Saturday, May 28, 2005

EUROPEAN FOLLIES

Hooray! "The leader of France's ruling party has privately admitted that Sunday's referendum on the European constitution will result in a "no" vote, throwing Europe into turmoil. "The thing is lost," Nicolas Sarkozy told French ministers during an ill-tempered meeting. "It will be a little 'no' or a big 'no'," he was quoted as telling Jean-Pierre Raffarin"

Why Europeans are getting disillusioned with the EU: "I have always argued against economic determinism in British or US politics. But that is because the British and American economies have on the whole been performing well since 1992. Europe, meanwhile, has become an economic disaster. The people of France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands may be angry about globalisation or ultra-liberalism or immigration, but this reflects a deeper malaise. Their living standards are falling, their pensions are in danger, their children are jobless and their national pride is turning into embarrassment and even shame. In sum, they feel that their countries, which numbered among the world's richest and most powerful nations as recently as the middle of the last decade, have gone to the dogs under the leadership of the present generation of politicians. And, at least in the economic sense, they are absolutely right".

Europe no model for anyone: "American progressives continue to advocate that the United States should move more toward Western Europe's larger social welfare states and greater job protections.... In the 1990s, the U.S. economy experienced a quantum increase in productivity. European investment in information technology as a percentage of gross domestic product is considerably less than in the United States and is declining. The European Commission estimates that, as of this year, labor productivity per hour in the European Union will have declined from 97 percent of the U.S. level in the mid-1990s to only about 88 percent.... European leaders have a very difficult political path to tread. There appears to be great reluctance by their publics to give up any of the security, protections and benefits of the social model. Yet without higher economic growth, the model is unsustainable. But higher economic growth requires reforming the model."

Dutch democracy?: "Sophie In 't Veld, an MEP for junior coalition party D66, explains in the Algemeen Dagblad that in the case of the EU referendum she even thinks that voting could actually be undemocratic... at least if people are planning to vote 'no'. According to Ms In 't Veld, the problem is that all 25 EU members need to ratify the EU constitution before it can come into force. So if the Netherlands turned out to be the only country voting 'no', then this tiny little blot on the map would single-handedly block the will of the others. And that, Ms In 't Veld argues, would be undemocratic... so in order to be good democrats, people should either stay at home or vote 'yes' as the government wants." (Via No Pasaran).

A market solution to Germany's 12% unemployment: "A young entrepreneur is enjoying success in Germany after developing a website that allows people to bid for work by undercutting others. He is now in talks to set up so-called "job-dumping" sites in other countries. Jobdumping.de, set up by student Fabian Loew, has been flourishing in a country where five million - nearly one in eight workers - are unemployed. The site works much like a traditional online auction site, except in reverse - jobs are advertised, and then the lowest bidder - ie the person willing to do the job for the least amount of money - wins."

Germany invented socialism: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were Germans. The Social Democratic movement that shaped the modern European welfare state also originated in Germany. Although the country profited greatly from its reintegration into the world trading system after World War II, Germany never really came to terms with Anglo-Saxon capitalism and skepticism about it still runs deep.... This new critique of capitalism recently culminated in a series of attacks by the leader of the Social Democratic Party, Franz Muentefering. He accused entrepreneurs who outsource production to low-wage countries of showing excessive greed and lack of social responsibility, and he compared the managers of international equity funds to a plague of locusts that occupy companies, exploit them, and move on after their destructive work is done. These attacks brought Muentefering vast public support... Now unemployment is Germany's biggest problem, standing at a postwar record. This alarms the public and incites anger against capitalists who do not reinvest their profits. Muentefering simply caught the popular mood in developing his theory of locust capitalism. But this useless reaction to the laws of the global market economy hides the fact that Germany's problems are largely a result of an overblown welfare state and extremely aggressive union policies over the last thirty years." [And I don't suppose that we want to draw the parallels with National Socialism do we?]

**************************
ELSEWHERE

Looks like bloggers have had another victory of a sort -- over Pepsico's egregiously insulting and anti-American "CFO". She has done a big backpedal. Pepsi should give her the sack. Or is she secretly working for Coca-Cola? She might as well be for the effect she will have on Pepsi sales.

I think this is the first time I have ever had anything good to say of Daily Kos but I loved this story of the tiny baby that was NOT aborted.

Just substitute "blacks" for "religious people" and figure out what would have happened: ""Moral retards." That's how a Brooklyn College sociologist described religious people a few years ago. And to some in New York City, that's reason enough why Timothy Shortell should not be allowed to assume the post to which his colleagues just elected him: chairman of the sociology department. Editorials and articles this week in The New York Sun and The New York Daily News have blasted Shortell as intolerant, quoted religious students as saying that they were offended by his writings, and demanded that the college do something... The essay also compared religious people to children".

