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 explain that Leftist America-hatred can only be understood psychologically, not logically.

On Greenie Watch I note why solar power will remain a fantasy

On Political Correctness Warch I note that an aggressive black Muslim was hired to give "sensitivity training"!

On Education Watch I note that Britain's equivalent of charter schools are making a big difference

On Socialized Medicine I note that Canada is sending some pregnant women to the USA for medical care

On Gun Watch I tell of a guy who tried to rob a ladies' beauty college but who got a lot more than he bargained for

On Leftists as Elitists I note the amazing arrogance of the French elite

On Majority Rights I tell three inspiring stories about how civil three English-speakling countries have been

On Blogger News I say why I am a monarchist

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

ELSEWHERE

The Dutch talk tough: "Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk has ordered three imams accused of being a threat to public order and national security to get out of the Netherlands. The trio have been accused of preaching a militant anti-western message at Al Fourkaan mosque in Eindhoven and allowing young people to be recruited for Jihad. They will be expelled if they do not leave the country voluntarily, Verdonk has vowed. She has given them a month in which they can challenge her order but they cannot stay in the Netherlands pending the outcome of any appeal.... The Dutch intelligence service AIVD indicated that the imams "contribute to the radicalisation of Muslims in the Netherlands", the Justice Ministry said earlier this year. The ministry claimed the imams tried to recruit, or tolerated the recruiting, of Muslims for Jihad, or holy war. They are also accused of using their sermons to urge Muslims to "isolate" themselves from the rest of Dutch society".

Republican Dan has a big post on what a disaster the recruitment of women into the U.S. military has been. Just one excerpt: "At Annapolis, a female midshipmen was allowed to graduate and receive her commission despite having refused to complete the mandatory 34-foot jump into water, simulating abandon ship, because of her fear of heights. As Stephanie Gutmann wrote in The Kinder, Gentler Military (2000) women in Army basic training often begin to cry when they have to descend from a rappelling tower, and some women are so panic-stricken that they cannot rappel at all. In perhaps the most reckless display of feminism, women are allowed to serve on shipboard even though a 1981 Navy study showed that they are not capable of handling heavy fire equipment, carrying stretchers, or advancing hose lines. Needless to say, such incompetence puts the lives of men and the safety of the ship at risk. It is an immoral thing to allow. Integration was billed as a tremendous success while men behind the scenes worked overtime to prevent its failure from coming to light".

Protests about homosexual "marriage" in Spain: "Hundreds of thousands of people led by 20 Catholic bishops and conservative opposition leaders clogged downtown Madrid yesterday to demonstrate against the Socialist government's Bill to legalise gay marriage and let gay couples adopt children. About 500,000 people chanted in favour of the family and children's rights in a march called by a lay Catholic group the Spanish Forum for the Family. Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega accused protesters of discrimination and of wanting to deny to others they rights they enjoyed. The new law "does not oblige anyone to do anything they don't want to do", Ms Fernandez de la Vega she said. The gay marriage Bill is expected to be law in a matter of weeks. It has been passed by the lower chamber of Parliament and will be voted on next week by the Senate".

Freedom requires responsibility: "During a talk with Simon Bilo, former Mises Institute fellow and one of the organizers of the conference, I was informed that the Communist Party in the Czech Republic got more than 20% of the total votes in the last political elections. It is now the second largest party in the country. I knew that Communist Parties in Eastern Europe remain a strong power and enjoy some measure of popular support. Still, it is strange. It cries out for explanation. Why do some wish for slavery? Why do people still support Communist Parties?.... When democratic or communist institutions have been established for several decades, the way back to liberty is very difficult. People become used to safety nets and responsibility shifting... But Eastern European countries have experienced in recent years the transition from irresponsible societies (under communist regimes) to partially responsible ones (under democratic regimes). From these transitions, we've learned that people cannot learn to be responsible overnight. The more a society loses touch with mechanisms of cause and effect, the more there is going to be a demand for shifting blame. This demand might take the form of votes to Communist Parties. Freedom is not easy to cope with once people have become accustomed to slavery".

Michael Darby is online again with another series of posts about Zimbabwe, global warming, Gitmo, alternative fuel nonsense and much more (PDF).

Strange Justice has an appalling story of politically correct injustice in Britain.

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.

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

SAYET RIGHT

Evan Sayet is doing a great job of showing up the follies and inconsistencies in Leftism. His analyses of Leftist thinking are in many ways spot-on. And I encourage people to have a read of his blog right now. You will note that he freely admits, however, that some things about "liberals" are just incomprehensible to him. He is not alone in that. Leftists are incomprehensible to a lot of people. And the reason they are incomprehensible is that we treat Leftists with more courtesy than they deserve. We take seriously statements they make that are not at all serious. We assume that Leftism is a set of ideas or even a philosophy when it is neither of those things. Leftism is a posture, not a set of ideas. And as such it can only be understood psychologically rather than logically. The Leftist is not at all bothered by his inconsistencies or failures to recognize reality. So to discover inconsistencies and unreality in his utterances is both easy and irrelevant. A Leftist utterance is not aimed at any sort of serious explanation of the world at all. It is aimed simply at making the Leftist feel good -- and hopefully of persuading others that he is a good guy too.

So the Leftist can quite cheerfully say that there are no genetic influences on human behaviour when discussing IQ and then go on immediately to say that homosexuality is genetically inherited ("the gay gene"). To conservatives that sounds like inconsistency and it is certainly logically inconsistent. But the Leftist isn't really bothered about logic. What he says is psychologically consistent. In both cases he is casting himself in the heroic role of the defender of the underdog.

In the case of homosexuals, the disgust that most normal people feel about homosexuality means that they will always to some extent be underdogs so the Leftist aims to show how much kinder and wiser he is by defending them. And if "they can't help it" ("the gay gene" theory) seems to be the best defence of them he will say that. But in the case of IQ the idea that there is an inborn disposition to be good or bad at solving most problems implies that people who prosper may be prosperous for a good and just reason. And that conflicts with the Leftist's desire to feel and look kind and wise by championing the poor. So in this case he has to DENY that the poor "can't help it". It sounds a lot better to say that poverty is the result of wicked and unkind people conspiring to keep poor people down. And saying that shows the Leftist as "caring" about the poor and as being so wise as to see causes of poverty that others cannot. So he denies that there is any such thing as IQ, let alone an inherited IQ. He claims that poverty is the result of "oppression" and "injustice", not of lesser ability to make good decisions in life. A century of evidence about the reality, importance and heritability of IQ does not bother him because evidence is not what he is concerned about. So let us apply that understanding to two of the things that puzzle Evan.

