure that O'Brien didn't intend his remarks as a threat? After all, this is the guy who conspired to put a woman in prison based on a crime that he invented. If we don't "watch what our children are doing on the Internet", what's going to happen to us?
Democrats, boys. They're everywhere.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
To The Honorable Michael Moore
April 12th, 2009
Subministry of Documentaries
Ministry Of Film
Department of the Interior
United States Government
111 Ave J
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Moore -
Following the elections last year, we were very happy to hear you declare that "Capitalism is dead" and "good riddance to it". As you may know, your views are very much represented by the American people, who let their voices be heard with the election of Barack Obama and the glorious gains of the Democratic Party in the congressional elections.
Here at the Subministry of Documentaries, we are committed to nonfictional films of the highest quality, and look forward to supporting your efforts to bring your films to the American people, and to the world. Of course, there are guidelines to ensure not only the quality of the product, but the equality of the production!
The Department of Labor stands ready to assist you in all aspects of hiring for your new productions. There are a few matters that need to be cleared up beforehand, discretely we hope, on this point. Our records show that you have not employed Union labor in the production of any of your previous films, and in fact have actively suppressed such involvement in the past. The Interior Ministry also has a file on some incidents involving Workplace Harassment on the set of your productions, and are concerned about other reports that you refused to provide benefits to your workers. We're sure these are all just misunderstandings, but going forward, the Labor Department will be assigning workers to all positions - pre and post production - with the exception of those titles you reserve for yourself. You'll also benefit from an initiative of the new Obama administration called "Card Check". With this innovative policy, union officials will organize your employees into a union at NO COST to you!
Each production will require minimum hiring quotas in all facets of production. Now, we realize the creative challenges this might present depending on the subject matter, but there are numerous creative ways that this can be addressed! If, for example, your subject matter is about evil corporate chieftains, we realize the potential for controversy that might result were the parts for any of the evil corporate chieftains to be played by Persons Of Color, women, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgendered Persons, the Differentially Abled, Undocumented Migrant Workers, Union Workers or White/Anglo members of the Obama Youth Corp.
As you can see, indiscriminate hiring policies can be a veritable minefield of regulatory misconduct. In addition to the Promotion Of Ethnic Diversity Act of 2009, indiscriminate casting might also violate The People Of Colors Act, The Sexual Orientation Act, the Comparable Pay Act, The Animist Polyamory Act and the Persons Requiring Assistance Act, along with various recent Internal Revenue Service guideline revisions. We stand ready to help you avoid all of these conflicts!
One final note on labor practices: the new hiring guidelines allow you to singularly hold the position of Director or Writer, but not both. In light of the recent downturn in the economy, President Obama's call for America to "share the wealth" has been expanded to sensibly include all types of wealth, including royalties on the Creative Process. Co-Writers, Co-Directors and Co-producers will be assigned to you as necessary on all projects. At this point, Interior Department guidelines on the allocation of Academy Awards in all categories has not been completed. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause, but assure you that the issue will be resolved before nominations for the 2010 awards. The IRS is diligently working on the models to estimate the future value of all intellectual property as well as the impact of Awards and Honors on the value of said property so as to properly tax it in the future.
More good news! The U.S. government will help you market your movie! Having recently taken over the licensing of all commercial theaters in the United States and its territories, the Commerce Department can insure wide and fair distribution of your documentaries, and preferential distribution based on the subject matter! All advertising, marketing and promotion of your films will be handled by The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, whom as you know has a 50 year history in the production of documentaries. And those with ideological content are a particular specialty!
S.O.D. also stands ready to assist you in the funding of your projects! Unfortunately, private financing of documentaries is not allowed under the new "Fairness In Film" guidelines as set forth by the Federal Communications Commission under the expanded Fairness Doctrine implemented just last month. Building on the success and popularity of our Student Loan programs, the U.S. Government will finance 100% of your production. Of course, the newly implemented corporate income tax guidelines will apply. 50% of the gross will go a long way to financing President Obama's "Bottoms Up" approach to economic renewal. For the sake of clarification, that will be 50% of gross revenues, not gross profit.
During the campaign, Vice President Joe Biden put it very eloquently when he said that "paying more taxes is an act of Patriotism", and as a long time supporter, we are sure you'll agree, especially after the last eight years when Patriotism was defined as a willingness to support an unjust war that has killed millions of Iraqi citizens. Just a thought here, but what better subject matter for a filmmaker of your reputation! The Department of Justice stands ready to assist you in the initial draft of a script about the depravities of the Bush administration in the Middle East. We feel this is a very much unexploited territory, ripe for a treatment by an artist of such stature as yourself! We have taken the liberty of contracting with the esteemed Joe Wilson - diplomat extraordinaire - to be a consultant on the film, and the research will be invaluable to the DOJ should any additional crimes of the previous administration come to light.
With the involvement of so many Ministries providing support for your efforts, please know that all of their activities will be coordinated by the National Endowment of the Arts, recently transferred to the Department of the Interior. You have been a big supporter of their efforts in the past, and we are sure will continue to do so. The honorable Andres Serrano will chair the NEA, sends his best regards and is looking forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience. As you know, he is the visionary creator of "Piss Christ", amongst many other artistic achievements. Prior to your meeting , he requests that you review and remark on his most recent photographic effort, "SHIT", as he highly values your opinion.
In conclusion, thank you so much for your enthusiastic support of the Administration, and the bold adventure in filmography that awaits!
Sincerely,
Maria Hardu-Belichick
Special Assistant To The Secretary
Subministry of Documentaries
Ministry Of Film
Depart of the Interior
United States Government
Subministry of Documentaries
Ministry Of Film
Department of the Interior
United States Government
111 Ave J
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Moore -
Following the elections last year, we were very happy to hear you declare that "Capitalism is dead" and "good riddance to it". As you may know, your views are very much represented by the American people, who let their voices be heard with the election of Barack Obama and the glorious gains of the Democratic Party in the congressional elections.
Here at the Subministry of Documentaries, we are committed to nonfictional films of the highest quality, and look forward to supporting your efforts to bring your films to the American people, and to the world. Of course, there are guidelines to ensure not only the quality of the product, but the equality of the production!
The Department of Labor stands ready to assist you in all aspects of hiring for your new productions. There are a few matters that need to be cleared up beforehand, discretely we hope, on this point. Our records show that you have not employed Union labor in the production of any of your previous films, and in fact have actively suppressed such involvement in the past. The Interior Ministry also has a file on some incidents involving Workplace Harassment on the set of your productions, and are concerned about other reports that you refused to provide benefits to your workers. We're sure these are all just misunderstandings, but going forward, the Labor Department will be assigning workers to all positions - pre and post production - with the exception of those titles you reserve for yourself. You'll also benefit from an initiative of the new Obama administration called "Card Check". With this innovative policy, union officials will organize your employees into a union at NO COST to you!
Each production will require minimum hiring quotas in all facets of production. Now, we realize the creative challenges this might present depending on the subject matter, but there are numerous creative ways that this can be addressed! If, for example, your subject matter is about evil corporate chieftains, we realize the potential for controversy that might result were the parts for any of the evil corporate chieftains to be played by Persons Of Color, women, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgendered Persons, the Differentially Abled, Undocumented Migrant Workers, Union Workers or White/Anglo members of the Obama Youth Corp.
As you can see, indiscriminate hiring policies can be a veritable minefield of regulatory misconduct. In addition to the Promotion Of Ethnic Diversity Act of 2009, indiscriminate casting might also violate The People Of Colors Act, The Sexual Orientation Act, the Comparable Pay Act, The Animist Polyamory Act and the Persons Requiring Assistance Act, along with various recent Internal Revenue Service guideline revisions. We stand ready to help you avoid all of these conflicts!
One final note on labor practices: the new hiring guidelines allow you to singularly hold the position of Director or Writer, but not both. In light of the recent downturn in the economy, President Obama's call for America to "share the wealth" has been expanded to sensibly include all types of wealth, including royalties on the Creative Process. Co-Writers, Co-Directors and Co-producers will be assigned to you as necessary on all projects. At this point, Interior Department guidelines on the allocation of Academy Awards in all categories has not been completed. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause, but assure you that the issue will be resolved before nominations for the 2010 awards. The IRS is diligently working on the models to estimate the future value of all intellectual property as well as the impact of Awards and Honors on the value of said property so as to properly tax it in the future.
More good news! The U.S. government will help you market your movie! Having recently taken over the licensing of all commercial theaters in the United States and its territories, the Commerce Department can insure wide and fair distribution of your documentaries, and preferential distribution based on the subject matter! All advertising, marketing and promotion of your films will be handled by The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, whom as you know has a 50 year history in the production of documentaries. And those with ideological content are a particular specialty!
S.O.D. also stands ready to assist you in the funding of your projects! Unfortunately, private financing of documentaries is not allowed under the new "Fairness In Film" guidelines as set forth by the Federal Communications Commission under the expanded Fairness Doctrine implemented just last month. Building on the success and popularity of our Student Loan programs, the U.S. Government will finance 100% of your production. Of course, the newly implemented corporate income tax guidelines will apply. 50% of the gross will go a long way to financing President Obama's "Bottoms Up" approach to economic renewal. For the sake of clarification, that will be 50% of gross revenues, not gross profit.
During the campaign, Vice President Joe Biden put it very eloquently when he said that "paying more taxes is an act of Patriotism", and as a long time supporter, we are sure you'll agree, especially after the last eight years when Patriotism was defined as a willingness to support an unjust war that has killed millions of Iraqi citizens. Just a thought here, but what better subject matter for a filmmaker of your reputation! The Department of Justice stands ready to assist you in the initial draft of a script about the depravities of the Bush administration in the Middle East. We feel this is a very much unexploited territory, ripe for a treatment by an artist of such stature as yourself! We have taken the liberty of contracting with the esteemed Joe Wilson - diplomat extraordinaire - to be a consultant on the film, and the research will be invaluable to the DOJ should any additional crimes of the previous administration come to light.
With the involvement of so many Ministries providing support for your efforts, please know that all of their activities will be coordinated by the National Endowment of the Arts, recently transferred to the Department of the Interior. You have been a big supporter of their efforts in the past, and we are sure will continue to do so. The honorable Andres Serrano will chair the NEA, sends his best regards and is looking forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience. As you know, he is the visionary creator of "Piss Christ", amongst many other artistic achievements. Prior to your meeting , he requests that you review and remark on his most recent photographic effort, "SHIT", as he highly values your opinion.
In conclusion, thank you so much for your enthusiastic support of the Administration, and the bold adventure in filmography that awaits!
Sincerely,
Maria Hardu-Belichick
Special Assistant To The Secretary
Subministry of Documentaries
Ministry Of Film
Depart of the Interior
United States Government
Sunday, November 23, 2008
There You Go Again, George
So, based on his article today (copy linked below), at a time when the Conservative house is on fire, George Will is interested not in arguing for the Conservative cause, but in questioning it's very legitimacy. Wo, Déjà Vu all over again, as they say. Today's example is Will's argument that Conservative jurists haven't been sufficiently ideologically pure in the manner in which they concluded that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. His argument seems to be that their interpretation was too simplistic, and that such interpretation thus opens the door to the same kind of constitutional free-styling characterized by the fuzzy logic of Democrats and Liberals.
Say what?
