I Don't Usually Read Paul Krugman.....

.... but when I do, I wonder how he can hold such illogical thoughts.

And this article is no exception.

Krugman says, "I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the power of doctrines — how support for a false dogma can become politically mandatory, and how overwhelming contrary evidence only makes such dogmas stronger and more extreme. For the most part, I’ve been focusing on economic issues, but the same story applies with even greater force to climate."

Of course, Republicans and anyone else who disagrees with Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman and his fellow NYT elect are victims of this syndrome on the issue of, well, everything.

While Krugman and his fellow travellers have no false doctrines or dogmas but rather bask in the hard light of Reason and Science.

Except not.

In fact, if you were to take Krugman's column into a word processing program and do global find-and-replace for a few words; find Republican and replace it with Democrat, find climate change (or cooling or disruption, whichever is the sophistry du jour) and replace it with marriage equality, abortion rights or well, global warming, you'd discover that one of the doctrines that most bests the Left is that their doctrines are always right and that conservative principles are always wrong.

Let's give it a try:

Krugman: " And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the G.O.P.’s extremist fringe asserted that global warming was a hoax concocted by a vast global conspiracy of scientists (although even then that fringe included some powerful politicians). Today, such conspiracy theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against scientists reporting evidence of warming have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about climate science is turning into hostility toward science in general."

Krugman corrected: "And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the Democratic Party's extremist fringe asserted that the idea that Christians who opposed "gay marriage" should lose their civil rights. Today, such theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against Christians acting according to their religious faith have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about religious liberty is turning into hostility toward Christianity in general."

It doesn't take much thought to see through through this one

One article amidst the Leftist caterwauling about voter ID laws is this one in the Atlantic: "The Republican Push to Make it Harder to Vote"

Linda Killian writes,"Texas residents will now have to show a state- or federal-issued form of photo identification to vote. The list of acceptable forms includes a concealed-handgun license but not a state university student ID. The omission suggests it is not voter fraud but voters unfriendly to the GOP that Abbott and other Texas Republicans are trying to thwart."

Well, if 'voters unfriendly to the GOP' means people who are not eligible to vote in Texas, then she is correct. Perhaps Ms Killian doesn't have a CHP so she doesn't know that proof of residency is one of the required documents to obtain one. Perhaps she didn't attend college, or attended a local college so she doesn't realize that some students attend class in other states where they are not permanent residents. and thus are not eligible to vote there.

Probably not. Her objection suggests that it is not eligible voters but Democrat voters, dead, alive or whatever that Killian are trying to defend.

Actually, I really am in favor of making it harder to vote. Sure, every citizen who meets the eligibility requirements of age and residency should have the right to vote And there should be no unreasonable obstacles to their exercising that right. But voting is equally a right, a privilege, and a responsibility. It is a right held by citizens of the United States. It is a privilege reserved to citizens only and only those who are not prohibited (felons, minors, etc.) and it is a responsibility that ought not be taken lightly. 

If the GOP thows me under the bus, I won't be on their bus

Eric Ericson at RedState warns the GOP establishment against doing what it will very likely do: throw Social Conservatives under the bus.

And why it is a very stupid thing to do.

"What’s really going on here is that the people who voted Republican, but who disagree with pro-lifers and defenders of marriage, have decided it must be those issues. They can’t see how what happened actually happened unless it happened because the issues on which they disagree with the base played a role."

Yeah. That does make sense. While there are vestiges of the old Republican party still bouncing around in the Establishment, to a very large degree, Neo-Cons have become the GOP Establishment. Neo-Cons, as you may recall, were originally Liberals who disagreed with their fellow Leftists on anti-Communism. They were (are) Liberal on everything but national defense, Capitalism and Israel. And what were Mitt Romney's main talking points? Taxes, Israel, and saving the Defense budget. While the GOP platform is strongly Pro-Life and pro family, the candidates selected by the party tend to soft-pedal and trim on social issues.

"The problem is not social conservatism. The problem is social conservatives have gotten so used to thinking of themselves as the majority they’ve forgotten how to speak to those who are not and defend against those who accuse them of being fringe, most particularly the press. Couple that with Mitt Romney’s campaign making a conscious decision to not fight back on the cultural front and you have a bunch of Republicans convinced, despite the facts, that if only the social conservatives would go away all would be fine."