1). He cannot understand how his New York liberal relatives are so reflexively anti-American: But he tries foolishly to apply logic to their statements when there is no logic there. Their anti-Americanism is a CLAIM on their own behalf, not a rational proposition. It is a claim to being superior. They are in effect saying: "We are good and smart and wise -- not like all those other dumb Americans around the place". They knock Americans as a way of feeling better about themselves -- just as Europeans do. And, like Europeans, such knocking shows that they secretly fear that they may in reality be inferior. If they really were demonstrably superior they would not feel any need to put other people down.

2). He cannot understand why American Jews are so Left-leaning when the Left is so antisemitic. But again what we see there is a claim: "We are superior -- We are not like all those ignorant Goyim who infest the place". So again their anti-Americanism takes precedence over everything else. Their egos are more important to them than gratitude for the safety that only those dumb Americans give them. One should really feel sorry for people whose egos are so weak as to need propping up in that way. But I guess that thousands of years of persecution should be expected to engender some defensiveness.

Just to be totally clear, I should stress that I am above talking about Left-leaning Jews, not Jews in general.

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

ELSEWHERE

Stephen Eric Bronner is Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University. He is also the modern-day equivalent of a Soviet apparatchik. Take this bald assertion, for which not a shred of evidence is offered: "Leaders of all the "great powers" who built the postwar compact were complicit, some perhaps more and others perhaps less than their predecessors and successors, in shaping the nightmare of poverty and instability that still hovers over the once colonized world.". When Britain gave independence to its former African colonies, it handed over well-organized, stable and generally peaceful countries. Since then all of the countries concerned have descended into repeated orgies of bloodshed and violence -- with the poverty that must result from that. That was the doing of the British? And in Singapore and Malaysia, the British followed much the same policies. And those countries have prospered mightily since independence. So if it is British policies that stuffed up Africa, how come the same policies did not stuff up Singapore and Malaysia? And how come Hong Kong prospered so mightily under British rule? Bronner is a perfect illustration of how Leftists ignore any facts that don't suit them.

Are libertarians more highly evolved? "Are libertarians higher evolved politically? One California professor thinks so. In 'The People's Romance: Why People Love Government,' Daniel Klein says that humans have an instinct for big government. Klein, an Associate Professor of Economics at Santa Clara University, argues that humans have a communal urge that is an evolutionary vestige which should be discarded in favor of individual freedom. In his 50-page paper in The Independent Review, Prof. Klein quotes Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, 1776 & Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759) and Karl Marx to explain his thesis. Prof. Klein argues that people have a 'yearning for encompassing sentiment coordination.' This means that people have a primal instinct to be part of One Great Clan; we naturally want a common experience of shared values and we need 'focal points' for this togetherness, and government is a natural focal point."

An excellent article here on how the Bush tax cuts have led to a big INCREASE in government revenue. It's a plain fact but don't expect any Leftist to acknowledge it.

Some group of loopy Leftist do-gooders have just published a pie-in-the-sky "Manifesto of Wellbeing". There is a satirical look at it here.

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.

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

SOME ECONOMICS

"Unfair" dismissals help the unemployed: "First, less employment protection will mean more hiring and more firing and, hence, more job churning. For those with jobs, this may not sound like a particularly enticing prospect. But for the unemployed, it matters a lot. The flip side of greater certainty that those with jobs will remain employed is greater certainty that the unemployed will remain unemployed. With decreased hiring, those without work are likely to remain jobless for longer. Indeed, cross-country evidence shows a robust relationship between employment protection and higher long-term unemployment. Making hiring and firing easier will help spread the burden of unemployment across the workforce. Since we know that the worst results of unemployment come from the de-skilling and depressing effect of prolonged joblessness, this provides a powerful equity argument for reform. Moreover, this also yields an important efficiency argument: if adverse macroeconomic shocks cause long-term unemployment to rise, it can take decades for the economy to recover.... Research by Olivier Blanchard and Justin Wolfers finds that countries with less strict firing laws recover more robustly following adverse economic shocks. Those who benefit most from a rapid recovery are the most disadvantaged in Australian society".

Economics at work on births: "Tough child support laws may dissuade men from becoming unwed fathers, a new study shows. Researchers at the University of Washington and Columbia University found that states with the most stringent child support laws and strict enforcement have up to 20 percent fewer unwed births. Child support laws' power to prevent single parenthood is an unintended consequence of a policy designed to help children and cut public welfare costs, the researchers said Friday. "Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."

The names of Smoot and Hawley will live in infamy: "Only a few economic historians are likely to notice June 17 marks the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill.... the same kind of thinking that led to the Hawley-Smoot tariffs is still alive and well -- and in full youthful vigor -- in the media and in politics today. At the heart of past and present arguments for restricting imports that compete with American-made products is the notion these imports cost American jobs.... If 9 percent unemployment was troublesome in 1930, when the Hawley-Smoot tariff was passed, it was nothing compared to the 16 percent unemployment the next year and the 25 percent unemployment two years after that. The annual U.S. unemployment rate never got back down to 9 percent again during the entire decade of the 1930s. American industry as a whole operated at a loss for two consecutive years. Farmers, who had strongly supported the Hawley-Smoot tariffs, saw their own exports cut by two-thirds as other countries retaliated against U.S. tariffs by restricting imports of American industrial and agricultural products. The economists' appeal had warned of "retaliatory tariffs" setting off a wave of international trade restrictions that would hurt all countries economically. After everything these economists had warned of came to pass, tariffs began to be reduced. But throughout the 1930s they remained above the pre-Hawley-Smoot levels -- and so did unemployment".

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

ELSEWHERE

That pesky IQ again: "People with bigger brains are smarter than their smaller-brained counterparts, according to a study conducted by a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher published in the journal "Intelligence." The study, published on line June 16, could settle a long-standing scientific debate about the relationship between brain size and intelligence. Ever since German anatomist and physiologist Frederick Tiedmann wrote in 1836 that there exists "an indisputable connection between the size of the brain and the mental energy displayed by the individual man," scientists have been searching for biological evidence to prove his claim. "For all age and sex groups, it is now very clear that brain volume and intelligence are related," said lead researcher Michael A. McDaniel, Ph.D., an industrial and organizational psychologist who specializes in the study of intelligence and other predictors of job performance".

