A Practical Illustration of Poe's Law

My goodness. It's difficult to imagine condemning a phenomonon without first comprehending it. But this is Conservapedia, so rational arguments are hardly required.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

Poe's law is not aimed at Conservative Christianity - it's aimed at particularly stupid, humorless, irrational magical thinkers who, in the particular case of Poe's Law, happen to call themselves Conservative Christians.

Many Christians, Conservatives and conservative Christians facepalm in despair.

in reference to: Poe's law - Conservapedia (view on Google Sidewiki)

The Greatest Depression

I've been taking some time off from blogging because I was starting to feel like I was channeling H.L. Mencken. But I do not have a great-enough capacity for booze and cynicism, so I am but a pale imitation.

One of my problems as a writer - indeed, one of my great problems in life has always been that I have difficulty saying things I don't believe with a straight face, and the gambit of not saying much at all, while effective socially, isn't a winning formula for a deadline warrior.


I look around myself, and see great tensions and forces and people of all political stripes trying to make sense of it all in terms they are comfortable with. If there is a parallel to be had at all, they most remind me of the generals of WWI, who bravely sent their forces to die in a muddy stalemate because they could not or would not adapt to the new realities of warfare imposed by the airplane and the machine-gun.


In aid of coming to some sort of personal understanding of our times and my place in them, I've just read "Original Blessing" - the Matthew Fox classic of theology - which came recommended to me by an Anglican student of theology, and I give significant weight to the fact that it got Fox ousted from the ranks of Catholicism by Ratzi himself. It was written in the 80s and to me says nothing very controversial at all.

On the other hand, if there is a name for what I am, in terms of faith, it would be a Christian Mystic. As I'm anti-authoritarian in matters of faith and politics alike, well, I understand why I found myself rather bored by arguments that seemed obvious, buttressed by examples I thought spoke rather better for themselves in full context. I suppose it says rather a lot that one needs to be a theologian to say such things out loud and be taken seriously and rather more that one could be ejected from the church for fairly much saying "Me Too" to the essential insights of Julian of Norwich, Meister Eckhart and Jesus - but then, I've always figured the red letters were pretty clear. I've never really sought out any official endorsement of the obvious, any more than I would need a climatologist to tell me that the sky is blue and clouds are white.

I learned two things of importance from this book:  First, that the biblical word that is translated as "faith" would perhaps be as well translated as "trust" - and that for the sake of getting published, it's not what you know ... it's Who you know.

Seriously, it's the most awful book to read - but read it you should. Consider it a penance.

And then there was a small, obscure history, "Red Lights on the Prairies," a yellowing paperback I found in a church thrift-store basement written about the history of prostitution in the Canadian West.

Oddly, both books speak a great deal of the distinction between ethical behavior and the imposition of arbitrary moral order - and how difficult it is to make everyday practical distinctions between the two, much less foresee the social consequences of mistaking moralism for morality. There are certain things about human behavior that are givens, and whatever you make of them, for good or for ill, they will  happen regardless of how loudly you yell or how hard you hit.

If you ever want to understand why "harm reduction" is good public policy, read this book. When young, horny, physically active men outnumber women three to one - an outlet will be found. Best be sure it's not through your own sense of propriety.

People don't stop doing what they do just because you tell them it's wrong and will hurt them if they don't obey you. They just lie about it, while siezing upon the greater profit margins enjoyed by criminals and the lower standards accepted by those resigned to having to resort to criminal sources. Moralism, it illustrates, is a pretty poor excuse for not doing the right thing.

Those who yammer on about the need for a new moral order in politics while behaving in ways that demonstrate they couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong if it stepped on their face are... well, they are nothing new in the world. That's the Greatly Depressing thing.

For a bit more context about why war cheerleaders are so eager to demonize efforts to generalize lessons from Nuremberg, see this passage from Nuremberg Diary by G.M. Gilbert, the American prison psychologist at Nuremberg who wrote the following as part of his account of an interview he did (one of many) with Hermann Goering  on April 18, 1946, in Goering's cell (pp. 278-79):

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don’t want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare war."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.  It works the same in any country."

There is always some charismatic idiot who realizes that the fastest route to personal power is to gather a bunch of authoritarian followers and convince them that all their problems can be blamed on "those people" - people so morally deranged they will surely go to hell, and might even be so depraved as to vote for the other candidate. See above - or just turn on your television.

Now, if you delve into morality as stated by those for whom the morality of other people is a matter of great imporance, you will find that purity and impurity; the politics of disgust are rather more pressing to them than a working, just, functional society of the sort advocated by Jesus.

Mind you, Jesus said all kinds of awkward things, and it got him nailed to a cross during his lifetime.You don't have to be trained by Jesuits to realize that the Crucifix at the front of the church is intended as much as an object lesson as an inspiration.