I won't bother you with the wonderfully diverse details of Will's central argument because they are impenetrable, but the jist of his argument is this: a literal interpretation of The Second Amendment is bad.
Let's review, shall we? The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." On a personal note, I believe that simple sentence has two too many commas, but that aside, these simple words - not to mention their straightforward historical context - are not enough for George Will, who writes: "Until June, the question was: Is the right guaranteed to individuals and unconnected with military service, or only to states as they exercise their right to maintain militias? The court held, 5-4, for the former view." He further writes that the Conservative wing, by interpreting the Constitution literally, has given short shrift to opposing views on individual gun rights, stating that there are "powerful, detailed, historically grounded 'originalist' arguments for opposite understandings of what the Framers intended with that right to 'keep and bear arms.'"
Let's first address the towering incoherence of an argument that states that Originalists have provided "powerful, detailed and historically grounded arguments" against an individual's right to keep and bear arms. No such arguments exist from Originalists except for those - like Will - who so define themselves, since it defies the very premise of Originalism to suggest that the Literal can be rendered obscure by taking words at their face value. To make this rhetorical Mobeus Strip coherent, Wills must redefine Liberals as Conservatives and Conservatives as Liberals, and he's well up to the task.
Are you with me so far? His second argument is also a doozy: Even though Originalism is based on the literal interpretation of the Constitution's words and the Framer's intent, Originalism runs the risk of becoming the exact opposite - and will encourage judicial activism - if we oversimplify it. Again, words cannot be interpreted for their literal meaning for fear of thus being interpreted literally.
It has ever been thus with many Conservative pundits, particularly those inclined to over-intellectualize. In addition to a disturbing tendency for introspection, Will and many others also excel at the endless - and frequently untimely - examination of minutiae, not to mention frequently reaching the wrong conclusions. Why do they do this? From my perspective, for Intellectuals, nothing gives one credibility like questioning ones own beliefs, affiliations, political party, you-name-it; and in the National Media, nothing gives a Conservative credibility like doing this frequently.
Don't take my word for it. Here's Will in his own words at the end of the article: "So, regarding judging, too, conservatism is a house divided. And as Lincoln said (sort of), a house divided against itself is really interesting." And there you have it in a nutshell. Nothing is of greater interest to a congenital Deep Thinker like Will than proving that any position - regardless of how clear - is subject to another interpretation, thus rescuing George Will from boredom.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against introspection. Jesus demands it and philosophers aplenty endorse it. What I'm against is obsessive introspection; I'm against three-columns-per-week-deadline driven introspection; I'm against introspection demanded of Conservatives by their Liberal counterparts and The Media in order to get invitations to the right cocktail parties; and I'm dead-freaking set against the lifetime employment opportunities pursued by columnists like Will by endlessly talking to death every issue without resolving anything.
Will himself has addressed this issue before, and in so many words concluded that Conservative soul-searching makes Conservatives better. Maybe so, but somebody needs to tell George that the current debate isn't a polite exchange between equals; It's not an entertaining exchange between Mensa Lifers on the Left and the Right over tea; And it's most certainly not some intellectual exercise on behalf of the Common Folk by their Betters.
This is a freaking knife fight for the survival of freedom, democracy and capitalism, and the sooner that Wills realizes that and gets back to pounding the Democrats, the better.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6126567.html
2nd Amendment decision attracts conservative fire
By GEORGE F. WILL Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Nov. 22, 2008, 9:41AM
Of conservatives' few victories this year, the most cherished came when the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Now, however, a distinguished conservative jurist argues that the court's ruling was mistaken and had the principal flaws of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling that conservatives execrate as judicial overreaching. Both rulings, says J. Harvie Wilkinson, suddenly recognized a judicially enforceable right grounded in "an ambiguous constitutional text."
Writing for the Virginia Law Review, Judge Wilkinson of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says Heller, like Roe, was disrespectful of legislative judgments, has hurled courts into a political thicket of fine-tuning policy in interminable litigation and traduced federalism. Furthermore, Heller exposed "originalism" — the doctrine that the Constitution's text means precisely what those who wrote its words meant by them — as no barrier to "judicial subjectivity."
The Second Amendment says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Until June, the question was: Is the right guaranteed to individuals and unconnected with military service, or only to states as they exercise their right to maintain militias? The court held, 5-4, for the former view.
In Roe, the court said the 14th Amendment guarantee of "due process" implies a general right of privacy, within which lurks a hitherto unnoticed abortion right that, although "fundamental," the Framers never mentioned. And this right somehow contains the trimester scheme of abortion regulations.
Since 1973, the court has been entangled in the legislative function of adumbrating an abortion code, the details of which are, Wilkinson says, "not even remotely suggested by the text or history of the 14th Amendment." Parental consent? Spousal consent? Spousal notification? Parental notification? Waiting periods? Lack of funding for nontherapeutic abortions? Partial-birth abortion procedures? Zoning ordinances that exclude abortion facilities? The court has tried to tickle answers for these and other policy questions from the Constitution.
Conservatives are correct: The court, having asserted a right on which the Constitution is silent, has been writing rules that are detailed, debatable, inescapably arbitrary and irreducibly political. But now, Wilkinson says, conservatives are delighted that Heller has put the court on a similar path.
In Heller, the court was at least dealing with a right the Constitution actually mentions. But the majority and minority justices demonstrated that there are powerful, detailed, historically grounded "originalist" arguments for opposite understandings of what the Framers intended with that right to "keep and bear arms."
Now the court must slog through an utterly predictable torrent of litigation, writing, piecemeal, a federal gun code concerning the newfound individual right. What trigger locks or other safety requirements impermissibly burden the exercise of this right? What registration requirements, background checks, waiting periods for purchasers, ballistic identifications? What restrictions on ammunition? On places where guns may be purchased or carried? On the kinds of people (e.g., those with domestic violence records) who may own guns? On the number of gun purchases in a month?
Judicial conservatism requires judges to justify their decisions with reference to several restraining principles, including deference to the democratic branches of government, and to states' responsibilities under federalism. But, Wilkinson writes, Heller proves that when the only principle is originalism, and when conscientious people come to different conclusions about the Framers' intentions, originalist judges must resolve the conflict by voting their preferences.
It has been said that the most important word in the Supreme Court's lexicon is not "liberty" or "equality" or even "justice," it is "five." But whereas in baseball a tie goes to the runner, in controversies about the constitutionality of legislation, a tie between serious arguments should, Wilkinson says, tilt judicial judgment to the democratic side — the legislature.
When rights are unambiguously enumerated, courts should protect them vigorously. But Wilkinson says that when a right's definition is debatable, generous judicial deference should be accorded to legislative judgments — particularly those of the states, which should enjoy constitutional space to function as laboratories for testing policy variations.
Roe and Heller, says Wilkinson, diminish liberty by "handing our democratic destiny to the courts." Many libertarian conservatives disagree, arguing that the protection of individual liberty requires robust judicial circumscription of democracy.
So, regarding judging, too, conservatism is a house divided. And as Lincoln said (sort of), a house divided against itself is really interesting.
Will is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, based in Washington, D.C. (georgewill@washpost.com)
Say what?
I won't bother you with the wonderfully diverse details of Will's central argument because they are impenetrable, but the jist of his argument is this: a literal interpretation of The Second Amendment is bad.
Let's review, shall we? The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." On a personal note, I believe that simple sentence has two too many commas, but that aside, these simple words - not to mention their straightforward historical context - are not enough for George Will, who writes: "Until June, the question was: Is the right guaranteed to individuals and unconnected with military service, or only to states as they exercise their right to maintain militias? The court held, 5-4, for the former view." He further writes that the Conservative wing, by interpreting the Constitution literally, has given short shrift to opposing views on individual gun rights, stating that there are "powerful, detailed, historically grounded 'originalist' arguments for opposite understandings of what the Framers intended with that right to 'keep and bear arms.'"
Let's first address the towering incoherence of an argument that states that Originalists have provided "powerful, detailed and historically grounded arguments" against an individual's right to keep and bear arms. No such arguments exist from Originalists except for those - like Will - who so define themselves, since it defies the very premise of Originalism to suggest that the Literal can be rendered obscure by taking words at their face value. To make this rhetorical Mobeus Strip coherent, Wills must redefine Liberals as Conservatives and Conservatives as Liberals, and he's well up to the task.
Are you with me so far? His second argument is also a doozy: Even though Originalism is based on the literal interpretation of the Constitution's words and the Framer's intent, Originalism runs the risk of becoming the exact opposite - and will encourage judicial activism - if we oversimplify it. Again, words cannot be interpreted for their literal meaning for fear of thus being interpreted literally.
It has ever been thus with many Conservative pundits, particularly those inclined to over-intellectualize. In addition to a disturbing tendency for introspection, Will and many others also excel at the endless - and frequently untimely - examination of minutiae, not to mention frequently reaching the wrong conclusions. Why do they do this? From my perspective, for Intellectuals, nothing gives one credibility like questioning ones own beliefs, affiliations, political party, you-name-it; and in the National Media, nothing gives a Conservative credibility like doing this frequently.
Don't take my word for it. Here's Will in his own words at the end of the article: "So, regarding judging, too, conservatism is a house divided. And as Lincoln said (sort of), a house divided against itself is really interesting." And there you have it in a nutshell. Nothing is of greater interest to a congenital Deep Thinker like Will than proving that any position - regardless of how clear - is subject to another interpretation, thus rescuing George Will from boredom.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against introspection. Jesus demands it and philosophers aplenty endorse it. What I'm against is obsessive introspection; I'm against three-columns-per-week-deadline driven introspection; I'm against introspection demanded of Conservatives by their Liberal counterparts and The Media in order to get invitations to the right cocktail parties; and I'm dead-freaking set against the lifetime employment opportunities pursued by columnists like Will by endlessly talking to death every issue without resolving anything.
Will himself has addressed this issue before, and in so many words concluded that Conservative soul-searching makes Conservatives better. Maybe so, but somebody needs to tell George that the current debate isn't a polite exchange between equals; It's not an entertaining exchange between Mensa Lifers on the Left and the Right over tea; And it's most certainly not some intellectual exercise on behalf of the Common Folk by their Betters.
This is a freaking knife fight for the survival of freedom, democracy and capitalism, and the sooner that Wills realizes that and gets back to pounding the Democrats, the better.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6126567.html
2nd Amendment decision attracts conservative fire
By GEORGE F. WILL Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Nov. 22, 2008, 9:41AM
Of conservatives' few victories this year, the most cherished came when the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Now, however, a distinguished conservative jurist argues that the court's ruling was mistaken and had the principal flaws of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling that conservatives execrate as judicial overreaching. Both rulings, says J. Harvie Wilkinson, suddenly recognized a judicially enforceable right grounded in "an ambiguous constitutional text."
Writing for the Virginia Law Review, Judge Wilkinson of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says Heller, like Roe, was disrespectful of legislative judgments, has hurled courts into a political thicket of fine-tuning policy in interminable litigation and traduced federalism. Furthermore, Heller exposed "originalism" — the doctrine that the Constitution's text means precisely what those who wrote its words meant by them — as no barrier to "judicial subjectivity."
The Second Amendment says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Until June, the question was: Is the right guaranteed to individuals and unconnected with military service, or only to states as they exercise their right to maintain militias? The court held, 5-4, for the former view.
