Wednesday, March 25, 2009

George Will says what he really thinks about the Obama administration

I have very seldom read or heard George Will so exercised over something. This is a stem-winder of an article that is the most explicit indictment of the malfeasance of the current regime I have yet read.

The Toxic Assets We Elected

By George F. Will
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302140_pf.html

With the braying of 328 yahoos -- members of the House of Representatives who voted for retroactive and punitive use of the tax code to confiscate the legal earnings of a small, unpopular group -- still reverberating, the Obama administration yesterday invited private-sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anti-constitutional government. This latest plan to unfreeze the financial system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the Troubled Assets Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without purchasing any toxic assets.

TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two automobile companies (and, last week, some of their parts suppliers), which must amaze Sweden. That unlikely tutor of America regarding capitalist common sense has said, through a Cabinet minister, that the ailing Saab automobile company is on its own: "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories."

Another embarrassing auditor of American misgovernment is China, whose premier has rightly noted the unsustainable trajectory of America's high-consumption, low-savings economy. He has also decorously but clearly expressed sensible fears that his country's $1 trillion-plus of dollar-denominated assets might be devalued by America choosing, as banana republics have done, to use inflation for partial repudiation of improvidently incurred debts.

From Mexico, America is receiving needed instruction about fundamental rights and the rule of law. A leading Democrat trying to abolish the right of workers to secret ballots in unionization elections is California's Rep. George Miller who, with 15 other Democrats, in 2001 admonished Mexico: "The secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." Last year, Mexico's highest court unanimously affirmed for Mexicans the right that Democrats want to strip from Americans.

Congress, with the approval of a president who has waxed censorious about his predecessor's imperious unilateralism in dealing with other nations, has shredded the North American Free Trade Agreement. Congress used the omnibus spending bill to abolish a program that was created as part of a protracted U.S. stall regarding compliance with its obligation to allow Mexican long-haul trucks on U.S. roads. The program, testing the safety of Mexican trucking, became an embarrassment because it found Mexican trucking at least as safe as U.S. trucking. Mexico has resorted to protectionism -- tariffs on many U.S. goods -- in retaliation for Democrats' protection of the Teamsters union.

NAFTA, like all treaties, is the "supreme law of the land." So says the Constitution. It is, however, a cobweb constraint on a Congress that, ignoring the document's unambiguous stipulations that the House shall be composed of members chosen "by the people of the several states," is voting to pretend that the District of Columbia is a state. Hence it supposedly can have a Democratic member of the House and, down the descending road, two Democratic senators. Congress rationalizes this anti-constitutional willfulness by citing the Constitution's language that each house shall be the judge of the "qualifications" of its members and that Congress can "exercise exclusive legislation" over the District. What, then, prevents Congress from giving House and Senate seats to Yellowstone National Park, over which Congress exercises exclusive legislation? Only Congress's capacity for embarrassment. So, not much.

The Federal Reserve, by long practice rather than law, has been insulated from politics in performing its fundamental function of preserving the currency as a store of value -- preventing inflation. Now, however, by undertaking hitherto uncontemplated functions, it has become an appendage of the executive branch. The coming costs, in political manipulation of the money supply, of this forfeiture of independence could be steep.

Jefferson warned that "great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities." But Democrats, who trace their party's pedigree to Jefferson, are contemplating using "reconciliation" -- a legislative maneuver abused by both parties to severely truncate debate and limit the minority's right to resist -- to impose vast and controversial changes on the 17 percent of the economy that is health care. When the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's budget underestimates by $2.3 trillion the likely deficits over the next decade, his budget director, Peter Orszag, said: All long-range budget forecasts are notoriously unreliable -- so rely on ours.

This is but a partial list of recent lawlessness, situational constitutionalism and institutional derangement. Such political malfeasance is pertinent to the financial meltdown as the administration, desperately seeking confidence, tries to stabilize the economy by vastly enlarging government's role in it.


Sunday, March 22, 2009

Bowling for a Soup Sandwich

The collapse of the US economy under the policies of the Obama administration becomes more likely. The question still remains whether the devaluation of the dollar is due to incompetence, flawed economic theory or conspiracy. Of course, it could be all 3 in various degrees. Certainly Geithner has demonstrated his incompetence. Bernacke hasn't impressed me any either; but then Greenspan has long since lost his luster and the role of the Fed today is worth questioning. The half-Keynesian on steroids policies they are following are insanity squared.