This explains something that's bothered me for a few days.
The majority of Americans favor restrictions on abortion and oppose government funding of abortion;
Yet, they elected the most pro-abortion president in the history of the world

The majority of Americans oppose redefinition of marriage;
Yet they elected the president who will most likely force it on the republic.

The majority of Americans do belong to a church;
Yet they elected the first president to intentionally, blatantly and unappologetically shred the concept of Free Exercise of Religion.

Because Mitt Romney let himself be defined as the man who wanted to cut taxes for the rich and was afraid or unwilling to defend Life, Marriage and Religion in the public square.

If the GOP Neo-Con establishment does in fact abandon the social issues, it'll lose me. I'm not willing to support a party that really is the defender of plutocrats and Randians. And I have no desire to be a member of the permanent minority.

It isn't necessary, though. This election offered one of the starkest examples of the two concepts of government at issue in this country. Obama explicitly embodies the idea that government is the core of society. Romney and Ryan made a fair representation of the idea that government is merely a framework which allows society to function fairly and efficiently.

I'm willing to fight for that principle of limited government. That principle is sound enough to encompass both Social and Fiscal conservatism. It can be expressed in words the electorate understands and accepts. But if the Establishment GOP is unwilling to do that, and merely continues to argue for lower taxes and less regulations because - well because; while conceding on issues of culture that are vital to the continued health of our society, then I am leaving.

Can the Republican Establishment fight for these principles? I can.


Seven Principles Of The Constitution Party:


■Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

■Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

■Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

■Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

■Constitution And Bill Of Rights: interpreted according to the actual intent of the founding fathers;

■State's Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people.

■American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

Purile Prattle - late entry

Saving what little they have to celebrate in the Obama presidency, the MSM commentariat has taken the opportunity of the Republican National Convention to roll out what they consider their best 'arguments' againt the Republican nominees.

Here are a few of the ones I've come across while surfing the net:

E.J.Dionne: "The GOP is marketing the concept that a great many Americans need to suffer before they can prosper. The government needs the equivalent of a P90X regimen -- and never mind checking first whether it will actually be good for the country."

Have to give him credit for being succinct while being wrong. Unless the 'great many Americans' who he worries will suffer are all government employees, his point is a giant non sequiter. And the proposition that ending bloated, voracious, lumbering government will be good for the country is very nearly an indisputable fact - like gravity (speaking of impending fiscal cliffs). He goes on:

"Christie and Ryan talk a lot about "courage." It's an excellent virtue. But where is the courage in giving the wealthy people who are financing your campaigns all they want while accusing those who might vote against you of wishing to spend life in a hammock? "

I hope he asks that question next week of an administration that has failed to indict a single contributor - I mean Wall Street fat cat while telling entrepreneurs and business owners that maybe they've made enough and ought to be willing to 'spread the wealth around a little.'

In defense of the non-existent

So, Eric Cantor asked me what I thought the U.S. Congress should cut from the Federal Budget.

Actually, it was a button on the YouCut web site.

And I gave him - or his web master and most junior intern at least - my advice. It has been a burning issue with me since I saw the Distinguished Gentleman from New York, Anthony Weiner, defending CPB funding a little while back.

He intended to belittle Republican efforts to end funding for CPB. But apparently he and his fellow Statist nomenclatura are blind to how his attempt at sarcasm actually glaringly illustrates the ridiculousness of trying to defend adding to the National Debt for such frivolity.

Here is my recommendation:

Cut the subsidies to the Car Talk guys' fictitious legal advisors, Dewey, Cheetham & Howe. I know Rep Weiner has defended the government's support of their vital, albeit imaginary, contribution to civil society and the General Welfare. I know that Congress has the constitutional right to expend tax dollars, or yuan borrowed from China under the interstate commerce clause since sometimes radio waves travel across state lines. I know that their non-existent existence is a right that demands public support and that without them, yuppies across the country might have more difficulty asking why their 10 year old Volvo squeaks when it starts. I realize that listeners to NPR may have to listen to ads telling them that Click and Clack the Tappet Brothers are being brought to them by major corporations rather than donor acknowledgements that the show is being brought to them by, well, major corporations - and taxpayers like us.

I'm good with that. "

Perhaps Rep. Weiner ought to consult with the Car Talk Director of Ethics and Honesty: U Lyon Sack. I think he is already consulting with Illgott and Gaines for financial advice.