EU falling apart: "The EU summit to agree a budget collapsed last night amid some of the most bitter recriminations ever seen between European leaders, with Jacques Chirac denouncing the British position as pathetic and tragic, and Tony Blair describing the French defence of agricultural subsidies as bizarre."

The sick man is Europe: "That Europe as an entity is sick and the European Union as an institution is in disorder cannot be denied. But no remedies currently being discussed can possibly remedy matters. What ought to depress partisans of European unity in the aftermath of the rejection of its proposed constitution by France and the Netherlands is not so much the foundering of this ridiculous document as the response of the leadership to the crisis, especially in France and Germany. Jacques Chirac reacted by appointing as prime minister Dominque de Villepin, a frivolous playboy who has never been elected to anything and is best known for his view that Napoleon should have won the Battle of Waterloo and continued to rule Europe.... Europe, which grew rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s, before the EU got going, has slowly lost pace since Brussels took over its direction and imposed convergence. It is now stagnant".

Gitmo: "The general leading the force to free the captive enemy from the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, and inflict a humiliating defeat on the United States is so-called "civil rights" and "Constitutional" attorney Michael Ratner. It was Ratner who led the way in recruiting elite lawyers to defend the enemy combatants being interrogated at Gitmo. But Ratner is a long-time leader of two pro-Communist and anti-American organizations who have for decades have lent aid and comfort to America's enemies in the Cold War and beyond. Michael Ratner is a lawyer who began his legal career in the late 1960s at the National Lawyers Guild, a Soviet created front group which still embraces its Communist heritage"

Race card out, class card in! "Mr. Cosby is black, so charging him with the vice of racism would not work too well. It could carry no punch with which to silence what he suggested, namely, that black parents can and ought to straighten up their parental acts. Had his words been spoken by some prominent white commentator, that ploy would still have been appealing to the modern liberal establishment. Call the messenger a racist and thus squash the truth about what parents can and should do for their kids. But what to do now, when a prominent black figure delivers this piece of sensible insight? How can it be squelched, neutralized so we can keep going to government to answers? Come to the rescue The New York Times .... The problem with Bill Cosby isn't that he is white -- no, it's that he belongs to the upper black classes. The class card, thus, takes the place of the race card."

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.

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

AN EXCELLENT COMMENT ON DEMOCRAT HATE-POLITICS

"When Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said the other day that the Republicans were pretty much a "white, Christian party," I must admit I felt a guilty sense of self-recognition. He had nailed me cold, dead to rights. I looked in the mirror and confessed, "Yes, I am a white Christian, and I am a Republican."...

... and here's where Dean has overlooked something important - we were white Christians, but we were not Republicans. Republicans were mostly Protestant, wealthy and members of country clubs. We were Catholic, middle-class and Democrats. For most of my adult life, I considered myself a Democrat and voted for Democrats for president - from John F. Kennedy in 1960 to Bill Clinton in 1992. I began voting for Republican presidential candidates, and thinking of myself as Republican, only after it became abundantly clear that people with my views on abortion, prayer in school and other moral issues were no longer considered welcome in the Democratic Party. A whole lot of us crossed over, taking our whiteness and our Christian beliefs into the party of the country-club set. We didn't feel so much that we had abandoned the Democratic Party as it had abandoned us. Borrowing the spirit of the "No Irish Need Apply" mentality of my grandparents' time, the Democrats posted a "no pro-lifers need apply" sign on their party doors....

So if the Republican Party has become the "white, Christian party," as Dean charges, it's partly so because the Democratic Party has made white Christians feel so uncomfortable in its ranks. The Democrats have bent over backwards to please minority groups - blacks, gays, angry feminists and atheists - at the expense of us old white guys (and gals - yes, we're not afraid to call our wives that) who grew up not feeling guilty about being white or Christian.

Of course, Dean is also overlooking an important fact, and that is the only successful Democratic presidential candidates in recent times were two white Christian guys - Jimmy Carter and Clinton, both red-state good ole boys with Southern accents and some familiarity with Scripture. So when Dean vaguely implies that "white Christian" is a pejorative term, he's playing to a Democratic base that's growing narrower and narrower - non-white, non-Christian, non-Southern and non-winning.

As a crossover Republican, I applaud Dean's take-no-prisoners approach to distilling his party into its purest essence. Displaying barely concealed contempt for white Christians is Dean's formula for ethnic and theological purity in the party, and I say, "Pour it on, Howard!" Keep it up and the Democratic Party will be confined to a few zip codes in Manhattan, Hollywood and San Francisco".

More here

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

ELSEWHERE

Strict ethics un-German: "A German court has upheld the right of Wal-Mart staff in Germany to flirt at work, a spokesman said overnight, showing that Germany's restrictive labor laws also have their permissive aspects. The court rejected parts of Wal-Mart's code of conduct relating to employees' love lives, alcohol and drug use and a requirement for staff to report code violations via a so-called ethics hotline, the spokesman said. He could not immediately confirm the grounds on which the Wuppertal employment court had ordered the clauses to be removed for German staff, saying the judge's opinion was still in the process of being written. The Financial Times Deutschland said the court had found the clauses, including one banning "any kind of communication that could be interpreted as sexual," contradicted German labour law, in its ruling on the case brought by Wal-Mart's works council"

NYC liberals NYC's worst enemy: "Do you miss the good old days of rising crime in New York City? If so, don't worry: they're coming back - courtesy, once again, of liberal judges and limousine politicians. The mostly liberal New York media have deliberately underplayed the news that a federal judge ruled last week that city cops had violated the "constitutional rights" of "peaceful panhandlers." You know "peaceful panhandlers," don't you? All they want is to exercise their First Amendment freedom to speak and stare at you, so long as they don't actually assault you. Nothing wrong with that, right? And so justice was done, right? That's what The New York Times thinks. Its Friday headline read, "Police Charged Panhandlers Under Unconstitutional Law." So in The Times' view of the world, which is the view from the back seat of a limousine, this court ruling is a victory for the Constitution, pure and simple. And what of the commonsense right of people to walk the streets unmolested? The lead plaintiff-panhandler, for example, is currently facing felony raps for crack cocaine. So best get a limo"

