Too late?

Via Robbie I find an article from Salon by Camille Paglia. Read that bio if you don’t know who she is as it frames her article.

Some choice quotes from her article:

But this tonic dose of truth-telling may be too little too late. As an Obama supporter and contributor, I am outraged at the slowness with which the standing army of Democratic consultants and commentators publicly expressed discontent with the administration’s strategic missteps this year. I suspect there had been private grumbling all along, but the media warhorses failed to speak out when they should have — from week one after the inauguration, when Obama went flat as a rug in letting Congress pass that obscenely bloated stimulus package. Had more Democrats protested, the administration would have felt less arrogantly emboldened to jam through a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform. (Who is naive enough to believe that Obama’s plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?)

We all knew years ago that the mainstream media was no longer a source of true journalism. They’ve got agendas to push, like everyone else.

By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis. It is theoretically possible that Obama could turn the situation around with a strong speech on healthcare to Congress this week, but after a summer of grisly hemorrhaging, too much damage has been done. At this point, Democrats’ main hope for the 2012 presidential election is that Republicans nominate another hopelessly feeble candidate. Given the GOP’s facility for shooting itself in the foot, that may well happen.

I fear that as well. Nevertheless, the Dems cannot get cocky and think their jobs are a lock. I’ve already heard mutterings like “force it down our throats in 2009? We’ll shove it up your ass in 2010.” The 2010 Congressional elections aren’t too far off, and while it’s only a midpoint for President Obama, it’s going to be one heck of a barometer. Plus if the Democrat majority in Congress gets lost in the election, that will have huge impacts as well. Maybe that’s part of why they’re trying to shove all their pet legislation through now, while they have the short window of opportunity.

*sigh*

Yes, that’s the responsible way to legislate.

Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year’s tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators?

They’re that out of touch.

Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

Quite true, and I’ve wondered that myself. I’ve never seen such a group of millionaires that claim to understand “the little people” as much as them. But what’s worse is how those little people believe them. Ah wait, she addresses this further down:

But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote “critical thinking,” which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms (“racism, sexism, homophobia”) when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés that it’s positively pickled.

Going further into the healthcare debate:

By a proportion of something like 10-to-1, negative articles by conservatives were vastly more detailed, specific and practical about the proposals than were supportive articles by Democrats, which often made gestures rather than arguments and brimmed with emotion and sneers. There was a glaring inability in most Democratic commentary to think ahead and forecast what would or could be the actual snarled consequences — in terms of delays, denial of services, errors, miscommunications and gross invasions of privacy — of a massive single-payer overhaul of the healthcare system in a nation as large and populous as ours. It was as if Democrats live in a utopian dream world, divorced from the daily demands and realities of organization and management.

Amen to that. But that tends to be how many arguments tend to go. If you can’t back it up with facts, make emotional appeals. While emotions are important, it’s generally bad to establish law and policy upon them. Just like with gun control, most of what the pro gun control folks spout are emotional appeals. When you look at the facts, it doesn’t add up.

Thankfully, Ms. Paglia also takes the Republicans to task:

Having said all that about the failures of my own party, I am not about to let Republicans off the hook. What a backbiting mess the GOP is! It lacks even one credible voice of traditional moral values on the national stage and is addicted to sonorous pieties of pharisaical emptiness. Republican politicians sermonize about the sanctity of marriage while racking up divorces and sexual escapades by the truckload. They assail government overreach and yet support interference in women’s control of their own bodies. Advanced whack-a-mole is clearly needed for that yammering smarty-pants Newt Gingrich, who is always so very, very pleased with himself but has yet to produce a single enduring thought. The still inexplicably revered George W. Bush ballooned our national deficits like a drunken sailor and clumsily exacerbated the illegal immigration debate. And bizarrely, the hallucinatory Dick Cheney, a fake-testosterone addict who spooked Bush into a pointless war, continues to be lauded as presidential material.