Godless religion is the big killer: "Ideology comes in three colours: red, brown and green, representing Marxism, fascism and environmental extremism. Judged on sheer evil, the worst crime in history was brown, the Nazi genocide, although the reds slaughtered more people. The death toll (difficult to measure) is roughly, Hitler's holocaust 6 million, Stalin's famine and terror 8 million, and Mao's famine 30 million. But the greens have topped them all. In a single crime they have killed about 50 million people. In purely numerical terms, it was the worst crime of the 20th century. It took place in the USA in 1972. It was the banning of DDT."

Is Prophet Yahweh the most amusing con on the net? He summons up UFOs! Just the picture of him in a turban made me laugh. What is it about turbans and fruitcakes?

Gee, what a surprise! "A Muslim woman is Secretary General of Amnesty International and she introduced the instantaneously notorious report on human rights so biased against the US (calling Guantanamo Bay our American "Gulag") that no less than the Washington Post took exception to its contents and bias in an editorial. Her name is Irene Khan"

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here. And on Social Security see Dick McDonald

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"


Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************

Friday, May 27, 2005

FROM BROOKES NEWS

US economy, supply-side economics and Say's law The problem with the supply-siders is that they do not realise that their crude monetary views are dangerously subversive of free markets and that they bring about recessions for which the market always gets the blame.
Savings and money - what is the relationship? Most economists have no real idea about the nature of savings. That's why they think budget surpluses are savings.
Castro and Al-Jazeera indignant over Cuban-exile 'terrorist' Fidel Castro joins with Islamo-fascists and other terrorists while our media looks the other way
Australian economy, immigration and economic growth A great many misconceptions about immigration and the nature of economic growth abound, particularly in Australia.
The National Jewish Post & Opinion's Thought Police Self-hating Jews at the National Jewish Post & Opinion ban Arlene Peck for speaking out

*********************************
ELSEWHERE

Poor old Binning. He sent me quite a handsome apology for his abuse of me so I think he is a pretty decent sort, basically. I forwarded him the link to one of my recent posts on Majority Rights -- in which I outline the enormously unscientific way in which Leftists have "researched" the psychology of conservatism. The research concerned was summarized in 2003 by Jost et al and the summary was as unscientific as what it summarized (they only included findings they agreed with!). Binning, however, is still trying to defend the indefensible and has put up a comment on my post which summarized Jost et al as saying that “the best predictor of political conservatism is fear (death anxiety)”. Since I have done some very high-quality research (using random community sampling and proper psychometric methods) in conjunction with a very Left-leaning sociologist which showed that death anxiety is totally uncorrelated with current political attitudes, however, Binning might have to face the fact that the entire field he works in is one big con. I also sent him this link to ponder over.

More evidence that severe anti-social behaviour is caused by genes, not by "society": "Psychopaths are born anti-social, not corrupted by bad parenting, scientists reveal today. A study of twins showed that anti-social behaviour was strongly inherited in children with psychopathic tendencies. In children without psychopathic traits, being anti-social was chiefly the result of environmental factors. The findings support previous research indicating that children with psychopathic tendencies often remain an anti-social problem. Psychopaths are generally recognised by a lack of empathy and weak conscience. If a psychopath does something that hurts another person, he or she is less likely to feel remorse than other people. These tendencies are a recognised warning sign of anti-social behaviour in young children. To help identify the genetic components of anti-social behaviour, a team of British psychiatrists studied 3,687 pairs of seven-year-old twins.... The chief investigator, Dr Essi Viding, from the Medical Research Council's Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London, said: "The discovery that psychopathic tendencies are strongly heritable suggests we need to get help for these youngsters early on." The research is published today in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry."

Education matters little: "One puzzle about the U.S. economy is why it doesn't do worse when there are so many reasons that it should. Our students do fare poorly on international comparisons. In a recent study of math skills of 15-year-olds in 29 countries, done by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Americans ranked 24th. We do depend heavily on immigrants to fill science and engineering jobs. In 2000, immigrants accounted for 17 percent of U.S. scientists and engineers with bachelor's degrees, 29 percent with master's degrees and 38 percent with doctorates. And our savings and investment rates are low. In 2001, the U.S. savings rate ranked 22nd out of 25 OECD countries. The explanation is this: every complex economy is more (or less) than the sum of its parts. What matters is not just how much we save-but how well we invest. The Japanese have squandered much of their higher savings on unproductive investments. Similarly, many work skills are learned on the job... America's economic strengths lie in qualities that are hard to distill into simple statistics or trends. We've maintained beliefs and practices that compensate for our weaknesses, including: ambitiousness; openness to change (even unpleasant change); competition; hard work, and a willingness to take and reward risks. [And most education is little more than propaganda anyway. Read this]