Leftist-supported American eugenics outlasted Hitler: "Beneath the surface of this Southern town, with its lush evergreens and winding riverbanks, is a largely forgotten legacy of pain, secrecy and human indignity. "My heart still bleeds, and it will forever bleed, because of what had happened to me," local resident Elaine Riddick said. Riddick was one of thousands of people secretly sterilized by the state between 1929 and 1974. From the early 1900s to the 1970s, some 65,000 men and women were sterilized in this country, many without their knowledge, as part of a government eugenics program to keep so-called undesirables from reproducing. "The procedures that were done here were done to poor folks," said Steven Selden, professor at the University of Maryland. "They were thought to be poor because they had bad genes or bad inheritance, if you will. And so they would be the focus of the sterilization."... Riddick went on to earn a college degree and raise the son she had at 14. He now is an engineering consultant." [Background here]

The Leftist media don't REALLY care about blacks: "Western media generally do not cover the ongoing war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo... What the world media are missing is one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II: 3.8 million people have died in the Congo since 1998, dwarfing not only the biggest of natural catastrophes, such as December's South Asia tsunami, but also other manmade horrors, such as Darfur. With so many dying and so much at stake, it is simply astounding that Congo isn't in the newspapers and on nightly news regularly. Even a nonlethal car bombing in Iraq or a kidnapping in Afghanistan gets more Western media coverage in a day than Congo gets in a typical month of 30,000 dead. So much for the old TV news editors' saw, "If it bleeds, it leads." News editors have long assumed "no one is interested in Africa," supposing their audience sees only hopeless African problems eternally defying solution and thus not worth attention".

The latest news from the California health-nut front: Potato chips give you cancer! Is there anything that doesn't?

How embarrassing. Only an American aircraft has the range needed: "Air France has launched a second daily flight between Paris and Beijing. The new flight is operated with Boeing B777-300 aircraft, with a seating capacity of 310 and is equipped with the new Air France Travel Concept".

Amusing: My Leftist imitator seems to have lost his juju. He has not posted for nearly two weeks now. And he never did figure out how to put his archive links onto a separate page, as I do. Hint: It's really easy!

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.

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

AN UNUSUAL CLAIM FROM THE LEFT: DEATH PENALTY ETHICALLY COMPELLING

Excerpt: "noted liberal scholar Cass Sunstein, recently wrote a paper based on the findings of a research group at Emory University. The study found "a direct association between the reauthorization of the death penalty, in 1977, and reduced homicide rates," but also that "the 'conservative estimate' was that on average, every execution deters eighteen murders." Sunstein and his co-author concluded, "this calculus makes the death penalty not just morally licit but morally required." It can be expected that this report will never see the light of day in the European, or even the U.S. press for that matter."

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

ELSEWHERE

A Brit with his head firmly stuck up his anus: "Sir Gus, the present Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, said that he passionately believed that what he described as "our excellent, professional and impartial Civil Service" was an asset to the country." [One wonders how often he has had to deal with British bureaucrats as a member of the public]

Whoopee! "Jacques Chirac suffered a double blow as the EU summit opened last night when he was forced to admit defeat over the European constitution, and Tony Blair won powerful allies for his campaign to cut French agricultural subsidies. Mr Blair feared isolation in his battle over Britain’s £3 billion rebate unless there was a thorough overhaul of EU farm spending as well. But Dutch and Swedish leaders backed the Prime Minister’s call for the £600 billion budget to be reduced, and Mr Blair received a surprise incentive to stall in negotiations when the conservative politician expected to be Germany’s next leader told France to cut back its agricultural subsidies".

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day: "France opened a third front with Britain on the eve of today's European Union summit by publicly voicing grave reservations about Turkey's impending membership. The statement yesterday by Dominique de Villepin, the new French Prime Minister, increased the tension surrounding a summit that is already engulfed in bitter disputes over the EU budget and constitution. Britain has insisted enlargement will be a priority during its EU presidency, which begins next month, and will proceed on schedule.... Earlier, M de Villepin told the French parliament that the results of its referendum on the EU constitution had shown the speed of enlargement had shaken EU citizens. "We must take it into account," he said. Bulgaria and Romania should be admitted in 2007, but "beyond that we must certainly open a discussion with our partners on the mode of future enlargements". He did not mention Turkey by name but was clearly refering to the poor, predominantly Muslim country which is due to start membership talks with the EU on October 3."

Go for him! "The defence lawyer who won Michael Jackson his freedom is believed to be considering suing the Santa Barbara District Attorney for "malicious prosecution". Thomas Mesereau Jr is also said to be demanding that the defeated prosecutor, Tom "Mad Dog" Sneddon, give back the photographs taken of Mr Jackson's genitals during a 1993 investigation into abuse claims. Mr Jackson said the photographs, taken by detectives, were one of the most humiliating experiences of his life. His legal team are believed to fear that Mr Sneddon may leak the images to the public in revenge for losing the case". [The whole case was an evidence-free publicity stunt which must have been extremely distressing for a mess like Jackson]

Leftist bishop hates free speech: "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has criticised the new web-based media for "paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry". He described the atmosphere on the world wide web as a free-for-all that was "close to that of unpoliced conversation". In a lecture to media professionals, politicians and church leaders at Lambeth Palace in London last night, Dr Williams wondered whether a balance could be struck between the professionalism of the classical media and the relative disorder of online communication. ["professionalism"!! Is that a new word for Leftist sycophancy?]

Truth hurts: "Goodness gracious, she [Judge Brown] dared say it and the New York Times - the voice of collectivism in the U.S. - and all its Marxist allies are aghast. An appointee to the federal judiciary, no less, dared to describe the New Deal for what it was: a socialist revolution. For this egregious offense she must be pilloried and cast into the outer darkness inhabited by those who offend the mighty Times, whose omniscience must never be questioned and before whom all right-thinking Americans must cower in humble obeisance."

The super-rich outlook: "On Wall Street, veterans speak of "f***-you money": the nice round figure a guy needs to set himself up for life, buy (and decorate) multiple residences, create trust funds for kids, and still have enough cash to buy expensive toys and pursue new business ventures. At a certain point-somewhere north of $10 million-wealth may become "f*** you and f*** you, Republicans" money. This is the kind of cash that George Soros, Warren Buffett, Peter Lewis, and the 200 business leaders who endorsed Kerry possess. People with such sums don't need to worry about how income or capital gains taxes affect their daily lives. Raise 'em, lower 'em, who cares? They're still going to be disgustingly rich. And so they are free to devote their attention-and resources-to other areas: the environment, education, foreign policy, the Supreme Court, social issues, stem-cell research, the war on drugs, whatever. And it seems that for many of the truly wealthy, focusing on those other issues leads them to favor Kerry over Bush."