In Roe, the court said the 14th Amendment guarantee of "due process" implies a general right of privacy, within which lurks a hitherto unnoticed abortion right that, although "fundamental," the Framers never mentioned. And this right somehow contains the trimester scheme of abortion regulations.
Since 1973, the court has been entangled in the legislative function of adumbrating an abortion code, the details of which are, Wilkinson says, "not even remotely suggested by the text or history of the 14th Amendment." Parental consent? Spousal consent? Spousal notification? Parental notification? Waiting periods? Lack of funding for nontherapeutic abortions? Partial-birth abortion procedures? Zoning ordinances that exclude abortion facilities? The court has tried to tickle answers for these and other policy questions from the Constitution.
Conservatives are correct: The court, having asserted a right on which the Constitution is silent, has been writing rules that are detailed, debatable, inescapably arbitrary and irreducibly political. But now, Wilkinson says, conservatives are delighted that Heller has put the court on a similar path.
In Heller, the court was at least dealing with a right the Constitution actually mentions. But the majority and minority justices demonstrated that there are powerful, detailed, historically grounded "originalist" arguments for opposite understandings of what the Framers intended with that right to "keep and bear arms."
Now the court must slog through an utterly predictable torrent of litigation, writing, piecemeal, a federal gun code concerning the newfound individual right. What trigger locks or other safety requirements impermissibly burden the exercise of this right? What registration requirements, background checks, waiting periods for purchasers, ballistic identifications? What restrictions on ammunition? On places where guns may be purchased or carried? On the kinds of people (e.g., those with domestic violence records) who may own guns? On the number of gun purchases in a month?
Judicial conservatism requires judges to justify their decisions with reference to several restraining principles, including deference to the democratic branches of government, and to states' responsibilities under federalism. But, Wilkinson writes, Heller proves that when the only principle is originalism, and when conscientious people come to different conclusions about the Framers' intentions, originalist judges must resolve the conflict by voting their preferences.
It has been said that the most important word in the Supreme Court's lexicon is not "liberty" or "equality" or even "justice," it is "five." But whereas in baseball a tie goes to the runner, in controversies about the constitutionality of legislation, a tie between serious arguments should, Wilkinson says, tilt judicial judgment to the democratic side — the legislature.
When rights are unambiguously enumerated, courts should protect them vigorously. But Wilkinson says that when a right's definition is debatable, generous judicial deference should be accorded to legislative judgments — particularly those of the states, which should enjoy constitutional space to function as laboratories for testing policy variations.
Roe and Heller, says Wilkinson, diminish liberty by "handing our democratic destiny to the courts." Many libertarian conservatives disagree, arguing that the protection of individual liberty requires robust judicial circumscription of democracy.
So, regarding judging, too, conservatism is a house divided. And as Lincoln said (sort of), a house divided against itself is really interesting.
Will is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, based in Washington, D.C. (georgewill@washpost.com)
Saturday, November 22, 2008
An Open Letter To Kathleen Parker
Kathleen -
I thought in my last e-mail to you that I had made it clear that the jig was up with your coy representations that you are in fact a Republican. You're not, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. By the way, your martyr complex is showing a bit, what with your references to "bathing in holy water" and a "short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette". While the overall effect may be to imply some continued connection or loyalty to the Republican party, and that you will be excised from same for your apostasy, it's clear you're not, and it's clear they won't. You can't excise that which was never part of you in the first place.
Plus, you're mixing your metaphors. If you were hell bound on going with the "bathing in holy water" line, I think Crucifixion would have been a much more appropriate theme than the "blindfold and cigarette" deal, what with your riff being about over-reacting Christians and all. There was a neat tie-in with The Pharisees and The Religious Right that you totally overlooked.
As to the niche you're trying to carve out for yourself, Chris Buckley beat you to the punch, effectively claiming the role that Kevin Phillips, David Gergen and a handful of others have performed so admirably these past 25 years as the Conservatives That The Media Loves To Quote when they want to flog us with one of our own. Interesting to note that there is no such person on the Liberal side, as it is anathema for The Media to flog Democrats; it would be like flogging oneself.
I believe your mistake in throwing Republicans under the bus was your incremental approach. Don't get me wrong, I see where you were going: you thought that a gradual betrayal of your party - if in fact you ever belonged - would allow you to put forward a narrative of "conversion", thus keeping your credibility intact, and establishing yourself as the Go-To Gal for Media Republican haters in the future. Unfortunately, Chris Buckley upstaged you. His departure was much more dramatic, positively David Brockish, what with rending his loincloth in the public square, theatrically throwing the back of his hand against his forehead and loudly declaiming to any and all that he had seen the error of his ways, was picking up his ball in a huff, and running straight into the warm embrace of the Leftwing blogosphere.
Of course, it's not apparent that you or Buckley had quite the identity crisis during your brief embracement of Conservatism that Brock did, but what the hey. You all at least have in common that you did it for practical reasons, as is now becoming so abundantly clear.
Sorry to say, you're sounding increasingly like Maureen Dowd. Now, that's not entirely bad, except that she is a credentialed Liberal and you're not. Dowd is entertaining, albeit that her looks are going (so important a part of her media persona) and they did add a little sauce to the stew, so to speak. That said, to compete in the already overcrowded Republican-bashing segment, your choices are to either out-Dowd Dowd in your rhetoric, or come up with something entirely new. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.
On your thesis re: the Religious Right being the root of all Republican failure this past election cycle, thanks for the Belly Laughs, but between you and me, you are kidding, right?
Pete Smith
13507 King Circle Dr.
Cypress, TX 77429
281-955-8126
-------------------------------
Giving Up on God
By Kathleen ParkerWednesday, November 19, 2008; 12:00 AM
As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.
Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.
The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.
But they need those votes!
So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.
Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.
Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.
It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.
Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.
With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.
Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She's not entirely wrong, but she's also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:
"I'm like, okay, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is.... And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it's something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."
Let's do pray that God shows Alaska's governor the door.
Meanwhile, it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.
But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.
Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly.
The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter. And the nonreligious won't get religion through external conversion. It doesn't work that way.
Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party.
Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kparker@kparker.com.
I thought in my last e-mail to you that I had made it clear that the jig was up with your coy representations that you are in fact a Republican. You're not, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. By the way, your martyr complex is showing a bit, what with your references to "bathing in holy water" and a "short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette". While the overall effect may be to imply some continued connection or loyalty to the Republican party, and that you will be excised from same for your apostasy, it's clear you're not, and it's clear they won't. You can't excise that which was never part of you in the first place.
Plus, you're mixing your metaphors. If you were hell bound on going with the "bathing in holy water" line, I think Crucifixion would have been a much more appropriate theme than the "blindfold and cigarette" deal, what with your riff being about over-reacting Christians and all. There was a neat tie-in with The Pharisees and The Religious Right that you totally overlooked.
As to the niche you're trying to carve out for yourself, Chris Buckley beat you to the punch, effectively claiming the role that Kevin Phillips, David Gergen and a handful of others have performed so admirably these past 25 years as the Conservatives That The Media Loves To Quote when they want to flog us with one of our own. Interesting to note that there is no such person on the Liberal side, as it is anathema for The Media to flog Democrats; it would be like flogging oneself.
I believe your mistake in throwing Republicans under the bus was your incremental approach. Don't get me wrong, I see where you were going: you thought that a gradual betrayal of your party - if in fact you ever belonged - would allow you to put forward a narrative of "conversion", thus keeping your credibility intact, and establishing yourself as the Go-To Gal for Media Republican haters in the future. Unfortunately, Chris Buckley upstaged you. His departure was much more dramatic, positively David Brockish, what with rending his loincloth in the public square, theatrically throwing the back of his hand against his forehead and loudly declaiming to any and all that he had seen the error of his ways, was picking up his ball in a huff, and running straight into the warm embrace of the Leftwing blogosphere.
Of course, it's not apparent that you or Buckley had quite the identity crisis during your brief embracement of Conservatism that Brock did, but what the hey. You all at least have in common that you did it for practical reasons, as is now becoming so abundantly clear.
Sorry to say, you're sounding increasingly like Maureen Dowd. Now, that's not entirely bad, except that she is a credentialed Liberal and you're not. Dowd is entertaining, albeit that her looks are going (so important a part of her media persona) and they did add a little sauce to the stew, so to speak. That said, to compete in the already overcrowded Republican-bashing segment, your choices are to either out-Dowd Dowd in your rhetoric, or come up with something entirely new. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.
On your thesis re: the Religious Right being the root of all Republican failure this past election cycle, thanks for the Belly Laughs, but between you and me, you are kidding, right?
Pete Smith
13507 King Circle Dr.
Cypress, TX 77429
281-955-8126
-------------------------------
Giving Up on God
By Kathleen ParkerWednesday, November 19, 2008; 12:00 AM
As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.
Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.
The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.
But they need those votes!
So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.
Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.
Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.
It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.
Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.
With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.
Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She's not entirely wrong, but she's also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:
"I'm like, okay, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is.... And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it's something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."
Let's do pray that God shows Alaska's governor the door.
Meanwhile, it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.
But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.
Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly.
The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter. And the nonreligious won't get religion through external conversion. It doesn't work that way.
Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party.
Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kparker@kparker.com.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Vagina Envy and Bill Maher
Well, it's post-election, and I've got a few things on my mind, such as: why are Bill Maher and all the other haters still blathering about Sarah Palin?
Google Sarah Palin these days and you'll get a virtual smorgasbord of critique, bile and parody. Ask liberals of either gender why they dislike Palin, and their answers range from the calculated lies of Charlie Gibson, to Katie Couric smug-bites, to the hybrid of parody and incoherent rage of Tina Fey. Couric and Fey in their public personas have held Gov. Palin up to public ridicule, whilst out of the glare of their day jobs they have pumped up the faithful by telling them what they REALLY think of Sarah Palin. Both have turned themselves into world class woman-haters, and it's not pretty.
My theory is that it's Vagina Envy. Prominent liberals react almost viscerally to Palin's attempt to legitimize herself as a political force in America, having produced five children. They object not only to her fecundity, but that it is put on such brazen maternal display; they not only object to this brazen display, but that she apparently snaps right back into a size two; they object not only to the fact that she snaps back into a size two, but that she dares to celebrate family; they not only object to the fact that she celebrates family, but that in so doing, she's a contradiction to their abortion rights mantra; they not only object to the fact that she's a contradiction to their abortions rights mantra, but.......well, you get the idea.
We could go on like this all day. Easier just to say that Sarah Palin invalidates much of what Feminists stand for by celebrating the vagina for what is arguably it's primary purpose. Fey, who according to Wikipedia is "a committed environmentalist and drives a hybrid", must agonize over the carbon footprint not only of Palin's five children, but in particular that of Palin's newborn, who has Down's Syndrome. The only thing likely to drive her crazier is to discover that Gov. Palin also enjoys herself in the sack, likes the missionary position and views her husband as the head of the household. Interesting to note that the first two of these are the only crimes against feminism as yet unexplored by the leading feminist lights.
It has been so for every prominent female Conservative, just as it has for every prominent Black Conservative. These two constituencies are reserved for the Democrat party, and woe be unto anybody who dares to suggest otherwise. Just ask Joe the Plumber, representing another constituency - the working stiff - that Democrats hope to monopolize. You don't suppose it ever occurred to Obama and his apparats to ask nicely for Joe's support, do you? I'm assuming they didn't, and just skipped to the demonization part, or they did ask nicely, he refused, and then they skipped to the demonization part. Joe, meet Sarah and Clarence Thomas. Y'all have a lot in common. The lack of middle ground on the part of liberal paranoiacs is a sight to behold.