Estate tax: "The tax cut law of 2001 included a slow phase out of the estate tax by 2010, but the tax is supposed to be reinstated in 2011 when the entire 2001 law expires. This strange political compromise on estate taxes presumably will not last, so it is a good time to consider what should be done about this tax. I believe taxes on estates should be permanently abolished since they do little to reduce income or wealth inequality, benefit a vast army of lawyers and accountants whose role is to find ways to cut taxes on the estates of the wealthy, create problems for some families with smaller businesses, and do not raise a lot of tax revenue. In April the House of Representatives rather strongly voted to repeal permanently the tax on estates, so the issue now goes to the Senate"

The therapeutic society: "Sigmund Freud's daughter, Anna, ran nursery schools in London during the Blitz of World War II. Very few of her charges needed psychiatric help. As Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel relate in their new book, One Nation Under Therapy: How the Helping Culture is Eroding Self-Reliance (St. Martin's Press), Freud found that even children who remained with their parents and were bombed repeatedly showed "no signs of traumatic shock.little excitement and no undue disturbance." What a long way we've come. Today, grief counselors rush in at the first sign of a "tragedy"-as when they comforted librarians upset over ruined books when the Boston Public Library was flooded in 1998. Sommers and Satel detail this and many other excesses of therapy in their well-researched and provoking book. They even coined a word for these immoderations: "therapism." "

Neville Chamberlain lives! "Officials negotiating Iran's nuclear future left the table in an upbeat mood Wednesday, with Tehran renewing its vow to refrain from developing nuclear weapons and signaling it will pursue talks with Europe toward a final agreement on its atomic program. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and other key European ministers met for three hours with Iranian negotiators under an implied threat that Tehran could be brought before the U.N. Security Council to face possible international sanctions over its suspected nuclear activities."

The Google cache is an amazing phenomenon. If you look here, you will find an entire blog that I deleted over a year ago. It's a bit like everlasting life! That reminds me: I wonder who posted this? The words are mine but I did not put them there.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here. And on Social Security see Dick McDonald

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"


Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************

Thursday, May 26, 2005

ARE IMMIGRANTS NECESSARY?

Lee Harris says a lot of sensible things but he seems to have forgotten his economics on this subject:

"Successful societies produce people who begin to despise hard labor as beneath their dignity. Yet since this kind of work has to be done in any society, such societies must figure out where to tap into a supply of laborers of an inferior social status, who were still willing to do such work. In all societies up until quite recently, these laborers either came from an established class of peons, whose lower status was rigidly enforced by law or custom, as in Russian serfdom or else they were imported from other lands, and were called either indentured servants or slaves.

Today we are drawing these people from across our borders. They come here quite freely, and not on slave transports. All of us reap the advantages of their cheap labor and their hard work, but many of us want to pretend that, somehow, they are not necessary to us and that we can get along without them. Our educated class has deluded itself into thinking that the problem of hard labor no longer exists, simply because they and their children don't have to do it anymore. But someone does, and always will. What President Fox was trying to tell us, in his awkward way, was that those who argue that we can get along without illegal immigrants are living in a fantasy world, and that the sooner they wake up, the sooner Americans can begin working out a realistic solution to a problem that faces both our nations."


What Harris overlooks is that the market deals with shortages by driving up prices. So all necessary jobs would in fact get done without immigrants but it would cost more. Otherwise how does Australia get by? Our immigration is controlled so we have nothing like the Hispanics. So who are the building workers in Australia? I ought to know as I have employed many of them over the years. They are people of British and European ancestry. And they may cost a lot per hour but because they know what they are doing they work fast. And housing in Australia is generally a lot cheaper than in America! Silly old Lee Harris!

************************
ELSEWHERE

Just for fun, this is the highly intellectual objection that the mini-Chomsky, Brian Leiter, has to the appointment of judges who aim to apply the law rather than make it: "This is not the only time in American history that the independence of the judiciary has been under attack. Roosevelt, too, wanted to pack the Supreme Court with ideological compatriots, but his plan failed. But we also shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Roosevelt's "ideological compatriots" were on the side of justice, not evil. While the independence of the judiciary is a good in its own right, it is an especially important good when its independence is to be sacrificed to the forces of evil. And that is what is to be decided in Washington, D.C. in the next 48 hours." [Comment would be superfluous but I would like to ask the philosophical professor Leiter how come there is all that evil if there is no such thing as right and wrong?] Link via Conservative Philosopher

Constitutionalism in exile: "Originalism isn't about returning to a particular period of time in our history or jurisprudence, or achieving a certain set of results (even if most constitutional conservatives find some of the results of liberal rulings, such as the post-Roe abortion regime, particularly atrocious). It is more concerned with process, recognizing the Constitution as written law that sets down rules that political actors -- be they presidents, legislators or judges -- cannot change on their own. It's hard to see any other approach consistently yielding fidelity to constitutional law. But the people engaged in Constitution-in-exile fretting do have a point. Liberal anti-originalist jurisprudence has effectively exiled many provisions of the Constitution."