Even the pollsters haven't been able to distort this one: "Nearly six in 10 Americans think global warming likely is under way and as many accept that human activities play a significant role. But - like the Bush administration - most part company with scientists' calls for prompt government action. That lack of urgency stems from perceptions of the hazard: While a vast majority, nearly eight in 10, believe global warming will pose a serious threat to future generations, far fewer - just one-third - think it will affect their own lives. The majority who see the risk as a distant one overwhelmingly prefer more study to immediate action. The majority view aligns in this respect with the Bush administration, which has focused on uncertainties in climate science, urged further study and supported only voluntary steps"

There is a good summary of the almost incomprehensibly stupid Swedish welfare system here. Just one excerpt: "Today 62 percent of the employees in Sweden believe that it might be OK to take a sick leave even though illness doesn't stop you from working. This attitude is probably simply an adjusting of ethics to the Swedish system. What can you expect in a country where 9 out of 10 females who are living off sick leave would have less money in their pockets if they went back to their jobs?"

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.

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

Brookes News Update

The price rule will drive the US economy into recession : No economy, including the US economy, can build up masses of malinvestments without having to pay a heavy price
Free trade versus 'new trade' theory : Ernest Rodeck v free trade. It clearly escaped this man's intelligence that trade takes place because of differences in prices and costs and not despite them
How the media lies for Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, part I: The Age is once again whitewashing Fidel Castro's sadistic regime. This time it was Roslyn Guy who licked this tyrant's bloodstained boots
Murdoch journalist slimes President Bush: Stephen Ellis is a lying Bush-hating Murdoch journalist who sports a permanent anti-Republican sneer.
Summit Touts Castro as Business Partner: Exposes the stupidity of business who think they can deal honestly with Fidel Castro, a thief, a liar and a mass murderer
Child molesters running rampant in America: What should be done about child molesters?

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

ELSEWHERE

Google seems to be having problems lately. Quite a few times lately I have been unable to log onto them and have had to use clusty.com for my searches instead. And I have been unable to access my Gmail mailbox for about 48 hours. So if anybody has sent anything urgent to me via Gmail, they should resend it to my hotmail address: jonjayray@hotmail.com. Update Ha! I have just found that deleting all cookies restored my access to Gmail. That was the solution to the last bug at blogger.com too.

Another good comment on a worthless public opinion poll: "The poll of 1,003 adults, taken June 6-8, found that 59 percent of those surveyed think the United States should withdraw all or some of its troops from Iraq and only 36 percent think current troop strength ought to be maintained or increased..... Anyone with a functioning brain and a heart wants to see this nation's young men and women home safe and sound. Anyone who has ever witnessed one of those homecomings at an airport and watched as strangers applauded this person in uniform knows how very deeply those feelings run. Yes, we all want them home as soon as reasonably possible. And isn't that the key - reasonably possible? That's what polls never ask. They never ask if the choice is bringing the troops home now and abandoning a newly democratic nation to terrorists and thugs, should we bring them home now? They never ask if the choice is bringing the troops home now and leaving Iraq to once again become a threat to the region and to our own safety and security, should we bring them home now?"

This African (from Africa) author thinks that there are African solutions to Africa's problems but that they have to emerge from Africa's own traditions. But the traditions he is talking about sound a lot like democracy to me and that has definitely not caught on in Africa.

Some great quotes from Judge Janice Rogers Brown here. No wonder the socialists hate her.

More Leftist lunacy from Amnesty: "The human rights group Amnesty International - which accuses America of running a "gulag" at Guantanamo Bay - apparently aided in the escape of a key al-Qaida member who's suspected of helping plan the 9/11 attacks. Just two months after the World Trade Center was destroyed, Amnesty issued one of its "URGENT ACTION" reports on behalf of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who was then being detained by Jordanian security forces in connection with a planning session for the 9/11 attacks.... "Pressure from Amnesty and Saddam Hussein worked," the Journal said. "Mr. Shakir was released and hasn't been seen since.""

Arnie acts for real: "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday called a special election for November to try to change the way California spends money, picks its politicians and hires its teachers. He said the election would continue momentum from the historic 2003 recall that brought him to power, saying he was elected to put 'California's financial house in order and reform a government that no longer listened to the people.'"

Free speech under attack in Italy: "These are dangerous times for writers or artists who tread into the always sensitive territory of religion.... it is disheartening to see representatives of democratic government take the side of those who believe respect for religion justifies censorship. That's what happened when an Italian judge, citing a law forbidding "outrages against religion," ordered the journalist and writer Oriana Fallaci to stand trial over a book that includes provocative assertions about Islam. Fallaci had already drawn considerable ire from Muslims, and many others, over "The Rage and the Pride," an angry book written in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks in which she questioned the ability of Islam and Western society to be reconciled, and excoriated Europeans for failing to defend their culture.... Far from everyone will agree with Fallaci or with the way she expresses her opinions. But the right to make unpopular or intemperate statements is a hallmark of a free society.... Even in these volatile times, Western judges and politicians must do all they can to make it clear that freedom of expression is nonnegotiable."

Good to see that NY AG Eliot Spitzer looks like coming another cropper.

The current Leftist hysteria about U.S. income inequality: "The Trunk and I got our start in pundrity rebutting liberal critiques of the economy of the 1980s. The Democrats, frustrated by the fact that the Reagan administration's policies had restored American economic dominance by slashing inflation and unemployment rates, resorted to income inequality as the basis of their critisism. The data in our article "The Truth About Income Inequality" need to be updated, but the concepts are all there, and what we wrote ten years ago is equally applicable today. Once again, the Democrats are unable to criticize the economy on the usual grounds, and therefore must fall back on inequality, as Paul Krugman did in the column that appeared in the New York TImes on Friday. As usual, Krugman is hysterical. He writes, "The middle-class society I grew up in no longer exists" .... Underlying the invective, of course, one would usually expect to find some facts. Normally if one were to proclaim the extinction of the middle class--a surprise to the 80% or more of Americans who inhabit it--one would look for some solid data to back up the claim. But Krugman has no such data. His column is almost fact free."