So, what is it that liberals find so very objectionable about Sarah Palin? The stock answer is her alleged lack of intelligence, experience and/or gravitas, a strange conclusion from the side of the political spectrum that gave us the maniacally scripted resume-scrounge Barack Obama, and his congenitally loggorheic and certifiably insane sidekick, Joe Biden. And while we're on the subject, has Palin in her public career said anything that even comes close to these gems of stupidity:
- "I will meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without pre-condition".
- "I remember when President Franklin Roosevelt addressed the American people on television after the '29 market crash...."
- "I propose a $300 billion dollar fund to refinance subprime loans".
For the sake of brevity I'm paraphrasing just slightly here, but those are the literal utterances of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain, respectively. One undoes 30 years of bipartisan diplomatic hardball with an Islamist terrorist state; another invents a president and a technology, neither one of which existed in 1929; the third invites all purchasers of high interest mortgages to default on their obligations. And yet, these three gentlemen all emerged pretty much unscathed in the eyes of the liberal elites - not to mention the media - for these comments.
You've got to admit, Sarah's holding up pretty well by comparison.
Liberal animus to Palin does not come without a price. Contorting your brain's logic centers so as to blame the nation's ills on one petite woman from Alaska is very much like trying to get an inoculation against mental disease. While they might be successful in shouting this bogey down, what are they going to do when there's a dozen more Sarah Palins running around the body politic spreading the same message four years from now? How will their paranoid brains process the phenomenon? Can they goad the Media into assassinating the character of each and every Sarah Palin that's coming down the pike?
I suspect not, but it will be fun to watch them try, and fun to watch them unravel. Which brings us to Bill Maher. Tonight on The Tonight show, he repeated the canard about Palin not knowing that Africa was a continent, a contention that has been as thoroughly disproved as a rumor can be, including the reports of credible eye-witnesses. The original accusation, of course, came from a "McCain staffer who wished to remain anonymous", which is reporterese for "I made this crap up". Maher then unleashed a string of bile and finished by describing Palin as 'a MILF - Moron I'd like to Forget', causing even Jay Leno to look uncomfortable. No mean feat for one of the biggest liberal ass kissers in Hollywood.
How to explain such vile behavior? I believe Maher is suicidal. He exhibits all the classic signs: An inability to experience joy, projection of his various psychodramas onto other people, including producing a documentary for religion-haters, his unresolved issues about the size of his head relative to the rest of his body, not to mention questions about sexual identity.
Vagina envy. It's not just for women you know.
Google Sarah Palin these days and you'll get a virtual smorgasbord of critique, bile and parody. Ask liberals of either gender why they dislike Palin, and their answers range from the calculated lies of Charlie Gibson, to Katie Couric smug-bites, to the hybrid of parody and incoherent rage of Tina Fey. Couric and Fey in their public personas have held Gov. Palin up to public ridicule, whilst out of the glare of their day jobs they have pumped up the faithful by telling them what they REALLY think of Sarah Palin. Both have turned themselves into world class woman-haters, and it's not pretty.
My theory is that it's Vagina Envy. Prominent liberals react almost viscerally to Palin's attempt to legitimize herself as a political force in America, having produced five children. They object not only to her fecundity, but that it is put on such brazen maternal display; they not only object to this brazen display, but that she apparently snaps right back into a size two; they object not only to the fact that she snaps back into a size two, but that she dares to celebrate family; they not only object to the fact that she celebrates family, but that in so doing, she's a contradiction to their abortion rights mantra; they not only object to the fact that she's a contradiction to their abortions rights mantra, but.......well, you get the idea.
We could go on like this all day. Easier just to say that Sarah Palin invalidates much of what Feminists stand for by celebrating the vagina for what is arguably it's primary purpose. Fey, who according to Wikipedia is "a committed environmentalist and drives a hybrid", must agonize over the carbon footprint not only of Palin's five children, but in particular that of Palin's newborn, who has Down's Syndrome. The only thing likely to drive her crazier is to discover that Gov. Palin also enjoys herself in the sack, likes the missionary position and views her husband as the head of the household. Interesting to note that the first two of these are the only crimes against feminism as yet unexplored by the leading feminist lights.
It has been so for every prominent female Conservative, just as it has for every prominent Black Conservative. These two constituencies are reserved for the Democrat party, and woe be unto anybody who dares to suggest otherwise. Just ask Joe the Plumber, representing another constituency - the working stiff - that Democrats hope to monopolize. You don't suppose it ever occurred to Obama and his apparats to ask nicely for Joe's support, do you? I'm assuming they didn't, and just skipped to the demonization part, or they did ask nicely, he refused, and then they skipped to the demonization part. Joe, meet Sarah and Clarence Thomas. Y'all have a lot in common. The lack of middle ground on the part of liberal paranoiacs is a sight to behold.
So, what is it that liberals find so very objectionable about Sarah Palin? The stock answer is her alleged lack of intelligence, experience and/or gravitas, a strange conclusion from the side of the political spectrum that gave us the maniacally scripted resume-scrounge Barack Obama, and his congenitally loggorheic and certifiably insane sidekick, Joe Biden. And while we're on the subject, has Palin in her public career said anything that even comes close to these gems of stupidity:
- "I will meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without pre-condition".
- "I remember when President Franklin Roosevelt addressed the American people on television after the '29 market crash...."
- "I propose a $300 billion dollar fund to refinance subprime loans".
For the sake of brevity I'm paraphrasing just slightly here, but those are the literal utterances of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain, respectively. One undoes 30 years of bipartisan diplomatic hardball with an Islamist terrorist state; another invents a president and a technology, neither one of which existed in 1929; the third invites all purchasers of high interest mortgages to default on their obligations. And yet, these three gentlemen all emerged pretty much unscathed in the eyes of the liberal elites - not to mention the media - for these comments.
You've got to admit, Sarah's holding up pretty well by comparison.
Liberal animus to Palin does not come without a price. Contorting your brain's logic centers so as to blame the nation's ills on one petite woman from Alaska is very much like trying to get an inoculation against mental disease. While they might be successful in shouting this bogey down, what are they going to do when there's a dozen more Sarah Palins running around the body politic spreading the same message four years from now? How will their paranoid brains process the phenomenon? Can they goad the Media into assassinating the character of each and every Sarah Palin that's coming down the pike?
I suspect not, but it will be fun to watch them try, and fun to watch them unravel. Which brings us to Bill Maher. Tonight on The Tonight show, he repeated the canard about Palin not knowing that Africa was a continent, a contention that has been as thoroughly disproved as a rumor can be, including the reports of credible eye-witnesses. The original accusation, of course, came from a "McCain staffer who wished to remain anonymous", which is reporterese for "I made this crap up". Maher then unleashed a string of bile and finished by describing Palin as 'a MILF - Moron I'd like to Forget', causing even Jay Leno to look uncomfortable. No mean feat for one of the biggest liberal ass kissers in Hollywood.
How to explain such vile behavior? I believe Maher is suicidal. He exhibits all the classic signs: An inability to experience joy, projection of his various psychodramas onto other people, including producing a documentary for religion-haters, his unresolved issues about the size of his head relative to the rest of his body, not to mention questions about sexual identity.
Vagina envy. It's not just for women you know.
It's The Taxes, Stupid - Public Sector Spending
Health Care spending has increased from 6% of GDP in 1970 to almost 20% today, costing Americans an additional $2 trillion per year. Medicare and Medicaid - invented in the late 60s - were projected to be only $25 billion by 2010, and now represent 33% of total health care spending, or $650 billion. Education spending has increased in constant dollars from $2,500 per pupil in 1970 to over $10,000 per pupil today, totaling $900 billion, $650 billion more than it should be. Social Security has gone from 2% on the first $3,000 of income in 1945 to 12% of the first $90,000 today, costing $500 billion more per year than projected and running gargantuan deficits. Welfare of all types is up from about $50 billion in constant dollars since WWII to $700 billion per year today. Add it all up, and Public Sector spending - the additional burden on American taxpayers and businesses imposed by all levels of government - now captures 40% of our GDP. Directly after WWII that figure was less than 10%. That's $4 trillion in unnecessary expenditures every year.
What do all of these programs have in common? They are Socialist programs, pure and simple. There is no competition and no free market. Capital is siphoned away from the economy and taxes are portrayed as "investments". The economy staggers under the additional taxation, and recessions are the result. Money flows out of the country, and the U.S. indebts itself to the rest of the world.
And from my personal perspective, I assign the blame thusly: Democrats - 80%; Republicans - 20%. Democrats are the party of Government, and represent 80% of it's employees and bureaucrats. They are the authors of every one of the programs that led us to this sorry state. Unfortunately, Republicans - or at least our political class - have gone along for the ride.
More than that, until our public servants - which is to say the Democratic Party - rediscover the meaning of the word "ethics", we can expect this cycle of corruption to repeat itself, again and again.
What do all of these programs have in common? They are Socialist programs, pure and simple. There is no competition and no free market. Capital is siphoned away from the economy and taxes are portrayed as "investments". The economy staggers under the additional taxation, and recessions are the result. Money flows out of the country, and the U.S. indebts itself to the rest of the world.
And from my personal perspective, I assign the blame thusly: Democrats - 80%; Republicans - 20%. Democrats are the party of Government, and represent 80% of it's employees and bureaucrats. They are the authors of every one of the programs that led us to this sorry state. Unfortunately, Republicans - or at least our political class - have gone along for the ride.
More than that, until our public servants - which is to say the Democratic Party - rediscover the meaning of the word "ethics", we can expect this cycle of corruption to repeat itself, again and again.
It's the Taxes, Stupid: Illegal Immigration
The school building orgy I wrote about earlier is but one of the prime drivers for allowing illegal immigrants to not only settle in the U.S. but to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship. To politicians dependent on their votes, and to government employees, more people mean more schools, and a panoply of infrastructure improvements that need to be made to accommodate the foreign born population explosion: sewage, electrical, gas and water plants; hospitals, roads, and bringing us back full circle: housing. And of course government. Lots and lots more government. Twenty million illegal immigrants in the past fifteen years requires a lot more of everything, particularly in our cities. The fact that the great majority were also uneducated and poor meant that - as our tax structure is currently configured - they would pay little or no taxes, and in fact would rely on government handouts for many of the essentials. Thus, the sensible American model of paying for infrastructure improvements through an expanding economy and expanding tax base would be stood on its head.
As I write this, American taxpayers pay at least $30,000.00 every year in the form of welfare, medical care, free education, law enforcement, infrastructure improvements, Social Security, additional principal and interest on our national debt and unpaid taxes for each and every illegal immigrant. Add in the additional social costs for illegitimacy, the underground economy, the export of billions back to their countries of origin, the importation of disease, drugs and crime, and it's easy to justify that Illegals cost even more than $30,000 per head.
The 20 million Illegals that we acknowledge cost America at least $600 billion dollars per year in services. In return, America gets less than 10% of that amount in tax revenues back, because the vast majority of these immigrants stay below the income level at which they would eventually pay taxes, or work entirely "off the books" and are not even reporting their income. That's a $540 Billion dollar drain on the economy each and every year, and it goes up as those immigrants then have children, all of whom become an additional burden on society. And since amnesty didn't work last time, legal immigrants under the poverty line represent another $250 billion burden on society. That's almost $750 billion that immigrants cost in a $14 Trillion economy.