Democrats have selective amnesia on "rule of law": "Prof. Rebecca Brown's column of May 18, 'Bid to block filibuster flies in the face of a society of laws' paints too idyllic a picture of politics and the rule of law. First, it is not totally clear that changing the Senate rules would be a violation of the rule of law. Second, even if the 'nuclear' or 'constitutional' option is a violation of the rule of law, it is not without precedent on both sides of the aisle. ... Prof. Brown also implies that were the so-called 'nuclear option' to be employed by Senate Republicans, it would represent an unprecedented power play in American politics. ... These are the same folks who stood idly by as Bill Clinton attacked Serbia without U.N. authorization or a congressional declaration of war, yet sounded the shrillest of alarms when George W. Bush did the same in Iraq."

Jeff Jacoby makes the point that blacks are told that they will fail because of racism whereas Asians are told that they will succeed via hard work. The results are predictable. The Left have a lot to answer for.

This crazily anti-American woman is the elected representative of U.S. journalists! "Foley said, among other things, that she was angry that there was "not more outrage about the number and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal. It's not just U.S. journalists either, by the way. They target and kill journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries, at news services like Al Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios, with impunity" "

Star Parker gets it: "The period of time during which class mobility in the United States has become increasingly sluggish has also been a time of unprecedented social legislation. During the last half-century, in which we've had a war on poverty, affirmative action and minimum-wage laws, income gaps have grown and the class into which one has been born has become an increasingly reliable predictor of the class in which one will die. Perhaps the chicken and egg are being confused here and the purported solution is actually part of the problem.... I would state it this way. No one can devise a formula for getting rich. But I can devise a formula for getting poor. Don't work. Convince yourself that your life reflects the decisions of others and not yours. Be the perennial victim. This is the toll that the welfare state has taken on blacks. It introduced a culture of poverty. Most Americans, regardless of race, trace their lineage to someone who was poor. Being poor is not a predictor of being in favor of government programs. However, thinking a government program is the answer to life's challenges is a good way to stay poor..... Freedom and capitalism do not reduce mobility. Mobility is lost as result of the belief that there is some path other than freedom and personal responsibility".

I have just transferred to here the latest lot of postings from Chris Brand. As usual, he has a good roundup of the various mentions of race and IQ that have leaked into the press.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here. And on Social Security see Dick McDonald

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"


Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

CONSERVATIVE POLICY PREFERENCES: MICHAEL OAKESHOTT'S CONCLUSION

I have pointed out that conservatism is primarily a psychological syndrome -- with interrelated traits such as cynicism, wariness, realism, pragmatism, belief in compromise, satisfaction with the world and willingness to accept complexity and to accept a lack of cut-and-dried solutions to problems. But that psychology does very easily lead to distinct policy preferences as well. And conservative realism about the fallibility of others does routinely lead to an unwillingness to put themselves into other people's hands if it can be avoided. In other words, it makes them seek a high degree of individual liberty and makes them distrustful of governments. There are any number of quotations showing the high value that conservatives have always placed on liberty, with Ronald Reagan having been particularly emphatic about it, but I thought readers might like to see what one of the better-known conservative philosophers had to say about it:

"Further it is said that a disposition to be conservative in politics reflects what is called an 'organic' theory of human society; that is tied up with a belief in the absolute value of human personality, and with a belief in a primordial propensity of human beings to sin. And the 'conservatism' of an Englishman has even been connected with Royalism and Anglicanism.

Now, setting aside the minor complaints one might be moved to make about this account of the situation, it seems to me to suffer from one large defect. It is true that many of these beliefs have been held by people disposed to be conservative in political activity, and it may be true that these people have also believed their disposition to be in some way confirmed by them, or even to be founded upon them; but, as I understand it, a disposition to be conservative in politics does not entail either that one should hold these beliefs to be true or even that we should suppose them to be true. Indeed, I do not think it is necessarily connected with any particular beliefs about the universe, about the world in general or about human conduct in general. What it is tied to is certain beliefs about the activity of government and the instruments of government, and it is in terms of beliefs on these topics, and not on others, that it can be made to appear intelligible. And to state my view briefly before elaborating it, what makes a conservative disposition in politics intelligible is nothing to do with a natural law or a providential order, nothing to do with morals or religion; it is the observation of our current manner of living combined with the belief (which from our point of view need be regarded as no more than an hypothesis) that governing is a specific and limited activity, namely the provision and custody of general rules of conduct, which are understood, not as plans for imposing substantive activities, but as instruments enabling people to pursue the activities of their own choice with the minimum frustration and therefore something which it is appropriate to be conservative about."