I have posted here a VERY interesting account by an Iranian exile about the large-scale defiance of their Islamic rulers by the people of Iran.

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 ROUNDUP

Tuesday in the USA and Wednesday in Oz. Once again I list what I think were the best posts on my various blogs in the preceding week.

On Dissecting Leftism I put up a graphic of an original Nazi document proclaiming Hitler's socialism

On Political Correctness Watch I note a comeback for God in Britain

On Greenie Watch I note that astronomers say that global warming is a sign of a coming ice-age!

On Education Watch I note that campus conservatism is growing in Australia

On Gun Watch I note statistics showing that crime actually DROPPED afer the assault-weapon ban lapsed

On Socialized Medicine I record another horror about urgent health-care being denied in Canada

On Leftists as Elitists I note the elitism of Mao Tse Tung

On Majority Rights I summarize health and social welfare provisions in Victorian England and their lessons for today

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

Why I am sometimes a token nigger

As those who read my "Tuesday Roundup" will know, I post not only on my own blogs but also on a group blog called Majority Rights -- a blog which is often called "racist" -- though since George W. Bush is called a Nazi by the Left that could be seen as sort of complimentary. Nonetheless it is true that most of the people who post and comment there do believe that the Anglo-Saxon people have distinct virtues that should be preserved and that countries which are at present predominantly Anglo-Saxon should stay that way. There are also some people there who believe that the Jews are the root of all evil -- but that simply makes them respectable in Leftist circles these days, of course.

By and large, however, they are pissing into the wind and I tell them so. All the Anglo-Saxon countries are taking in large numbers of non-Anglo immigrants so the time is foreseeable when there will be no countries with an Anglo-Saxon majority. And there seems to be no political will anywhere to stop that process. It would seem that most Anglo-Saxons do not see it as important to retain an Anglo-Saxon majority in their respective countries.

I however am a "token nigger" on Majority Rights: I am the only one posting there who does not think that an ethnically homogeneous society is worth pursuing. I am of course most comfortable with people like myself but I am clearly less disturbed by non-Anglo immigration than anybody else there. Yet I am at the same time as pleased as Punch about my English, Scottish and Irish ancestry and am also proud of the country that my forebears have created here in Australia. And I also think it is incontestable that Protestantism has been an overwhelming influence in creating the modern world. And as I was brought up as a Presbyterian and trace all my ancestry to the British Isles, all that is easy for me to say.

And I do understand very well the motivation of the person who set up Majority Rights. He loves his English people and English traditions and I understand every bit of that. What disturbs him, as well it might, is the woes that the English now suffer as a result of past and present unselective immigration. I am in company with the vast majority of Australians in saying that only SELECTIVE immigration makes sense. And, unlike the U.S.A. and the U.K., Australia puts that into practice too. The flow of illegals into Australia has been stopped.

But I also think that the egg is thoroughly scrambled now. I can see NO way in which the "internationalization" of the U.K. and U.S. populations is going to stop. Nor will it stop in Australia. Australia's immigration selection criteria do not include race and, as a result, we are said to have a greater percentage of our population foreign-born than any other country except Israel. There is however a huge difference in the COMPOSITION of the Australian population. Where the U.K. and U.S. have large numbers of people with African ancestry, we have people of East Asian ancestry. The difference that makes is considerable, to put it mildly. I think Australia is very lucky indeed to have a large minority of hard-working, intelligent, enterprising, law-abiding family-oriented East Asians.

And that is where we part company. The others bloggers on Majority Rights and I agree that the present flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. and U.K. should be stopped but they would like to stop most legal immigration too. They would like to restrict immigration to people of Anglo and NorthWestern European ancestry whereas I -- like most Australians -- think that only individual criteria are important. I think that you can have desirable immigrants of any race.

What appears to bug the other bloggers on Majority Rights is loss of continuity and community. They feel that what they are is being lost or will be lost in the future. I do not see that at all. And South America shows why. After around 15 generations of living among a sea of blacks and Indians, there are still lots of pink-skinned people in South America. And they mostly run the place too. Although there is always a certain amount of interracial marriage, such marriages are very much the exception rather than the rule and it seems that a people who REALLY ARE genetically similar (such as people of broadly NorthWestern European ancestry) will intermarry readily among themselves while always remaining distinct from the other populations around them -- be those other populations large or small. So the loss of continuity is a paper tiger. Whatever is good in Anglo genes will survive because distinctively Anglo people will survive too. They just have to get into bed with one-another to ensure it and they clearly have a considerable propensity for doing that.

What about the loss of community? Wouldn't it be nice to live in a sort of large village where everybody is distantly related or at least very similar to one-another? Yes and No. I must admit what a relief it is when I can go into an Australian shop or cafe and speak relaxed broad Australian with the staff there instead of having to struggle to communicate with people who know little English. But as someone who actually grew up in a large village (the Australian country town of Innisfail) I know there is a downside to a village environment too. There are huge pressures towards conformity in a village and a lot of back-biting and gossip. Everyone knows everybody else's business so privacy is very restricted. And I shudder to think of the inconvenient opening hours and limited range of services (such as restaurants) that we would have without the ethnics.

So I don't think much of mono-ethnic or village-style life at all. And in a modern society we create our own communities anyway. By and large we associate with whomever we choose and if we are comfortable only with people of a similar ethnic background, then people of that background will become our community. We are no longer restricted to the community that we live geographically next-door to. We create our own communities to suit ourselves. So we in fact get the best of both worlds these days: We live in a virtual community without the limitations of an old-fashioned geographical community.

So regardless of whether the U.K. or the U.S. ever come to their senses about illegal immigration, loss of community and continuity will not occur.

And as far as crime is concerned, Giuliani showed the solution to that in NYC. It just needs good policing to control crime -- not a mono-ethnic society.