And the notion that Illegals make a dramatic contribution to the economy is pure fiction. They don't take the jobs that "Americans won't do"; they take the jobs of the poor that were already here - mostly the generation of immigrants that got here before them, 50% of all Black people, and 20 million poor Whites.
So, where does the fault lie? Rationalizing the influx of Illegals is a vast Ponzi scheme, as described above, that allows Democrats to remap the electorate into clients beholden to Democrats. A significant element of the Republican party has signed onto this madness as well, led by President Bush and John McCain to allow businesses to profit by exploiting the cheap labor. The true irony of this unholy alliance is that, not only do businesses benefit by paying low wages, they also avoid the payroll taxes that the Federal government depends on to survive, thus forcing the government to borrow more money to pay for all of the social benefits of the immigrants. So, most Democrats, some Republicans and the business community are engaged in a most sinister and nefarious enterprise that is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme.
I do not fault the immigrants. All attempts to protest their lot in Mexico or other countries from Central/South America are ignored. Attempts to organize and resist are met with violence and death at the hands of both the governments and the Mafias that control the countryside. Women are routinely sold into sexual slavery, and peasants are conscripted into the production, warehousing and transportation of drugs. Who wouldn't want to come to a land that is safe, democratic and free? That said, the U.S. can't continue to be the population safety valve for vast narco-terrorist Kleptocracies like Mexico that allow the upper classes to steal all the wealth of the nation, leaving their citizens mired in poverty, with their only hope being emigration to the U.S.
As an example, the U.S. should be supporting the Mexican people against their government, much as they supported the Iraqis against the dictator Saddam Hussein. If Mexico's elites refuse to embrace freedom and democracy, they must be forced to do so. If that can only be accomplished from the barrel of a gun, so be it.
As I write this, American taxpayers pay at least $30,000.00 every year in the form of welfare, medical care, free education, law enforcement, infrastructure improvements, Social Security, additional principal and interest on our national debt and unpaid taxes for each and every illegal immigrant. Add in the additional social costs for illegitimacy, the underground economy, the export of billions back to their countries of origin, the importation of disease, drugs and crime, and it's easy to justify that Illegals cost even more than $30,000 per head.
The 20 million Illegals that we acknowledge cost America at least $600 billion dollars per year in services. In return, America gets less than 10% of that amount in tax revenues back, because the vast majority of these immigrants stay below the income level at which they would eventually pay taxes, or work entirely "off the books" and are not even reporting their income. That's a $540 Billion dollar drain on the economy each and every year, and it goes up as those immigrants then have children, all of whom become an additional burden on society. And since amnesty didn't work last time, legal immigrants under the poverty line represent another $250 billion burden on society. That's almost $750 billion that immigrants cost in a $14 Trillion economy.
And the notion that Illegals make a dramatic contribution to the economy is pure fiction. They don't take the jobs that "Americans won't do"; they take the jobs of the poor that were already here - mostly the generation of immigrants that got here before them, 50% of all Black people, and 20 million poor Whites.
So, where does the fault lie? Rationalizing the influx of Illegals is a vast Ponzi scheme, as described above, that allows Democrats to remap the electorate into clients beholden to Democrats. A significant element of the Republican party has signed onto this madness as well, led by President Bush and John McCain to allow businesses to profit by exploiting the cheap labor. The true irony of this unholy alliance is that, not only do businesses benefit by paying low wages, they also avoid the payroll taxes that the Federal government depends on to survive, thus forcing the government to borrow more money to pay for all of the social benefits of the immigrants. So, most Democrats, some Republicans and the business community are engaged in a most sinister and nefarious enterprise that is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme.
I do not fault the immigrants. All attempts to protest their lot in Mexico or other countries from Central/South America are ignored. Attempts to organize and resist are met with violence and death at the hands of both the governments and the Mafias that control the countryside. Women are routinely sold into sexual slavery, and peasants are conscripted into the production, warehousing and transportation of drugs. Who wouldn't want to come to a land that is safe, democratic and free? That said, the U.S. can't continue to be the population safety valve for vast narco-terrorist Kleptocracies like Mexico that allow the upper classes to steal all the wealth of the nation, leaving their citizens mired in poverty, with their only hope being emigration to the U.S.
As an example, the U.S. should be supporting the Mexican people against their government, much as they supported the Iraqis against the dictator Saddam Hussein. If Mexico's elites refuse to embrace freedom and democracy, they must be forced to do so. If that can only be accomplished from the barrel of a gun, so be it.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Democrats Have Short Memories
The battle cry of my liberal friends and national pundits to the conservative community is to shut up and "give Barack a chance", as if our knee-jerk reaction would be to give up on him right out of the chute.
For the moment, let's put aside the straw man mentality that went into that formulation. If Obama is all the bad things that we Republicans believe him to be, his being elected president isn't going to change that. More to the point, what exactly do Democrats mean when they bleat "give him a chance"? Nobody seems to know, but it is yet another opportunity to marginalize conservatives as idealogues who can't keep an open mind. On a more salient point, Republicans now control nothing in the federal government. Do the Democrats even need to give a crap whether we "give him a chance"? No. The Democrats know this as well, yet another example of their insincerity.
I'm tempted to point out as well that if Conservatives do "keep an open mind" and support Obama, and - this is important - he doesn't disappoint us, he will have earned our trust by betraying the left wing policies of the people who brung him to power. Let's face it: nobody in their right mind believes that more Socialism is going to solve our economic problems when it was Socialism that got us into this mess in the first place, and nobody believes that surrendering America's autonomy to the U.N. is going to improve our image abroad. The Democrat's best hope is that their plans to spend us into a trillion dollar yearly deficit will be blamed on the Republicans by the MSM, which will most certainly happen.
See, liberals think that the bile that has been accumulating in their guts during eight years of Bush hatred actually equates to a Karma that can be deployed to blame him (and Republicans) for everything bad that happens for the next four years. Obama has bought into this rhetoric by constantly referring in his speeches to the "terrible mess we're in". So much for incenting conservatives to give him "a chance". I expect him to beat us like a rented mule for the next four years, albeit eloquently, and with daily calls for us all to "come together as citizens of this great nation", his gaze lifted to the horizon, and queue the heroic music.
Which brings us back to the Democrat rallying cry to "give Obama a chance". Where, pray, was this bipartisan call for fairness during the eight years of the Bush administration? Democrats have notoriously short memories, but I don't. I recall in the 8 months leading up to 9/11 that the Bush administration's biggest priority was getting the Cabinet and hundreds of other posts approved by a Democrat controlled Congress, a process that typically takes mere weeks, but sabotaged by partisan Democrats bound and determined to handcuff the Bush administration at all costs.
Their obstructionism was unprecedented, even for Democrats, who have made a cottage industry since the Reagan years out of villifying any and all Republican appointees, be they Supreme Court justices, cabinet secretaries, or even nominees for the lowest of bureaucratic positions. The strategy is simple: tie the Republican's hands and they appear to be incompetent in governance, as opposed to the briskly efficient Democrats. A lapdog media will do the rest in getting the message out to the masses. Repubs - to their discredit - have largely avoided such shenanigans when a Democrat is in the presidency, and they will roll over for the Obama administration as well.
So, after Obama gets all the appointees he wants, and in record time, will that constitute "giving Obama a chance"? Will Repubs get any credit at all for bipartisanship? Don't count on it. Democrats can't help themselves in these situations. They will portray the most principled objections to Obama's excesses as "obstructionism", and NBC will dutifully report them as such.
The detachment from reality will be surreal. You heard it here first.
For the moment, let's put aside the straw man mentality that went into that formulation. If Obama is all the bad things that we Republicans believe him to be, his being elected president isn't going to change that. More to the point, what exactly do Democrats mean when they bleat "give him a chance"? Nobody seems to know, but it is yet another opportunity to marginalize conservatives as idealogues who can't keep an open mind. On a more salient point, Republicans now control nothing in the federal government. Do the Democrats even need to give a crap whether we "give him a chance"? No. The Democrats know this as well, yet another example of their insincerity.
I'm tempted to point out as well that if Conservatives do "keep an open mind" and support Obama, and - this is important - he doesn't disappoint us, he will have earned our trust by betraying the left wing policies of the people who brung him to power. Let's face it: nobody in their right mind believes that more Socialism is going to solve our economic problems when it was Socialism that got us into this mess in the first place, and nobody believes that surrendering America's autonomy to the U.N. is going to improve our image abroad. The Democrat's best hope is that their plans to spend us into a trillion dollar yearly deficit will be blamed on the Republicans by the MSM, which will most certainly happen.
See, liberals think that the bile that has been accumulating in their guts during eight years of Bush hatred actually equates to a Karma that can be deployed to blame him (and Republicans) for everything bad that happens for the next four years. Obama has bought into this rhetoric by constantly referring in his speeches to the "terrible mess we're in". So much for incenting conservatives to give him "a chance". I expect him to beat us like a rented mule for the next four years, albeit eloquently, and with daily calls for us all to "come together as citizens of this great nation", his gaze lifted to the horizon, and queue the heroic music.
Which brings us back to the Democrat rallying cry to "give Obama a chance". Where, pray, was this bipartisan call for fairness during the eight years of the Bush administration? Democrats have notoriously short memories, but I don't. I recall in the 8 months leading up to 9/11 that the Bush administration's biggest priority was getting the Cabinet and hundreds of other posts approved by a Democrat controlled Congress, a process that typically takes mere weeks, but sabotaged by partisan Democrats bound and determined to handcuff the Bush administration at all costs.
Their obstructionism was unprecedented, even for Democrats, who have made a cottage industry since the Reagan years out of villifying any and all Republican appointees, be they Supreme Court justices, cabinet secretaries, or even nominees for the lowest of bureaucratic positions. The strategy is simple: tie the Republican's hands and they appear to be incompetent in governance, as opposed to the briskly efficient Democrats. A lapdog media will do the rest in getting the message out to the masses. Repubs - to their discredit - have largely avoided such shenanigans when a Democrat is in the presidency, and they will roll over for the Obama administration as well.
So, after Obama gets all the appointees he wants, and in record time, will that constitute "giving Obama a chance"? Will Repubs get any credit at all for bipartisanship? Don't count on it. Democrats can't help themselves in these situations. They will portray the most principled objections to Obama's excesses as "obstructionism", and NBC will dutifully report them as such.
The detachment from reality will be surreal. You heard it here first.
The Subprime Mortgage Fiasco, Or, Welfare Run Amuck
Never has a single redistributionist policy done so much damage so quickly. While the loosening of credit restrictions on mortgages has been going on for decades, it's only since the beginning of the Clinton presidency that we adopted the "anything goes" mentality of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Jimmy Carter.
The social engineering that mandated that banks allow mortgages to be extended to people with no down payment and no means to repay the loan was a government run scam that used taxpayer dollars to underwrite millions of bad loans. I don't blame poor people. The sell job was a no brainer: borrow money to purchase a house and your monthly payment will be no more - and frequently less - than what you'd been paying for rent. Unfortunately, the no down payment piece meant they had no skin in the game, either. No risk if they defaulted, so the minute there was an economic downturn and tough financial decisions had to be made, they simply stopped paying the mortgage. No harm, no foul, the bank can take the house and I'll go back to renting.