****************************
ELSEWHERE

Conservative fusionism lives: "Down somewhere in the deepest understanding of what America is for-somewhere in the profound awareness of what it will take to reverse the nation's long drift into social defeatism-there are reasons that one might link the rejection of abortion and the demand for an active and moral foreign policy.... The opponents of abortion and euthanasia insist there are truths about human life and dignity that must not be compromised in domestic politics. The opponents of Islamofascism and rule by terror insist there are truths about human life and dignity that must not be compromised in international politics. Why shouldn't they grow toward each other? The desire to find intellectual and moral seriousness in one realm can breed the desire to find intellectual and moral seriousness in another.... In the new fusionism, social conservatives and neoconservatives are not in any immediate contradiction. The wish to restore American patriotism, the struggle against abortion, annoyance at the dated elitism of an overweening judiciary, and the war in Iraq-these all seem to have become curiously interdependent issues... The goal in either case is to restore confidence in-well, what, exactly? Not our own infallible rightness, surely. But neither can we live any longer with the notion of our own infallible wrongness." [The author here seems to overlook one of the greatest commonalities between Protestant/Christian and conservative/libertarian views: Respect for the individual and the rights and liberties of the individual].

Straight talk: "Attacking US government policies on taxes, immigration and Internet access, Intel Corp chief executive Craig Barrett warned that the United States could be left behind when technology companies decide where to make their next big capital investments. With less than two weeks left as CEO of the world's largest chip maker, the outspoken proponent of free trade and low corporate taxes said in an interview that Intel could save as much as $1 billion in taxes over 10 years by building its next factory outside of the United States, in a country such as Malaysia.... Heaping scorn on policies that keep green cards out of the hands of foreign graduates of US universities and make truly high-speed Internet access a rare luxury, Barrett minced few words about his distaste for the federal bureaucracy. Turning away educated people who want to immigrate to the United States "has to be the dumbest thing in the world," he said. "We allow people in the United States who are either here illegally and at the lower level of the value-add or work-force chain - the weak, the sick, the infirm," he added. "We allow everybody in but the value-add people who have educational capabilities and the ability to contribute to the economy." "If we haven't got it bass-ackward I don't know what we're doing," he said."

Another switch: "Lawrence Davis, a former state Democratic Party chairman from Raleigh, has switched his registration to the Republican Party. Davis said he decided to switch parties because his personal beliefs on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriages and the lottery differed from the positions of the Democratic Party. "Basically, it's an effort to bring some coherence between my beliefs and my actions," Davis said. "I felt my [former] party was on the wrong side of right-wrong issues." Davis, a devout Christian, said the Democratic Party has been on the right side of such issues as civil rights. "But I see the Republican Party making some pretty good strides in that area," he said. "President Bush, whatever one thinks of him, has placed some African-Americans in pretty good positions. In the Senate leadership, we see a marked shift from Trent Lott to Bill Frist.""

A Democrat free-marketeer: "Today competition reigns in the U.S. in a way undreamed of 20 years ago--competition for markets, for labor, for capital, for time and, yes, for attention (just ask the newspaper industry). A lot of people have enriched themselves in the process, but no one feels safe from a new competitor sailing into view and sending shots across the bow, 24/7. You could argue that this free-for-all--even more than sound money and lower tax rates--is responsible for the stunning recent outperformance of the U.S. relative to other developed economies, with their more-regulated and rigid business ways. And that is basically what Paul A. London does in "The Competition Solution." But Mr. London is not, as one might suspect, another Republican acolyte. He is, according to his publisher, an "ardent Democrat," an economist who served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1997. His faith in markets reminds us why America's economy over the past 20 years, far from stalling when Democrats controlled Congress or the presidency, kept growing and even at times accelerated its pace".

Strange Justice has just put up an amazing account of crooked justice in Canada. Canadians will no longer be able to point the finger of scorn at Southern U.S. jurisdictions for "railroading" blacks. The Canadians will railroad anyone.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here. And on Social Security see Dick McDonald

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"


Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

TUESDAY ROUNDUP

Once again I list what I think were the best posts on my various blogs in the preceding week.

On Dissecting Leftism I show that conservatives are happy people

On Political Correctness Watch I note that even bread and cheese is bad for you in California

On Greenie Watch I note that Greenies claim that cooking potatoes is bad for you

On Education Watch I note that Indianapolis public schools have an enormous drop-out rate

On Socialized Medicine I note how a boy died while waiting for a much-cancelled operation

On Gun Watch I show that gun opponents are bullies

On Leftists as Elitists I show that Leftists think that they alone have any rights

**********************************
ELSEWHERE

There is a good article here on the way the media distort the results of public opinon polls -- always in the same direction, funnily enough. The author shows that filibuster and social security polls are being misrepresented at the moment. So this poll giving GWB low marks, is no surprise

Leftist professor thinks democracy is loopy: "Sunstein caused a good deal of grumbling by questioning the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade, and even went so far as to suggest that progressives should stop looking to the Warren Court and Brown v. Board of Education as their model for judicial intervention. Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, was one of several at Yale who found that notion troubling. ''There are a lot of things that can't be done through the political system,'' she said in an interview. In the 1950s, it was impossible to get school desegregation through Congress, she said. ''The idea that we would have been better off waiting is, to me, kind of loopy.''"