So, are they intentionally bringing on an economic collapse in order to realize their national socialist or perhaps international socialist designs, or do they just not recognize how bad that result would be?
When people in their camp have publicly said that it wouldn't be a bad thing for the dollar to lose its role as international currency standard, you have to wonder when you see policies enacted that lead to that result. Debasing the currency is leading to that result.

So, are the brainiacs debasing the currency on purpose to achieve some great egalitarian socialist utopia? Are they doing it because they actually believe Paul Krugman is a genius? Or do they really have no idea what they are doing but think their actions will look good on MSNBC and CNN?

Or all 3?

Only time will tell...

Dollar Declines Most Since 1985 Plaza Accord on Fed Bond Buying

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNdu22y30zwc&refer=worldwide


Terence Corcoran: Is this the end of America?

Posted: March 19, 2009, 7:38 PM by NP Editor

Terence Corcoran, Ben Bernanke, inflation Forms.HTML:Hidden.1

U.S. law-making is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship

By Terence Corcoran

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/03/19/terence-corcoran-is-this-the-end-of-america.aspx

And on the foreign policy front, the president looked foolish to everyone but European bureaucrats:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D971PVM81&show_article=1

" "It's a very constructive message," Javier Solana said at an EU summit in Brussels. "I hope that will open a new chapter in relations with Tehran."

Shame not many actual Iranians got to receive the president's holiday greeting and groveling: " It wasn't clear how many Iranians were able to see the video, which was not aired on state television in Iran on Friday. It was likely shown on Farsi-language TV stations beamed in from outside of the country, but many Iranians don't watch television in the first days of long Nowruz holiday that is normally filled with family gatherings or vacations away from home.

Iranians could see the video on the White House Web site, but other popular video sharing sites like YouTube are blocked in Iran. "

And the Iranian leadership announces it is prepared to continue to listen to the president grovel directly, as long as he doesn't bring up any of the things the US would want to discuss: " Ahmadinejad has said Iran would welcome talks with the U.S.—but only if there was mutual respect. Iranian officials say that means the U.S. needs to stop accusing Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism, charges Tehran has denied."

Maybe he should stick to insulting the handicapped.

Or maybe not:

Special Olympics bowler: I can beat the president! McConiughey, who is mentally disabled, is just the bowler for the job. He's bowled five perfect games since 2005. " The 35-year-old McConiughey has been bowling since he was 8 or 9. His advice for Obama? Practice every day." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D971TJ1O0&show_article=1

Good advice for the bright young president. But, given his administration's performance thus far, perhaps he ought to practice statecraft and domestic policy every day until his scores there get better...

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

"compassionate" centralized government managed health industry?

"compassionate" centralized government managed health industry?

No. Anyone who really had a charitable heart and wished his fellow citizens to actually enjoy quality health care would run as fast as possible from national health care or government boards charged with deciding what sorts of treatments were permissible.

"Deadly Rationing: The gatekeeper for Great Britain's national health care system is denying cancer patients drugs that would extend their lives. Why? Because the medication is considered too expensive.

"The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the government agency that decides which treatments the National Health Service will pay for, has effectively banned Lapatinib, a drug that was shown to slow the progression of breast cancer, and Sutent, which is the only medicine that can prolong the lives of some stomach cancer patients.

Banning beneficial drugs due to cost is nothing new in Britain. NICE, which has to be one of history's most ironic acronyms, forbade the use of Tarceva, a lung cancer drug proven to extend patients' lives, and Abatacept, even though it's one of the only drugs that has been shown in clinical testing to improve severe rheumatoid arthritis.

Once again, we have to ask: Do we really want to use the British system as the model for a U.S. health care regime?

Promises of an effective, cost-effective health care system operated by the federal government are cruel fabrications. The British system shows that the state makes a mess of health care. So does the Canadian plan, which is plagued with unhealthy and often deadly waiting times for treatment."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...