The instruments used to facilitate home ownership were designed to encourage default. Variable Rate and Sub-prime Mortgages all had features designed to provide low payments in the short term, them blow the payments up to an unsustainable level. This actuarial nightmare was visible from a mile away, and yet the champions of Progressive Thought forged ahead, abetted by complaisant or timid Republicans.
Franklin Raines - the nefarious yet still unindicted former head of Fannie Mae - cubed the problem by famously declaring that the credit reserves necessary for Fannie Mae to guard against these bad loans should only be 2%. That's right, 2% of the total value of all the loans that FM/FM bought was all the cash they needed to keep on hand as insurance. He lobbied for, and got an exception from Fannie May's previous reserve standard of 4%. If 4% sounds too low as well, it's because it was.
4% may or may not have been enough to cover normal mortgages against an economic downturn. Common sense would tell you that riskier mortgages would require 8% or more. Raines and the Democrats doubled down and cut that reserve in half, thus accelerating the housing crash. Since there's at least $2 Trillion in mortgages likely to default, only to be resold at half that value, that's a $1 Trillion dollar hit to the taxpayer.
As bad as it is, the Mortgage Crisis didn't happen in a vacuum. It was precipitated - as are all "ala carte" financial crises - by out of control Social spending. Those unpaid bills for Social Security, our vast welfare state and unsupportable infrastructure improvements were significant contributing factors to the Mortgage crisis. As government either a) spends more or b) commits future generations to spend more, they devalue the dollar. In so doing, they increase our indebtedness and make it more difficult to repay government loans. In so doing they distort the market and devalue everything that is for sale in America.
Of course, only our policy makers could fail to observe that this entire cycle created the Perfect Storm of inflated currency and a gargantuan inventory of excess housing which depressed home values and destroyed the very foundation that supported their profligate taxation; one that will depress home values for decades to come.
Bottom line, the housing "boom" was a product of, by and for the government, and until we reform our tax structure to take away their incentives to overprice our houses, they'll do it all over again, and probably sooner than the last time they led us down this road: during the S&L crisis.
The social engineering that mandated that banks allow mortgages to be extended to people with no down payment and no means to repay the loan was a government run scam that used taxpayer dollars to underwrite millions of bad loans. I don't blame poor people. The sell job was a no brainer: borrow money to purchase a house and your monthly payment will be no more - and frequently less - than what you'd been paying for rent. Unfortunately, the no down payment piece meant they had no skin in the game, either. No risk if they defaulted, so the minute there was an economic downturn and tough financial decisions had to be made, they simply stopped paying the mortgage. No harm, no foul, the bank can take the house and I'll go back to renting.
The instruments used to facilitate home ownership were designed to encourage default. Variable Rate and Sub-prime Mortgages all had features designed to provide low payments in the short term, them blow the payments up to an unsustainable level. This actuarial nightmare was visible from a mile away, and yet the champions of Progressive Thought forged ahead, abetted by complaisant or timid Republicans.
Franklin Raines - the nefarious yet still unindicted former head of Fannie Mae - cubed the problem by famously declaring that the credit reserves necessary for Fannie Mae to guard against these bad loans should only be 2%. That's right, 2% of the total value of all the loans that FM/FM bought was all the cash they needed to keep on hand as insurance. He lobbied for, and got an exception from Fannie May's previous reserve standard of 4%. If 4% sounds too low as well, it's because it was.
4% may or may not have been enough to cover normal mortgages against an economic downturn. Common sense would tell you that riskier mortgages would require 8% or more. Raines and the Democrats doubled down and cut that reserve in half, thus accelerating the housing crash. Since there's at least $2 Trillion in mortgages likely to default, only to be resold at half that value, that's a $1 Trillion dollar hit to the taxpayer.
As bad as it is, the Mortgage Crisis didn't happen in a vacuum. It was precipitated - as are all "ala carte" financial crises - by out of control Social spending. Those unpaid bills for Social Security, our vast welfare state and unsupportable infrastructure improvements were significant contributing factors to the Mortgage crisis. As government either a) spends more or b) commits future generations to spend more, they devalue the dollar. In so doing, they increase our indebtedness and make it more difficult to repay government loans. In so doing they distort the market and devalue everything that is for sale in America.
Of course, only our policy makers could fail to observe that this entire cycle created the Perfect Storm of inflated currency and a gargantuan inventory of excess housing which depressed home values and destroyed the very foundation that supported their profligate taxation; one that will depress home values for decades to come.
Bottom line, the housing "boom" was a product of, by and for the government, and until we reform our tax structure to take away their incentives to overprice our houses, they'll do it all over again, and probably sooner than the last time they led us down this road: during the S&L crisis.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Bailout Bandwagon
Written Sept. 30th, 2008
I'm amazed so many Democrats and Republicans have jumped on the bailout bandwagon. Numerous conservative commentators I respect have all joined the Chorus, surrendering to Socialism and betraying a fundamental lack of understanding as to how markets work. There have been honorable exceptions - most notably the majority of the Republican house and surprisingly, some prominent liberal democrats - but they have been the rare exception. I myself am left with more questions than answers, but I take surprising comfort in the questions, as they leave no conclusion other than that we will be just fine without committing one stinking dime of taxpayer money to King Henry's boondoggle.
So, here we go:
- If the judgment of the High Priests of Finance (Paulson, Bernanke, et al) supporting the bailout is to be trusted, why didn't they predict this problem before it happened? If they’re so damn smart, why weren't they crapping their pants with anxiety years ago, months ago or even weeks ago? It's not like there weren't people sounding the alarm, but these jackasses weren't hearing any of it. Call me crazy, but the last person I'm trusting with what remains of my savings are the Con Men who just bilked me out of part of it on a proverbial "can't miss" real estate deal.
- Shouldn't these geniuses have seen the writing on the wall the moment they allowed an investment vehicle called a "derivative"? The word "derivative" has stink all over it, which is appropriate given its technical definition: “financial instruments whose values depend on the value of other underlying financial instruments”. Can you even repeat that without laughing? Doesn't it defy common sense to take the value of things and think you will have greater value simply by dumping more of them into one basket?
It’s important to understand that there is a limit to economic activity, and thus to the transactions that create income for the Money Changers, at least until you change the rules and start gaming the system. Derivatives are merely the latest derivative – you’ll pardon the expression – of the attempts to create an endless stream of transactions from which Paulson and his cronies extract a percentage.
- Why didn’t the High Priests raise even an eyebrow when the industry then created the “sub-prime mortgage”? Again, doesn’t that term just reek? Did they really think that people with no credit should be allowed to purchase a house with no down payment? Not really, but they knew all such loans were 100% guaranteed by the federal government, so hey, why not? Yet more transactions for the Money Changers, more churn, and more income. Not surprisingly, one of the big revelations in years to come will be the extent to which speculators - as opposed to deadbeat homeowners - have used the sub-prime mortgage to inflate the value of real estate, which is what got us into this problem in the first place.
- Why didn’t the High Priests raise an eyebrow when the investment community then decided to create Derivative packages that were larded with sub-prime mortgages? Think of these investments as aggregates of bad investments, and then ask yourself, would they do this with their own money? Of course not, but they would with Taxpayers' money.
- Why a $750 billion bailout? Why not, say, $747,675,000,000.00? Henry Paulson would have been a lot more convincing if he hadn't picked a round number. It would have at least given the impression that that figure actually came from thoughtful analysis, as opposed to him pulling it out of his ass.
- Why did the market go up 141 points after the Republicans in the House came out against the bill? Why did it go up 381 points one day after falling 700 the previous day? Could it be that investors understood - as our High Priests do not - that committing the American people to an extra $10,000.00 debt per household will actually drive the economy down? Could it be that investors respond to some other dynamic than Establishment talking points; say, making money?
- Who says credit is going away? To suggest that is to suggest that America is no longer a market for credit, and will change its consumerist ways; it is also to suggest that investors don't have any money to lend. Does anybody believe that? If they don't lend it to America, who will they lend it to for a higher return? Credit isn’t going away, it’s just taking a little holiday.
- Given the events of the last week, why does Paulson have an ounce of credibility? After having drawn his line in the sand on the $750 billion to be used as he saw fit, Paulson promptly caved once Congress dug their heels in. Now, he's perfectly fine with only $250 billion up front, congressional hearings on future disbursements, full reimbursement (in theory at least) of all monies, no golden parachutes for executives, and a long overdue investigation of the source of the problem. Those were all non-negotiable with him just a few days ago, and he came damn close to stampeding Bush and the Dems into doing it. Willie Sutton would have admired the grace and dexterity with which he attempted to steal three quarters of a trillion dollars, but lying to Congress is a federal crime.
By the way, there is little "blame to be spread around". This problem is a liberal problem, starting with the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac in the 70's. Only liberals would construct corporate entities limited to a particular service - in this case ensuring mortgage debt - and then be surprised they fail when there's a downturn in their market. Shades of the S&L crisis that we apparently didn't learn from. Ironically, the efforts of the investment banks to diversify into standard banking - so roundly criticized by the Reids and Pelosis as an effort to "escape regulatory oversight" - is exactly what any sane corporation would do to protect themselves from the vagaries and gyrations of markets. Look at it this way: if democrats tried to force you to invest in nothing but Enron for your 401k, would you be cool with that? Of course not, you would diversify. Same thing.
Only the government would create a corporation that is protected from failure by the American taxpayer. All reward and no risk means the people running the show will engage in risky behavior to enrich themselves. The program would then do what all such programs do, metastasize into a giant bloated tic on the ass of the American economy. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are nothing more than variations on a theme that includes Social Security, our health care system and the Department of Agriculture, to name just a few.
This problem too shall pass, and I’m not saying we won’t get our hair mussed. Times will be hard for the next year regardless of what measures are taken. My only concern is that we will once again fail to learn the necessary lesson, and allow big government liberals to once again create a huge problem, project its failure onto Capitalism, then ride to the rescue with more regulation and another spending program that only makes the problem worse. A compliant media will of course echo their talking points.
We can’t keep subsidizing other people’s incompetence, and we're spending our seed corn to do it. If we kill this bill, it might well be a wooden stake into the heart of Liberalism. Let's hope so.
I'm amazed so many Democrats and Republicans have jumped on the bailout bandwagon. Numerous conservative commentators I respect have all joined the Chorus, surrendering to Socialism and betraying a fundamental lack of understanding as to how markets work. There have been honorable exceptions - most notably the majority of the Republican house and surprisingly, some prominent liberal democrats - but they have been the rare exception. I myself am left with more questions than answers, but I take surprising comfort in the questions, as they leave no conclusion other than that we will be just fine without committing one stinking dime of taxpayer money to King Henry's boondoggle.
So, here we go:
- If the judgment of the High Priests of Finance (Paulson, Bernanke, et al) supporting the bailout is to be trusted, why didn't they predict this problem before it happened? If they’re so damn smart, why weren't they crapping their pants with anxiety years ago, months ago or even weeks ago? It's not like there weren't people sounding the alarm, but these jackasses weren't hearing any of it. Call me crazy, but the last person I'm trusting with what remains of my savings are the Con Men who just bilked me out of part of it on a proverbial "can't miss" real estate deal.