I couldn’t agree more. I know folks tend to see me as a Democrat/Liberal/Obama basher, and certainly I am critical of them. But that doesn’t mean I’m a Republican/Conservative/Bush lover. I think they suck too. I think the whole “preservation of marriage” stuff is a load of crap — it’s nothing more than anti-homosexual standpoints, because if you really cared to preserve marriage then you’d work on that ugly divorce rate between heterosexuals first! That’s far more a threat to the “sanctity of marriage” than any homosexual ever would be. The PATRIOT Act… don’t get me started on that.

Anyway, heck of an article from Camille Paglia. Go read it.

What he said

A lot of people were pitching a major fit about President Obama and the speech to the children.

My take? It was somewhat understandable. There’s a lot of distrust of the man, his administration, and the current Congress. With the way things are right now, people were afraid he was going to turn it into some sort of agenda push.

Me? I expected the worst but hoped for the best. This is not the first time a President has spoken to the schoolchildren. And they’re generally always the same sort of thing: stay in school, education is important, study hard, etc.. And every time this happens, the “opposition party” has always come out screaming that the speech is going to be brainwashing the children. So, the speech and the reactions to the speech are just typical… happens all the time, nothing really new to see here.

My take? I homeschool the kids. Now, we had a 4-H meeting today so I couldn’t watch it, but it can be caught on YouTube and the transcript was posted. But the general plan was to go ahead and watch it with our kids. Then no matter what the message, discuss it. I think that’s really the best way to handle just about anything with your children: participate, be involved, discuss, help them understand.

Overall the speech wasn’t too bad. The overall message was a good one, and the illustrations and construction of the speech were alright.

But I do have a few beefs with the speech:

I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.

Can someone point out to me where in the US Constitution it says anything about the Federal Government being responsible for education?

The other big thing I wonder is… he spoke a lot about being responsible. He set forth a great number of things — expectations of behavior. I can only hope that he himself, after speaking as he did today, holds himself, his cabinet members, all those czars, members of Congress, etc. to the same standards.

Send a gift, make a choice

Healthcare discussion is all the rage these days. When you boil it down, there’s really only one thing at the heart of it all:

Money.

I had someone comment to me that they make more money than average and thus are willing to pay more. That is, they’re happy to accept a government program and thus increased taxes to pay for this.

If you make so much money that you’re willing to send that “extra” away in the form of taxes, why aren’t you doing anything about it right now? The Federal Government accepts gifts! Furthermore, there’s lots of charities out there right now that could really use the funding. Here you go: Donate to St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. Send all that extra money you have.

The simple fact is, once taxation occurs, once a government-based program is put in place, freedom of choice withers and eventually dies. I find it so interesting how those clamoring for nationalized healthcare programs are also the same people that at least on the surface clamor for “choice” in so many other areas. To those people I ask, where’s the choice in this? If I don’t want to participate — because it’s my body (and money) — I cannot do that. There is no choice. Taxation requires you to fund and support not only the things you like but also the things you don’t like. Where is the freedom? Where is the choice?

As it is now, we have choices. If you truly believe that no one’s health should be at the mercy of financial matters, then what are you doing today to make that happen? What healthcare charities have you donated to? Have you given any of your time to care for sick people? If you are doing these things today, great. Next step, encourage others to do the same. If there’s truly enough merit to it, it will flourish and all through the choices people made. You have a choice today to help make this right, and to do so in a manner that demonstrates not only the compassion that you so strongly feel, but retains the freedom of choice so cherished in this country.

I agree the system is broken, but eliminating the ability to choose and the freedom that goes with that is not going to bring about the desired ends.

Quote of the day

Courtesy of John Farnam:

It is often said that power corrupts. But, it is equally important to realize that weakness corrupts too! Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many. Hatred, malice, rudeness, intolerance, and suspicion are faults of the weak. Resentment on the part of the weak springs not from injustice done to them, but from their own sense of inadequacy and impotence.

— Eric Hoffer, 1980

Leave it alone

Governing a large country
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.

Center your country in the Tao
and evil will have no power.
Not that it isn’t there,
but you’ll be able to step out of its way.

Give evil nothing to oppose
and it will disappear by itself.