There is a good reprise of the Tim Russert interview with Dippy Dr. Dean here. Will we be seeing the last of the mad doctor soon?

Red Cross virulently anti-American: "According to a Defense Department source citing internal Pentagon documents, the ICRC team leader told U.S. authorities at Camp Bucca: "You people are no better than and no different than the Nazi concentration camp guards." She was upset about not being granted immediate access shortly after a prison riot, when U.S. commanders may have been thinking of her own safety, among other considerations." [The Red Cross have never liked Jews much either. They ARE European, after all]

ETS (authors of the SAT) on the slide: "ETS, it appears, actually requires its employees to "Tolerate no incidents of discrimination or harassment," "Embrace diversity of thought," and "Report cases of discrimination or harassment directly to my Strategic Workforce Solutions consultant." The point of the ad? That ETS thinks it has to meet ethnic quotas in hiring in order to make ethnic interest groups feel comfortable with the idea of taking ETS's tests. Only black test authors can write questions for black test takers. Only "Latino" test writers can pose questions to "Latino" test subjects. And so forth. Boy, is it hard. Landgraf, or his ghostwriter, wails that "In the 2000-2001 academic year, U.S. universities conferred only about 500 doctorates in educational psychology, evaluation and measurement. Of these, only 18 percent came from underrepresented groups, and included many international scholars who later returned home to take up their profession"

Another Left activist sees the light: "I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together. I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode. My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.

Shrinks want homosexual marriage: "Representatives of the nation's top psychiatric group approved a statement Sunday urging legal recognition of gay marriage. If approved by the association's directors in July, the measure would make the American Psychiatric Association the first major medical group to take such a stance. The statement supports same-sex marriage "in the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health." It follows a similar measure by the American Psychological Association last year, little more than three decades after that group removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. The psychiatric association's statement, approved by voice vote on the first day of its weeklong annual meeting in Atlanta, cites the "positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members." "

There is a good review here of Keith Windschuttle's book on the history of Australian immigration policy. He mentions what you are rarely told today -- that the main support for the White Australia policy came from the Left.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here. And on Social Security see Dick McDonald

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"


Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************

Monday, May 23, 2005

WHAT IS CONSERVATISM?

There has always been a fair amount of debate about what conservatism is. Lots of people define it in terms of a particular set of ideas (belief in individual liberty, Christianity etc.) But I don't think you can do that. As Feiling, a great historian of the British Conservative party, points out, the ideas vary too much from era to era. So I, like many past and present observers of conservatism, think that you can only define conservatism psychologically. I do think that a conservative psychology tends to lead to preference for individual liberty rather regularly and it is certainly compatible with at least some forms of Christianity but I don't think that such ideas DEFINE what a conservative is. There are many overlapping and interlocking accounts of conservative psychology but the extract from Joseph Sobran that I put up a few days ago should give you an idea of the sort of thing that I (with many others) am talking about. Below is another example -- from Jonah Goldberg. Jonah sees "comfort with contradiction" as basic to conservatism

"I mean this in the broadest metaphysical sense and the narrowest practical way. Think of any leftish ideology and at its core you will find a faith that circles can be closed, conflicts resolved. Marxism held that in a truly socialist society, contradictions would be destroyed. Freudianism led the Left to the idea that the conflicts between the inner and outer self were the cause of unnecessary repressions. Dewey believed that society could be made whole if we jettisoned dogma and embraced a natural, organic understanding of the society where everyone worked together.... Liberals and leftists are constantly denouncing "false choices" of one kind or another. In our debate, Jonathan Chait kept hinting, hoping, and haranguing that - one day - we could have a socialized healthcare system without any tradeoffs of any kind. Environmentalists loathe the introduction of free-market principles into the policy-making debate because, as Steven Landsburg puts it, economics is the science of competing preferences. Pursuing some good things might cost us other good things. But environmentalists reject the very idea. They believe that all good things can go together and that anything suggesting otherwise is a false choice....

Now look at the arguments of conservatives. They are almost invariably arguments about trade-offs, costs, "the downside" of a measure. As I've written before, the first obligation of the conservative is to explain why nine out of ten new ideas are probably bad ones. When feminists pound the table with the heels of their sensible shoes that it is unfair that there are any conflicts between motherhood and career, the inevitable response from conservatives boils down to "You're right, but life isn't fair."