- Shouldn't these geniuses have seen the writing on the wall the moment they allowed an investment vehicle called a "derivative"? The word "derivative" has stink all over it, which is appropriate given its technical definition: “financial instruments whose values depend on the value of other underlying financial instruments”. Can you even repeat that without laughing? Doesn't it defy common sense to take the value of things and think you will have greater value simply by dumping more of them into one basket?
It’s important to understand that there is a limit to economic activity, and thus to the transactions that create income for the Money Changers, at least until you change the rules and start gaming the system. Derivatives are merely the latest derivative – you’ll pardon the expression – of the attempts to create an endless stream of transactions from which Paulson and his cronies extract a percentage.
- Why didn’t the High Priests raise even an eyebrow when the industry then created the “sub-prime mortgage”? Again, doesn’t that term just reek? Did they really think that people with no credit should be allowed to purchase a house with no down payment? Not really, but they knew all such loans were 100% guaranteed by the federal government, so hey, why not? Yet more transactions for the Money Changers, more churn, and more income. Not surprisingly, one of the big revelations in years to come will be the extent to which speculators - as opposed to deadbeat homeowners - have used the sub-prime mortgage to inflate the value of real estate, which is what got us into this problem in the first place.
- Why didn’t the High Priests raise an eyebrow when the investment community then decided to create Derivative packages that were larded with sub-prime mortgages? Think of these investments as aggregates of bad investments, and then ask yourself, would they do this with their own money? Of course not, but they would with Taxpayers' money.
- Why a $750 billion bailout? Why not, say, $747,675,000,000.00? Henry Paulson would have been a lot more convincing if he hadn't picked a round number. It would have at least given the impression that that figure actually came from thoughtful analysis, as opposed to him pulling it out of his ass.
- Why did the market go up 141 points after the Republicans in the House came out against the bill? Why did it go up 381 points one day after falling 700 the previous day? Could it be that investors understood - as our High Priests do not - that committing the American people to an extra $10,000.00 debt per household will actually drive the economy down? Could it be that investors respond to some other dynamic than Establishment talking points; say, making money?
- Who says credit is going away? To suggest that is to suggest that America is no longer a market for credit, and will change its consumerist ways; it is also to suggest that investors don't have any money to lend. Does anybody believe that? If they don't lend it to America, who will they lend it to for a higher return? Credit isn’t going away, it’s just taking a little holiday.
- Given the events of the last week, why does Paulson have an ounce of credibility? After having drawn his line in the sand on the $750 billion to be used as he saw fit, Paulson promptly caved once Congress dug their heels in. Now, he's perfectly fine with only $250 billion up front, congressional hearings on future disbursements, full reimbursement (in theory at least) of all monies, no golden parachutes for executives, and a long overdue investigation of the source of the problem. Those were all non-negotiable with him just a few days ago, and he came damn close to stampeding Bush and the Dems into doing it. Willie Sutton would have admired the grace and dexterity with which he attempted to steal three quarters of a trillion dollars, but lying to Congress is a federal crime.
By the way, there is little "blame to be spread around". This problem is a liberal problem, starting with the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac in the 70's. Only liberals would construct corporate entities limited to a particular service - in this case ensuring mortgage debt - and then be surprised they fail when there's a downturn in their market. Shades of the S&L crisis that we apparently didn't learn from. Ironically, the efforts of the investment banks to diversify into standard banking - so roundly criticized by the Reids and Pelosis as an effort to "escape regulatory oversight" - is exactly what any sane corporation would do to protect themselves from the vagaries and gyrations of markets. Look at it this way: if democrats tried to force you to invest in nothing but Enron for your 401k, would you be cool with that? Of course not, you would diversify. Same thing.
Only the government would create a corporation that is protected from failure by the American taxpayer. All reward and no risk means the people running the show will engage in risky behavior to enrich themselves. The program would then do what all such programs do, metastasize into a giant bloated tic on the ass of the American economy. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are nothing more than variations on a theme that includes Social Security, our health care system and the Department of Agriculture, to name just a few.
This problem too shall pass, and I’m not saying we won’t get our hair mussed. Times will be hard for the next year regardless of what measures are taken. My only concern is that we will once again fail to learn the necessary lesson, and allow big government liberals to once again create a huge problem, project its failure onto Capitalism, then ride to the rescue with more regulation and another spending program that only makes the problem worse. A compliant media will of course echo their talking points.
We can’t keep subsidizing other people’s incompetence, and we're spending our seed corn to do it. If we kill this bill, it might well be a wooden stake into the heart of Liberalism. Let's hope so.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Home refinancing loans
By my estimate, 80% of the problems with our economy can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party. The steady advance of their Socialist policies for the past 75 years has slowly but steadily sucked the life, and wealth, out of America. Second mortgages and Home Refinancing Loans are but another symptom of the Socialist disease.
Just twenty years ago, home refinancing was illegal in Texas and generally restricted or disreputable in the rest of the country, and in retrospect, with good reason. There is a sensible argument that says that people should be allowed to do with their home equity what they will, but the consequences of allowing "refi's" and second mortgages has been another orgy of borrowing by average Americans.
This decision was not an irrational one, based on the information made available to the public. Remember, home values have far outpaced inflation for over twenty years. This was part of the "irrational exuberance" Alan Greenspan spoke of in the middle of the Clinton years in referring to the hypervaluation of assets when such valuation defied common sense. Any homeowner looking at the trend could not help but conclude that remortgaging their homes was a safe move, since inflated home prices would more than pay for the new mortgage, and still allow equity to build. And we can debate the wisdom of using our homes as collateral to subsidize our lifestyles - which is what most Americans did - but the consequence has been catastrophic: middle America is now up to its eyeballs in debt and mired in a static or even down-wage economy.
The real kicker: most Americans took out these mortgages just to stay even with where they had been. Successive generations of affluence since WWII had set a certain lifestyle expectation in the eyes of the public, and going backwards was not that expectation. So, wives went to work, people had less kids, and everybody borrowed. Even as Middle America had leveraged itself to the hilt, home values continued to rise and became the obvious target for profit-hungry lenders in search of fresh meat. Lending laws were liberalized if not outright vanquished, and millions of Americans compensated for the exploding cost of health care, education gasoline and, yes, property taxes, with loans on their last remaining asset, their home.
Just twenty years ago, home refinancing was illegal in Texas and generally restricted or disreputable in the rest of the country, and in retrospect, with good reason. There is a sensible argument that says that people should be allowed to do with their home equity what they will, but the consequences of allowing "refi's" and second mortgages has been another orgy of borrowing by average Americans.
This decision was not an irrational one, based on the information made available to the public. Remember, home values have far outpaced inflation for over twenty years. This was part of the "irrational exuberance" Alan Greenspan spoke of in the middle of the Clinton years in referring to the hypervaluation of assets when such valuation defied common sense. Any homeowner looking at the trend could not help but conclude that remortgaging their homes was a safe move, since inflated home prices would more than pay for the new mortgage, and still allow equity to build. And we can debate the wisdom of using our homes as collateral to subsidize our lifestyles - which is what most Americans did - but the consequence has been catastrophic: middle America is now up to its eyeballs in debt and mired in a static or even down-wage economy.
The real kicker: most Americans took out these mortgages just to stay even with where they had been. Successive generations of affluence since WWII had set a certain lifestyle expectation in the eyes of the public, and going backwards was not that expectation. So, wives went to work, people had less kids, and everybody borrowed. Even as Middle America had leveraged itself to the hilt, home values continued to rise and became the obvious target for profit-hungry lenders in search of fresh meat. Lending laws were liberalized if not outright vanquished, and millions of Americans compensated for the exploding cost of health care, education gasoline and, yes, property taxes, with loans on their last remaining asset, their home.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
It's The Taxes, Stupid - Property Taxes
There are fairly straightforward reasons for this most recent market crash, or any market crash for that matter. What amazes me is the obsession by our elites with macro-economic policy, the care and feeding of banks, and all the other Keynesian knob twiddling at the expense of the obvious: we tax too much and we spend too much.
All the talking heads have focused on the sub-prime mortgage collapse as the main cause of our current economic crisis, and while that has been a factor, it is far from being the only factor, or even the most important one. For example, the overall inflation of home values strikes me as being just as important.
Home values have skyrocketed for twenty years, but why? The simple answer is government intervention. I offer as Exhibit A the annual ritual of state, county and city governments reassessing the value of our homes, their motivation for doing so, and a process that can only be described as skullduggery.
Reviewing the HCAD (Harris County Appraisal District) database available to me, I found that there is virtually no rhyme or reason to appraisal values. From 2002 through 2006, they went up every year by a minimum of 5%. In 2006, appraisals went down slightly. In 2007, they skyrocketed to the maximum of 10%. In 2008, they went up another 10%.
Since I've been tracking it these past five years, it is apparent that HCAD would lower a property owner's re-appraised value by a minimum of 50% just for the asking and without any proof of the homeowner’s claim. I have challenged the assessment on my home two years in a row, and beat the total appraised value down by over 35%, while my neighborhood has gone up an average of 20%.
A review of the HCAD database reveals that in my neighborhood and several others that I scanned, the vast majority of homeowners did not protest their evaluation. I'm fairly certain this is the rule with most homeowners across the country. While I'm in no position to psychoanalyze my neighbors as to their passivity in the face of these tax increases, I can speculate on a few causes:
- We've been sold a bill of goods that skyrocketing home values are a net financial gain to the average homeowner, even with skyrocketing property taxes. This bill of goods was sold by politicians of both parties, Wall Street and the real estate community. All three stood to financially gain from such a perception, and they did, in ballooning taxes, broker fees and real estate commissions.
- People trust government, particularly when it comes to spending on education. Sounds naive, but it's true. So when Harris County says they've got to build umpteen more schools and improve umpteen more, folks generally buy in. This has been the norm since the end of World War II. And of course, your property taxes are only a piece of the education pie. No Child Left Behind pumps countless additional billions into a thoroughly corrupt and failing education system, with no end of expenditures in sight.
The ever-ballooning property tax base resulted in an orgy of school building, school expansion and school remodeling. After all, they had to spend that extra booty on something. Schools that are less than twenty years old are routinely torn down and replaced. Schools are larded down with state of the art computers, audio/visual equipment and pricey furniture and appointments. The new schools being built have monstrous stadiums and concert halls, big enough to rival those of many universities, and in the present environment, cost has been no object.
So the pattern has been a) to ride an irrational market for tax monies they didn’t deserve; b) throw in wildly inflated appraisals, even during a down market; c) rig the system so that only those who took the time to fight the authorities got any relief, and d) spend all the money.
With this mentality, is it any wonder, then, that brokers took these appraisals at face value in fashioning and reselling derivative packages of mortgages? Local taxing authorities across the country were milking property owners like cows, and property owners - by and large - let them get away with it. Technically, homeowners were validating that the inflated home values perpetuated by tax and spend government apparatchiks were for real. And if they were for real, their mortgages were ever more secure, and derivatives packages were ever more secure too.
Using Property Tax assessments as a microcosm of everything that's wrong with our tax policies, I've been amazed by the lack of scrutiny of our government official's decisions, but equally amazed by their lack of discretion. As keepers of the public trust, it was incumbent on our elected officials and government employees to make fair assessments of property value. Instead, they jacked up values across the board, and then fought to hold onto their ill-gotten gains, one homeowner at a time. In point of fact, they had every reason in the world to jack up the values of all homes, since this meant a larger tax base, more power, more job security, more money for them and their cronies, in short: more of everything.