Unlike some who objected to Bush' phrase, 'compassionate conservative', I did because it is redundant.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

The National Journal cover story this week is entitled:
The Godless Rise As A Political Force

Secularist, humanist, freethinking nontheists and atheists are coalescing into a movement with a real agenda.

by Paul Starobin

Saturday, March 7, 2009

(subscription required)

Mr. Starobin appeared on CSPANs Washington Journal this morning (I suppose he may have attended religious services at another time - Saturday evening, perhaps). I enjoy listening to the Washington Journal on Sunday mornings (on those Sundays that I attend religious services in the evening due to work commitments). For what may be to some people obvious reasons, Democrat callers predominate. And such was the case this morning. Mr. Starobin demurred on making public his own religious leanings, but he appeared to be sympathetic to the atheists, secularists, freethinking non-theists, agnostics and unchurched he lumped into the Godless class (it's all about class and identity politics, after all, isn't it?)

Obviously, a brief radio interview cannot cover the sound and detailed analysis I'm sure is contained in his undoubtedly insightful article. But, we can discern from his subtitle and his exposition on CSPAN that it really is all about political power and the godless are indeed attempting to shape themselves as an identity group in order to get in on the victim gravy train that has its nexus at Union Station.

But back to the moonbattery that call in to CSPAN on Sunday mornings. The impression they gave me was that they had drunk the Sam Harris (brights vs dulls) KoolAid. I have a major problem with this way of looking at things. Mostly because it is so damn untrue. If Sam Harris and the other 4 Jackasses of Atheism

(Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, Harris) and their witling lemmings who called into CSPAN are bright and Avery Cardinal Dulles Fr. James V. Schall, George Weigel, Michael Novak and Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are dull then I'm unsure what those words mean. To be fair, the Godly callers were mostly Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians whose doctrines are a fair match for the weak arguments of the neo-atheists.

But therein lies another beef I have with those unreasonable defenders of what they think is reason. How is it that the best arguments of the neo-darwinists and neo-atheists are so damn weak? Perhaps the true atheist intellectuals are not being published in the US. Or perhaps there aren't any. Is Camille Paglia the best they can do? Ward Churchill? Spittle-spewing haters like Harris and Hitchens? I've seen their arguments and they are weak. They mostly depend upon strawmen, misrepresentations, false causality, ad homenim and appeal to (their own) authority.

I can understand why Hitchens drinks. I would too if I were a nominally intelligent person who was determined to convince others that their chipped and faded veneer of rationality is the patina of Reason. What bare logic that may be found in their defense of a negative proposition is lost when it filters down to the true believers calling in to CSPAN on Sunday Morning. It washes out to something like: I don't fall for that religious mumbo-jumbo, I think for myself; therefore I am smart. You believe in God, so you must not think for yourself; therefore you are dumb. This is disproved by the very existence of Bill Maher - and Bill Buckley. When your most prominent apologists are comedians Penn & Teller, you've got to suspect that your dogma is a joke.

The CSPAN moderator asked of several callers if they would support a politician who was an atheist but all of whose policies you otherwise supported. A reasonable person could be expected to answer that question affirmatively. Perhaps he was looking for proof of the unreasonableness of 'dulls'. However, at the same time, the godless tended to call in on the Democrat line while the faithful called in on the Republican line. Surely this is obvious evidence of the pragmatic reason driven intelligence of Democrats and the unreasonable illogic of Republicans in the thrall of the Radical Religious Right.

No.

It is exceedingly unlikely that a politician who viewed reality through an atheist lens would arrive at policies with which I agreed. Atheism is nothing new in human history. Nor are the subsequent beliefs that man is perfectible by man or that politics is the highest form of human endeavor or that the ends of perfecting man and his society justify the means of achieving those seemingly lofty goals. Those sorts of beliefs, today, result in the Obama pledge to 'remake America' and 'perfect our Union' by means of increasing government intervention into people's lives.

While the Christian view of reality; that we are creatures endowed with immortal souls who have inherent dignity and free will but who are fallible and whose perfection comes from Someone above and outside of ourselves leads to a very different conclusion. Human dignity must be respected by means of personal freedom. Our fallen nature cannot be perfected by psychological, pharmacological, neurological or genetic manipulation. The state's role then is to protect our freedom to live dignified lives in pursuit of our own salvation.

Those who seek to immanentize the eschaton are bound to fail. It isn't the way the world is made.

CCC 676: " the Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,576 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.577"

While I was getting that off of my chest, I read an article in the March issue of First Things by Jean Bethke Elshtain, entitled While Europe Slept. Mike Novak posted it on his blog: http://novak.livejournal.com/428104.html#cutid1

A topic for another post. Read it. I'm sure I cannot do it justice.