Any ideology or outlook that tries to explain what government should do at all times and in all circumstances is un-conservative. Any ideology that sees itself as the answer to any question is un-conservative.... Contrary to all the bloviating jackassery about how conservatives are more dogmatic than liberals we hear these days, the simple fact is that conservatives don't have a settled dogma.... we all understand and accept the permanence of contradiction and conflict in life. Christians and Jews understand it because that's how God set things up. Libertarians understand it because the market is, by definition, a mechanism for amicably reconciling competing preferences. Agnostic, rain-sodden British pessimists understand it because they've learned that's always the way to bet. Conservatism isn't inherently pessimistic, it is merely pessimistic about the possibility of changing the permanent things and downright melancholy about those who try".


So Goldberg is very much in accord with those many prior English and American conservative thinkers (e.g. Norton & Aughey, 1981; Gilmour, 1978; Feiling, 1953; Kirk, 1993, Scruton, 2002, Standish, 1990) who see conservatism as an adaptive, pragmatic, "trimming" approach to the problems of the world -- i.e. conservatism as rational balance or the true "middle way".

References:
Feiling, K. (1953) Principles of conservatism. Political Quarterly, 24, 129-133.
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet.
Kirk, R. (1993) Ten conservative principles. Russell Kirk Center.
Norton, P. & Aughey, A. (1981) Conservatives and conservatism. London: Temple Smith
Scruton, R. (2002) A question of temperament. Opinion Journal, Dec. 10th.
Standish, J.F. (1990) Whither conservatism? Contemporary Review 256, 299-301.

********************************
ELSEWHERE

The wisdom of Dr. Howard Dean, Democrat chairman: "But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9-11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false". [Odd that Osama himself thinks he ran the 9/11 attack!]

Amazing news from Germany: Prime Minister Schroeder's socialists have just lost an election in Germany's biggest STATE and Schroeder has announced that he wants to bring the FEDERAL election forward by a year as a result. Instead of clinging to power for as long as he is legally entitled to do, he wants to return his fate to the people. I thought that sort of thing -- where moral concerns override legal powers -- only happened in the Anglo-Saxon world. It puts me in mind of the time when an Australian conservative Prime Minister (John Gorton) voted himself out of office. But Germany and the Anglo-Saxons are closely related nations and it is little more than a carryover of wartime propaganda that portrays Germans as not democratic. Even Hitler gained power by democratric means. See here for more on German democracy and here for more on Hitler's rise to power.

Justice coming in Washington State? "Prosecutors, attorneys and state officials agree that the judge who will decide whether to nullify the 2004 Washington governor's election is hardworking and fair.... On Monday, Bridges will begin presiding over a trial to decide Washington's contested governor's election, which focuses on problems involving human error in vote counting that are similar to allegations raised in the presidential vote in Ohio last year and in Florida in 2000. Republican Dino Rossi has challenged Gov. Christine Gregoire's 129-vote victory, alleging problems including illegal votes cast by felons and dead people".

There is some excellent satire here about recent anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan.

Some wise comments from 1955: "Fidel Castro and his group want only one thing: power, and total power at that. And they want to achieve it by means of violence, so that total power may allow them to thoroughly destroy every vestige of the Constitution and the law in Cuba, to install the most cruel, most barbaric tyranny; a tyranny that would teach the people the true meaning of tyranny, a totalitarian, unscrupulous, thieving and murderous regime that would be very difficult to overthrow for at least 20 years. Fidel Castro is nothing but a fascist psychopath who, in power, would make pacts only with the forces of international communism, because fascism already was defeated in World War II, and only communism would give Fidel the pseudo-ideological garb to murder, rob, violate all rights with impunity and destroy outright the entire spiritual, historic, moral and judicial heritage of our republic".

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here. And on Social Security see Dick McDonald

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"


Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************

Sunday, May 22, 2005

CHURCH ROUNDUP

Christian Left can't convince its own students: "Professor David Hoekema couldn't believe his ears when news spread in April that President George W. Bush would deliver the commencement address at Calvin College. He's thankful for the national attention focused on the 4,300-student Christian liberal-arts college in Grand Rapids, Michigan. But that doesn't mean he's happy with the visit.... Hoekema and about 100 other Calvin professors plan to publicize their protest of Bush administration policies with a letter to The Grand Rapids Press on the date of his visit, Saturday, May 21. Roughly one-third of the college's full-time faculty endorsed the letter. In addition to the Iraq war, the signatories fault Bush for burdening the poor, fostering intolerance, and harming creation..... In straw polls during the 2004 election, more than two-thirds of Calvin students supported President Bush .... significant historical and theological factors at Calvin cut against the grain of popular evangelicalism. In particular, the high-church tradition of the Christian Reformed Church looks skeptically on revivalism and independent congregationalism."