Tao Te Ching #60 – Translation by Stephen Mitchell

The important part is the first block. Think about it. What happens when you fry a small fish and you keep poking it? It falls apart. Or remember how your Mom told you to stop picking at that scab? And you didn’t, and what happened? It got worse, it got infected, it left a scar.

This country was founded upon “leave things alone.” Don’t tread on me. Stop interfering in people’s business. As Brian Enos said, “Freedom is letting things be.”

Why have we forgotten that?

When you remind people of that, why do so many resist it so much? Why is the response “Yeah but…”?

Life isn’t fair and no amount of effort, legislation, begging, praying, pleading, is going to make it fair. But the more you keep screwing around with things, the less you leave things alone and letting them work themselves out in a natural way (yes, that means being patient, even if it means it doesn’t happen in your lifetime), the more you’re going to risk screwing things up even more than they already might be.

Stop poking the fish.

What it feels like to be a Libertarian

Via John Stossel, an article from John Hasnas (Assoc. Professor, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University) on What It Feels Like To Be A Libertarian.

Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.

Call me a heartless bastard devoid of compassion, a despicable flack, an unthinking dogmatist, and perhaps even a member of the lunatic fringe. Call me a Libertarian. What is a Libertarian?

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

[…]

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.

Call us crazy….

New laws in effect

Being September 1, a bunch of new laws go into effect here in Texas.

Here’s the press release straight from the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Some highlights:

HB 55 makes it illegal to use a wireless communication device in a school zone unless the vehicle is stopped or a hands-free device is used. Cities or counties wanting to enforce this law must post a sign at the beginning of each school zone to inform drivers that using a wireless communications device is prohibited and the operator is subject to a fine. It is a defense to prosecution if the operator was making an emergency call.

Why? Because talking (or texting) on the phone can be very distracting and render you a more dangerous driver, less aware of your surroundings? distracted from your primary task at hand? If it’s bad enough to avoid doing this in school zones, why isn’t it bad enough to avoid doing this everywhere?

SB 129 goes into effect. I never heard of “neighborhood electric vehicle” before.

Relating to concealed handguns:

HB 2730 amends numerous provisions regarding concealed handgun licenses (CHLs), including eliminating student loan defaults as a disqualifier, to clarify that DPS must suspend or revoke a license when the licensee becomes ineligible and mandating that a magistrate suspend a CHL held by the subject of an emergency protective order.

There’s actually a lot of stuff in HB 2730.

HB 2664 provides a defense to prosecution if a concealed handgun license holder carries a concealed handgun into an establishment that gets 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages, but has failed to post the statutorily required notice that it derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages. (Under current law, a concealed handgun licensee can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor for doing this.)

This is welcome. I’ve been in a few places where I was surprised to discover a 51% sign was posted, but because it was posted improperly I didn’t learn about it until I was technically in violation of the law.

HB 2730 removes DPS authority to suspend a concealed handgun license (CHL) for the holder’s failure to display the CHL to a peace officer on demand. It removes associated penalties and suspensions for the failure to display.

I still think it’s generally sound advice that, if you’re carrying and a DPS officer requests identification (e.g. drivers license) that you include your CHL too. But the law is improved.

SB 1188 went into effect, bringing Texas out of the dark ages.

Drivers license related laws went into effect. HB 339 increases the number of hours a teenage student must have behind the wheel. I’m not so thrilled about state requirements, but to drive is a privilege. Frankly, I think the more the hours the better anyway… driving is something you need a lot of practical experience with.

SB 1967 changes things for motorcyclists. Now to obtain a “class M” certification on your drivers license you must show successful completion of a motorcycle rider safety course. I think those courses are very good things to have and data has demonstrated that riders that have taken those courses, as opposed to learning to ride by themselves or via family/friends, are safer riders. To arive alive and in one piece is a good thing. Again, driving is a privilege. The helmet law was improved; if I am reading this right, you don’t need to prove the extra health insurance and have the proof sticker any more to ride without a helmet. I think that’s reasonable, just don’t expect anyone else to pay to put your brains back in your skull if you choose to ride without a helmet.