FOOTNOTES:

Someone will of course want to mock my use of South America as an example of anything. They will point to what an economic mess the place is. They are right about the mess. But that is not an outcome of non-European genes predominating there. Argentinians are almost wholly European genetically (mostly Spanish and Italian) and Argentina is as big a mess as any Latin-American country. In my view, the South American mess is not the outcome of genes but an outcome of ideology -- Roman Catholicism and Bolivarism in particular -- both of which are historically authoritarian. The abiding hero of Latin America is Simon Bolivar, the great liberator. But the ideas about government put forward by Bolivar were very authoritarian -- ideas about how the masses need to be "educated" and generally dominated by a self-chosen elite -- ideas that put Bolivar in the company of men like Mussolini and Lenin. So with Bolivarism and Catholicism dominating the culture it is no surprise that South America has for so long been ruled in Fascist style -- with all the economic failure which characterizes Fascist regimes.

And in saying what I have about Catholicism, I am primarily commenting about what the church was when it formed Latin-American culture. At Vatican II the church reformed itself along largely Protestant lines and it is my personal view (atheist though I am) that committed Christians or Jews of any denomination -- be it Catholic, Evangelical or Lubavitcher -- are deserving of every respect.

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

ELSEWHERE

Greenspan pontificates outside his field: "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself. Is that a liberal's talking point? Sure. But it's also a line from the recent public testimony of a champion of the free market". [Greenspan may know a lot about economic statistics but he doesn't know much about how the people see it]

Good man! Tony Blair is attacking the absurd subsidies that the French pay their farmers out of EU funds: "The future financing and reforms of Europe must mean fundamental changes, in particular in respect of the Common Agricultural Policy and the amount of the budget that it takes up each year."

Strange Justice has an amazing tale of crooked "scientific" evidence in Houston, Texas. And the crooks are getting away with it!

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.

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

MONEY BUYS BABIES

In my comments on abortion prevention, I have long advocated lump-sum payments for mothers. Australia is actually doing it, though the payments are in my view still to low. Even so, the policy seems to be having some effect:

"The Federal Government's $3000 baby bonus has helped to reverse the nation's declining birth rate, with new statistics revealing an increase for the first time in a decade. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show the number of babies per woman rose to 1.77 last year, breaking a forty year decline, it was reported. The birth rate is the highest it has reached in seven years and is the first time it has increased significantly since 1961 when it peaked at 3.55. The Howard Government's $3000 baby bonus for every baby born in 2004 played a significant role in halting the nation's declining fertility rate, the Australian National University's head of demography, professor Peter McDonald said. Prof McDonald predicted the fertility rate would rise to 1.8 in 2005 as the baby bonus starts having an effect. The bonus will increase to $4000 from July 1 this year".

Source

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

ELSEWHERE

I think the jury decided rightly in the Michael Jackson case. There was such as stench of corruption surrounding many of his accusers that his guilt of anything could never have been seen as beyond reasonable doubt. It's not yet a crime to be weird.

Good news from China: "A pitched battle erupted that soggy morning between enraged farmers and badly outnumbered police. By the end of the day, high-ranking officials had fled in their black sedans and hundreds of policemen had scattered in panic while farmers destroyed their vehicles. It was a rare triumph for the peasants, rising up against the all-powerful Communist Party government. The confrontation was also a glimpse of a gathering force that could help shape the future of China: the power of spontaneous mass protest"

Steyn on China: "I said a while back that China was a better bet for the future than Russia or the European Union. Which is damning with faint praise: trapped in a demographic death spiral, Russia and Europe have no future at all. But that doesn't mean China will bestride the scene as a geopolitical colossus. When European analysts coo about a "Chinese century", all they mean is "Oh, God, please, anything other than a second American century". But wishing won't make it so. China won't advance to the First World with its present borders intact. In a billion-strong state with an 80 per cent rural population cut off from the coastal boom and prevented from participating in it, "One country, two systems" will lead to two or three countries, three or four systems. The 21st century will be an Anglosphere century, with America, India and Australia leading the way. Anti-Americans betting on Beijing will find the China shop is in the end mostly a lot of bull."

Some VERY interesting history from one who was there: "Before Senator Joe McCarthy launched his anti-communist crusade in February 1950, he had not been particularly associated with the right wing of the Republican Party; on the contrary, his record was liberal and centrist, statist rather than libertarian. Furthermore, Red-baiting and anti-communist witch hunting were originally launched by liberals, and even after McCarthy the liberals were the most effective at this game. It was, after all, the liberal Roosevelt Administration which passed the Smith Act, first used against Trotskyites and isolationists during World War II and then against communists after the war; it was the liberal Truman Administration that instituted loyalty checks; it was the eminently liberal Hubert Humphrey who was a sponsor of the clause in the McCarran Act of 1950 threatening concentration camps for "subversives.""

Liberty before democracy?: "Concentrating on liberty involves a shift of rhetoric and a change of emphasis in practice. The focus of both, particularly in the wider Middle East, should be on the array of diplomatic and developmental means at our disposal to expand the range of individual rights, particularly liberty of thought and discussion; extending the rule of law; fostering religious toleration; and insuring equality of opportunity for women in politics and in the market place. Proponents of democracy promotion should not be disappointed or alarmed. One advantage to putting the spread of liberty abroad first in the here-and-now is the long-term gains it promises in promoting democracy around the globe".

A nation of assimilated immigrants: "To say America is a nation of immigrants is like saying the sky is blue. It's both true and irrelevant. Every nation is a nation of immigrants; people have been migrating across the globe ever since we left Africa. Nor did the thirteen largely English colonies mean to establish a nation of immigrants. Many did not welcome America's first large Catholic influx in the 1840s, and Emma Lazarus's poem ('Give me your tired ...') did not grace Lady Liberty until 1903. More importantly, to say we are a nation of immigrants is an incomplete truth. A fuller truth is that we are a nation of immigrants who assimilated -- who learned English, did not rely (through most of our history) on government safety nets, and sought to 'become Americans' (a once-popular phrase)."

Sowell on social class immobility: "If this is a class-ridden society denying "access" to upward mobility to those at the bottom, how can immigrants come here at the bottom and rise to the top? One obvious reason is many poor immigrants come here with very different ambitions and values from poor Americans born into our welfare state and imbued with notions and attitudes of dependency and resentment of the success of others. The fundamental reason many do not rise is not class barriers but failure to develop the skills, values and attitudes that cause people to rise. The liberal welfare state means they don't have to, and liberal multiculturalism says they don't need to change their values because one culture is as good as another. Liberalism is not part of the solution but part of the problem. Racism is supposed to put insuperable barriers in the path of nonwhites anyway, so why knock yourself out trying? This is another deadly message, especially for the young. But if immigrants from Korea or India, Vietnamese refugees, and others can come here and move right up the ladder, despite not being white, why are black and white Americans at the bottom more likely to stay 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.