Dishonest Christian Left slimes conservative Christians as anti-environment: "On Feb. 14, the National Council of Churches issued a statement "in an effort to refute" what NCC theologians "call a 'false gospel' . . . and to reject teachings that suggest humans are 'called' to exploit the Earth without care for how our behavior impacts the rest of God's creation. . . . This false gospel still finds its proud preachers and continues to capture its adherents among emboldened political leaders and policymakers." If such a body of belief exists, I would totally reject it, as would all of my friends. When asked who believed such error, where adherents to this "false gospel" might be found, the NCC turned to its theological sources, Moyers and a magazine called Grist, which had also apologized to me. I then contacted the chairman of the NCC task force and asked him about the "some people" who believe this false gospel and the "proud preachers" advancing this false gospel. He could not name such persons."

For those who take an interest in pretend-Christians, there is a good article here on American Anglicanism's senior atheist bishop -- John Shelby Spong. Spong's "ideas" (if you can call them that) are very old stuff now. They are essentially the same ideas as those of England's Bishop John A. T. Robinson, author of Honest to God, who proclaimed in the 1960s (like Nietzsche in the 19th century) that "God is dead". Robinson thought there was a sort of God called "the ground of our being" -- whatever that might mean -- and Spong is similarly vague. "Spong" is a good name though: Spong, spong, spong, spong!

Australian Anglicans try again: "A Victorian touted as someone who could heal problems created by sexual abuse in the church has been elected as Adelaide's new Anglican Archbishop. Bishop of Gippsland, the Right Reverend Jeffrey Driver, was elected "overwhelmingly" yesterday by the 280-member Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Adelaide. After the election Bishop Driver, 54, said he "hoped to be a builder of community and bring healing" to the church... "In regard to the sexual abuse issues ... there clearly are some things that have to be dealt with. "We are well on the way to dealing with them appropriately," he said as he was driving to Orange in country New South Wales for the church's 150th anniversary celebrations. Bishop Driver was elected almost 12 months after former Archbishop Ian George was forced to resign over his handling of child sex abuse allegations."

There is a very good article by David Gelernter on the historical centrality of the Bible to Anglo-Saxon culture generally and to American culture in particular.

No mention of torture by Muslims: "In a May 10 letter to its one-million members, the president and chief executive of the United Methodist Women's Division urge constituents to take a stand against United States-sanctioned torture."

More for the Methodists to ignore: "More than 300 mass graves have been excavated in Iraq so far. The most recent discovery was made by American investigators in early May when they found a grave with 1,500 Kurdish people. Recovery and identification of Saddam's victims, however, is an arduous process. The pictures are the same no matter where you go in Iraq, whether it's the northern town of Kirkuk, Al-Mahawil near Baghdad or the Kurdish town of Erbil. People digging in the dirt with crude tools, kitchen knives or even their bare hands. The more they dig, the worse the stench of rotting flesh gets. Sobbing and silent prayers accompany the gruesome process. Skulls are usually unearthed first, followed by shreds of fabric or plastic sandals as Iraqis look for the remains of their dead relatives. Earlier this month, for example, investigators discovered a grave filled with the bodies of 1,500 Kurds in southern Iraq."

****************************
ELSEWHERE

Democrat beliefs: "According to the Pew Center, the less you like to fly the American flag, the more likely it is you are Democrat. The more you think hard work and personal initiative aren't the ticket to the good life, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. The more you believe the United Nations is a better steward of international relations, while America is a negative actor on the world stage, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. The more you believe that the government is there to help, the more likely it is you are Democrat. The less seriously you take religion, the more likely you are to be a Democrat."

Leftist misery: "Here, then, is the root cause of the Left's chronic depression and the irresolvable problem at the core of the Democratic Party: America's success is their failure. And here is the corresponding cause of the good humor and vitality of conservatives: So long as America succeeds, they cannot fail".

An illustration of what is possible: "Border agents using gamma-imaging technology on an incoming freight train apprehended two Brazilian nationals trying to illegally enter the United States from Canada, authorities said Monday. Nilson Giusti, 41, and Agiles Bezerra, 23, were found in two separate cars on the Black Rock Rail Bridge on Saturday, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Both had entered Canada as temporary visitors earlier this month."

There is a recent article in Slate by Jacob Weisberg headed "Interest-Group Conservatism" that has much truth in it -- as any libertarian will tell you. It points out the lack of interest in cutting back government that is at present being displayed by the GOP. Some of Weisberg's examples are tendentious but he is broadly right. Sadly, I think the reality is that cutting back government is very difficult to do so Republicans have decided to make the system work for them rather than banging their heads on a brick wall by trying to cut it back. The belief in government as the solution to all ills that the Democrats have fostered for so many years will be hard to wean people away from.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here. And on Social Security see Dick McDonald

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"


Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************