This reveals the essential dishonesty of our government officials. More to the point, the skyrocketing price of homes should have been viewed for what it was: inflation. Had our fearless leaders viewed it from that perspective, they'd have seen it for the liability it is, not the asset they so desired it to be.
So, what has it cost us? If you estimate that 100 million homes were all overvalued by at least 25% in the past 15 years, with the average price of a home at $125 thousand, that adds up to a capital loss to homeowners of over $3 trillion dollars. At a .015% tax rate on the valuation of all homes, the authorities are taking $187 billion in property taxes every year that they don't deserve, but have already spent, now and for years to come.
That's almost a thousand dollars per household, and that ain't chump change.
All the talking heads have focused on the sub-prime mortgage collapse as the main cause of our current economic crisis, and while that has been a factor, it is far from being the only factor, or even the most important one. For example, the overall inflation of home values strikes me as being just as important.
Home values have skyrocketed for twenty years, but why? The simple answer is government intervention. I offer as Exhibit A the annual ritual of state, county and city governments reassessing the value of our homes, their motivation for doing so, and a process that can only be described as skullduggery.
Reviewing the HCAD (Harris County Appraisal District) database available to me, I found that there is virtually no rhyme or reason to appraisal values. From 2002 through 2006, they went up every year by a minimum of 5%. In 2006, appraisals went down slightly. In 2007, they skyrocketed to the maximum of 10%. In 2008, they went up another 10%.
Since I've been tracking it these past five years, it is apparent that HCAD would lower a property owner's re-appraised value by a minimum of 50% just for the asking and without any proof of the homeowner’s claim. I have challenged the assessment on my home two years in a row, and beat the total appraised value down by over 35%, while my neighborhood has gone up an average of 20%.
A review of the HCAD database reveals that in my neighborhood and several others that I scanned, the vast majority of homeowners did not protest their evaluation. I'm fairly certain this is the rule with most homeowners across the country. While I'm in no position to psychoanalyze my neighbors as to their passivity in the face of these tax increases, I can speculate on a few causes:
- We've been sold a bill of goods that skyrocketing home values are a net financial gain to the average homeowner, even with skyrocketing property taxes. This bill of goods was sold by politicians of both parties, Wall Street and the real estate community. All three stood to financially gain from such a perception, and they did, in ballooning taxes, broker fees and real estate commissions.
- People trust government, particularly when it comes to spending on education. Sounds naive, but it's true. So when Harris County says they've got to build umpteen more schools and improve umpteen more, folks generally buy in. This has been the norm since the end of World War II. And of course, your property taxes are only a piece of the education pie. No Child Left Behind pumps countless additional billions into a thoroughly corrupt and failing education system, with no end of expenditures in sight.
The ever-ballooning property tax base resulted in an orgy of school building, school expansion and school remodeling. After all, they had to spend that extra booty on something. Schools that are less than twenty years old are routinely torn down and replaced. Schools are larded down with state of the art computers, audio/visual equipment and pricey furniture and appointments. The new schools being built have monstrous stadiums and concert halls, big enough to rival those of many universities, and in the present environment, cost has been no object.
So the pattern has been a) to ride an irrational market for tax monies they didn’t deserve; b) throw in wildly inflated appraisals, even during a down market; c) rig the system so that only those who took the time to fight the authorities got any relief, and d) spend all the money.
With this mentality, is it any wonder, then, that brokers took these appraisals at face value in fashioning and reselling derivative packages of mortgages? Local taxing authorities across the country were milking property owners like cows, and property owners - by and large - let them get away with it. Technically, homeowners were validating that the inflated home values perpetuated by tax and spend government apparatchiks were for real. And if they were for real, their mortgages were ever more secure, and derivatives packages were ever more secure too.
Using Property Tax assessments as a microcosm of everything that's wrong with our tax policies, I've been amazed by the lack of scrutiny of our government official's decisions, but equally amazed by their lack of discretion. As keepers of the public trust, it was incumbent on our elected officials and government employees to make fair assessments of property value. Instead, they jacked up values across the board, and then fought to hold onto their ill-gotten gains, one homeowner at a time. In point of fact, they had every reason in the world to jack up the values of all homes, since this meant a larger tax base, more power, more job security, more money for them and their cronies, in short: more of everything.
This reveals the essential dishonesty of our government officials. More to the point, the skyrocketing price of homes should have been viewed for what it was: inflation. Had our fearless leaders viewed it from that perspective, they'd have seen it for the liability it is, not the asset they so desired it to be.
So, what has it cost us? If you estimate that 100 million homes were all overvalued by at least 25% in the past 15 years, with the average price of a home at $125 thousand, that adds up to a capital loss to homeowners of over $3 trillion dollars. At a .015% tax rate on the valuation of all homes, the authorities are taking $187 billion in property taxes every year that they don't deserve, but have already spent, now and for years to come.
That's almost a thousand dollars per household, and that ain't chump change.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Self Inflicted Wounds
A friend of mine sent me a Robert Frost poem that she felt exemplified this past election as far as John McCain's undoing was concerned:
On Our Sympathy With The Under Dog, by Robert Frost
"First under up and then again down under,
We watch a circus of revolving dogs.
No senator dares in to kick asunder,
Lest both should bite him in the toga-togs".
Well, one may sympathize with the sentiment that John McCain was undone by the MSM and all the other Usual Suspects. And while that is all undoubtedly true, I can't help but wonder how well he might have fared had he not pandered to them at the expense of his party, and was inspired to express that notion in verse:
"And how to sympathize we say at last,
with a man who so repudiates his past?
Who craps on those on brung him to the dance,
and refuses them some seltzer down their pants?
He'll bob and weave, it ever has been thus,
and throw his VP pick under the bus.
Then reimbrace his pals at M.S.M.,
And re-become 'The Maverick' once again".
All props to the great Jack Paar, whose line on seltzer I borrowed for this verse. While not the best rendition by far, the end result could have been a lot worse.
On Our Sympathy With The Under Dog, by Robert Frost
"First under up and then again down under,
We watch a circus of revolving dogs.
No senator dares in to kick asunder,
Lest both should bite him in the toga-togs".
Well, one may sympathize with the sentiment that John McCain was undone by the MSM and all the other Usual Suspects. And while that is all undoubtedly true, I can't help but wonder how well he might have fared had he not pandered to them at the expense of his party, and was inspired to express that notion in verse:
"And how to sympathize we say at last,
with a man who so repudiates his past?
Who craps on those on brung him to the dance,
and refuses them some seltzer down their pants?
He'll bob and weave, it ever has been thus,
and throw his VP pick under the bus.
Then reimbrace his pals at M.S.M.,
And re-become 'The Maverick' once again".
All props to the great Jack Paar, whose line on seltzer I borrowed for this verse. While not the best rendition by far, the end result could have been a lot worse.
The "My Turn" Syndrome in the Republican Party
Is it just me, or is the Republican Party just slow to recognize loser candidates? John McCain - in both his person and his campaign - has been a virtual clone of a previous Repub that was destined to lose. Here's his resume:
"Hi, I'm a war veteran and a hero, and that is going to be the centerpiece of my campaign. My surrogates will beat you over the head with this fact at every turn. I've been in Washington forever and have been a senator longer than most of you have been alive, and I am proud to say that I'm one of the oldest candidates to ever run for the presidency. I represent the party that espouses "family values", but I'm a divorcee that dumped my first wife shortly after meeting my current wife. She is much younger than me and has most of the money in the family.
During my time in office, I have constantly reached across the aisle to Democrats, which ticked off many in my party, but established my credentials as a moderate who could get things done. I ran for my party's nomination prior to this, but lost to a guy named Bush, who used dirty politics to deny me the nomination. Bush went on to win what should have rightly been mine, and I moaned about it publicly. I ran again years later with a rallying cry of "it's my turn, dammit!". This turned out to be OK for the nomination, but not such a good theme for the general election, and I ended getting trounced by a guy who had charisma. Up until then, I thought charisma was over-rated. Now I'm not so sure.
The guy who beat me would be declared 'the first black president of the United States'".
I wait with bated breath to see if McCain does a Viagra commercial and starts referring to himself in the third person. Then the similarities would be scary.
So, name that candidate. Oh, all right, we all know it's Bob Dole. Ironic, isn't it, that, with a few modifications, the above would also describe George H.W. Bush? While no Senate Lifer, he was certainly a member of the Club, got trounced before he got the nomination, and was the embodiment of Establishment Republicanism whose primary objectives are to be liked by the Press and to secure a place at the Democrat's table.
More scary still, most of the Bob Dole profile does describe John Kerry, the erstwhile Dem candidate the last go-round. Wow, could that have been four years ago? Seems like just yesterday that we all stared slack-jawed as Kerry was being flogged by those great patriots the Swift Boaters. Of course, unlike McCain and Dole, Kerry was no kind of war hero, but rather a blow-dried poseur whose credentials were sensibly shredded by his peers.
On the silver linings front, the Republican Party is fresh out of Lifers with a Certified Democrat Outreach Program. It could well be that the next go-round, we'll have no more Bob Michel clones to gum up the process, and nominate somebody who actually likes his party and shares its beliefs.
"Hi, I'm a war veteran and a hero, and that is going to be the centerpiece of my campaign. My surrogates will beat you over the head with this fact at every turn. I've been in Washington forever and have been a senator longer than most of you have been alive, and I am proud to say that I'm one of the oldest candidates to ever run for the presidency. I represent the party that espouses "family values", but I'm a divorcee that dumped my first wife shortly after meeting my current wife. She is much younger than me and has most of the money in the family.
During my time in office, I have constantly reached across the aisle to Democrats, which ticked off many in my party, but established my credentials as a moderate who could get things done. I ran for my party's nomination prior to this, but lost to a guy named Bush, who used dirty politics to deny me the nomination. Bush went on to win what should have rightly been mine, and I moaned about it publicly. I ran again years later with a rallying cry of "it's my turn, dammit!". This turned out to be OK for the nomination, but not such a good theme for the general election, and I ended getting trounced by a guy who had charisma. Up until then, I thought charisma was over-rated. Now I'm not so sure.
The guy who beat me would be declared 'the first black president of the United States'".
I wait with bated breath to see if McCain does a Viagra commercial and starts referring to himself in the third person. Then the similarities would be scary.
So, name that candidate. Oh, all right, we all know it's Bob Dole. Ironic, isn't it, that, with a few modifications, the above would also describe George H.W. Bush? While no Senate Lifer, he was certainly a member of the Club, got trounced before he got the nomination, and was the embodiment of Establishment Republicanism whose primary objectives are to be liked by the Press and to secure a place at the Democrat's table.
More scary still, most of the Bob Dole profile does describe John Kerry, the erstwhile Dem candidate the last go-round. Wow, could that have been four years ago? Seems like just yesterday that we all stared slack-jawed as Kerry was being flogged by those great patriots the Swift Boaters. Of course, unlike McCain and Dole, Kerry was no kind of war hero, but rather a blow-dried poseur whose credentials were sensibly shredded by his peers.
On the silver linings front, the Republican Party is fresh out of Lifers with a Certified Democrat Outreach Program. It could well be that the next go-round, we'll have no more Bob Michel clones to gum up the process, and nominate somebody who actually likes his party and shares its beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)