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

THE LEFTIST CLASS WAR

Leftist stupidity: "Sometimes it seems as if liberals have a genius for producing an unending stream of ideas that are counterproductive for the poor, whom they claim to be helping. Few of these notions are more counterproductive than the idea of "menial work" or "dead-end jobs." Think about it: Why do employers pay people to do "menial" work? Because the work has to be done. What useful purpose is served by stigmatizing work that someone is going to have to do anyway? Is emptying bed pans in a hospital menial work? What would happen if bed pans didn't get emptied? Let people stop emptying bed pans for a month and there would be bigger problems than if sociologists stopped working for a year."

Socialist Democrats : "What is it with people that they don't understand that collectivism, in all its forms (socialism, communism, Nazism, etc.) just doesn't work? Even today, after the famous failure of communism (a form of socialism) worldwide do we see such an organization as Social Democrats USA, still promoting socialism as if it were a working system. There are many factors that doom socialism, but the main one is a complete lack of incentive. Under a complete socialist society, we are 'taken care of from cradle to grave.' Thus, there is no reason for any of us to work because we will make the same, regardless. If there is no incentive to work, most of us won't."

The inequality myth: "It doesn't come as much of a surprise that inequality is an issue that plays for Democrats. Bashing the rich is in their blood and no Democrat is happier than when he is engaging in class warfare. Consequently, it is in the Democrats' interest to play up inequality and any sign that the rich are getting richer, especially if they can show that it is coming at the expense of the poor and middle class. There is an unlimited supply of liberal economists at the University of Texas , the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and elsewhere who are eager to manipulate the data to “prove” that inequality is getting worse. The problem is that average people don't believe it. What really matters, both economically and politically, is what they see with their own eyes in their own lives. On this basis, the evidence of rising inequality is very weak indeed."

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

ELSEWHERE

Iraq is flypaper for the nutjobs: "According to the SITE Institute, a respected counter-terrorism organization, only 9 percent of suicide bombings sponsored in Iraq by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are conducted by native Iraqis. Analyzing data from a "martyrs" list posted on a Zarqawi Web site, SITE found that 42 percent of the killers hailed from Saudi Arabia, 12 percent from Syria, 11 percent from Kuwait, with the rest from an assortment of Asian and European nations. Why does it matter? Because it gives lie to the suggestion, often heard on the left, that the struggle in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. The antiwar crowd insists that American soldiers are now engaged in a guerilla war with militant Iraqis - Michael Moore has compared them to the Minutemen of our own Revolutionary War. Except now it turns out that fully 91 percent of suicide bombers are foreigners crossing into Iraq with the purpose of killing civilians. In short, terrorists. American soldiers are not fighting an Iraqi insurgency. They're fighting a terrorist insurgency. If not for jihadi nutcases pouring across its borders, Iraq would be well on its way to a stable and peaceful democracy".

Spitzer on the take?: "Spitzer insists that the standards he sets for himself are every bit as tough as those he sets for his targets. Yet an intriguing analysis in The New York Sun Friday of Spitzer's campaign fundraising suggests otherwise. The Sun noted that, even as Spitzer has cast his eye over an increasing number of industries, he has taken more and more donations from executives and lawyers in those areas. The Sun argues that Spitzer has received money from: mutual-fund executives; lawyers for Goldman-Sachs (whom the AG's office has investigated); law firms representing Spitzer's targets, such AIG, and others. The Sun deserves credit for highlighting this. Spitzer's office claims his campaign accepts no money from anyone with business before him. But if Spitzer is going to go after alleged wrongdoers in nearly every field, perhaps he needs to go further — banning even more contributions".

What really drives Democrat protests against Iraq: "Why did the Democrats support Clinton's multiple wars in the Balkans where so little was at stake and nothing to be gained, and why do they continue to employ every conceivable lie they can muster to obstruct the liberation of the Iraqi people and the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East? The answer can be found in the Democratic Party itself - dominated, as it has been for the last several decades by "multiculturalists" who believe that democracy is in no way superior to any other form of government, including fascist dictatorships. Multiculturalists believe that all people, cultures, religions and forms of government are equally good and equally right. This is why Democrats so adore the United Nations, where genocidal dictatorships and free-and-open democracies are offered equal prestige and equal power, and why we are admonished to "celebrate diversity" as if all differences - genocide and tolerance for example - are equally worthy of celebration".

Steven Plaut has an amusing list of the rules for debating with Leftists. Rule 1.: "Leftists should be free to call everyone else nasty names, because they are so moral, but no one should be permitted to call leftists nasty names"

The living poem to capitalism : "The Gazette, a business journal for the counties of Maryland surrounding Washington, D.C. reported recently that Maryland's wealthy suburbanites are driving 25, sometimes 30 miles to go, of all places, to the grocery store. They motor past what would likely be a dozen Giants and Safeways, past quirky grocers like Trader Joe's, and several other higher-end stores like Whole Foods and Harris Teeter, all the way out to Sterling, Virginia. They're going to Wegmans, a grocery store based in Rochester, New York, that's slowly spilling down the Atlantic Seaboard. In D.C., Wegmanites will battle notorious D.C. traffic, late nights (the store's open -- and typically busy -- until 1am), and lost time (a premium for Beltway types) to get there. So what is it about Wegmans that's so appealing?"

More Leftist exhibitionism: "Hundreds of naked cyclists staged demonstrations today in London and Madrid in protest against the West's dependence on gas-guzzling cars - and to push for more use of bicycles. The organisers of World Naked Bike Ride 2005 said protests were expected in a number of countries, including Australia, Canada, the United States, Ireland, Italy, Latvia and Israel. In London, crowds gathered to watch as about 100 cyclists left Hyde Park Corner on a journey that took them past some of the capital's most famous landmarks. Most of the riders had stripped naked for the 10 kilometre ride past Piccadilly Circus, Big Ben, Covent Garden, Oxford Street and the US Embassy. Some bikes carried banners reading "Oil is not a bare necessity but a crude obsession" and "Support the trade justice movement"." [In their hunger for attention to THEMSELVES -- not to any ostensible cause -- Leftists do this sort of thing often. I have recorded a few of the previous episodes here or here]

The Great CHILI debate continues with a new posting on my RECIPE BLOG

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.

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