The lesson of history is that rounding up those people really does little to address structural inequities or the root causes of ... well, anything. It does, however, nicely address the cash-flow issues and power needs of people who make the cattle cars and the tools to blow shit up, and employs many in the process of rebuilding after the blowing up is done and the bodies are buried. So, what are a few niggers, spics, paddies, kikes, gypsies, kulaks, pinkos, picts, scotti, imperialists, faggots or towel-heads whining about, in the face of such great social good and moral order? Someone has to be in control, or all will be chaos!

That's not just sacasm - it's an important thing to realize; that the need to control others comes as much from fear as from greed. Indeed, I think that the "lesser," or at least more socially acceptable sins of lust and greed are more agreeable excuses for the need to have power over others. Much of the time, for many people, it seems to be much more a visceral, incohate fear of what would happen if "those" people were allowed to "do their own thing."  


The great problem of times such as these (and if you look back, it always seems that to some degree, it always is a time like this) - the people who know enough to know they aren't fully competent for the task stand back - leaving a path to apparent greatness yawning for some fearful and witless incompetent who's quite sure they know how to fix a complicated and delicate situation with some combination of brute force and ignorance.

And in a sense, it does work. It generally results in a transformation - because the idiot succeeds in breaking things badly enough that there can be no serious argument over the need for a new system. Take Mao's Cultural Revolution. In a bass-ackwards sort of way, it actually did work. Or, more than likely, it worked out as it had to work out, quite aside from the marching and waving and credit-taking. Shit rolled downhill, as it tends to do, and Mao was clever enough to get behind it and cry out, "See, this is what I've done!"

But then, I'm a cynical man. And quite frankly, that's rather more than most people do, for good or for ill. An honest record of the man and his times will record that there was rather a lot of each, and when possible, he did bias toward the good he understood, and avoided the bad things that he could foresee. Like all great leaders, he benefited from the loyal efforts of those who were rather better than he honestly deserved for the pay he offered.

But that is not the role of one such as myself, and I think I sleep better for it.

I've long since decided that I am unlikely to be able to affect much change from within. Consider the object lesson of Obama. If he ever was sincere about effecting the sorts of change needed to avoid some form of transformative catastrophe by working from within - he's clearly found out why that almost never happens.

An era is ending, and it will end. It has nothing whatsoever to do with nations, or politics or faith. It has to do with change. Not change brought to washington, or change that can be forestalled by an election for a few years - we are dealing with changes in energy generation, changes in trade, changes in weather, changes in economic realities, changes in the importance of various core goods and services and almost none of this can be changed from Washington, Paris, Bejing or the United Nations.

We can, at best, adapt with some grace, perhaps a bit better than did the Neanderthals, hopefully with more grace than the Church did, faced with the Enlightenment.

But I wouldn't bet against stupidity.

Obama  is strapped into a socio-political space shuttle, along with everyone else. Now, it will cease to be airborne one way or another, and rather soon. The philosophy of piloting ain't going to make a hell of a lot of difference, but competence will. And that goes to some practical understanding of why things fall, and how you can affect where they land.

Ethics - and most of life, if you want to live through as much of it as possible - deals with an appreciation of cause and effect in human terms. In terms of the current situation in world affairs, instead of looking to Glenn Beck for advice - look to the people that Glenn Beck advises. Then if you live in an area where such people form a majority and control your government, sell them your basement as a food, weapons and gold cache location and hie thee hence, for when the levees break, they will be arguing as to who's fault it was, or whether the rescue effort should concentrate on "good" or "bad" people rather than getting on with the job at hand.

It's not that emergency preparedness is a bad idea. But when it comes at the expense of preventing the disaster in the first place, well now. Then I have a problem. You prepare for unforeseeable emergencies. The foreseeable ones, those you fix, or you avoid.

You can predict a great deal about how people will deal with a large crisis by seeing how they react to a small one.

Those who tend to assign blame, deny factual information that contradicts their world-views; those who indulge in obvious hypocracy, those who cannot manage to get through an entire paragraph without tripping over their own cognitive dissonance - well, it doesn't matter what "philosophy of governance" or religious faith they claim to share with you, because even if they understand it as well as it may appear, they couldn't apply it in any useful way when the bolts come loose.

You see, at the end of the day, the whole point of the exercise is ensuring that life goes on, and if your way of securing the future for you and yours depends on denying a future to them and theirs, sooner or later there will be a reconing and the outcome will come down to raw numbers.

If less than 20 percent of the people control more than 80 percent of the wealth - you don't need a spreadsheet to see where this could lead. 

Well, in point of fact, that wealth WILL be redistributed. Regardless of what I think of it or what you believe, regardless of any question of justice or fairness, that's simply going to happen, by one means or another.

There's too much water and not enough dam.

Whether or not social justice occurs will likely be a question of local circumstance, dependant on many factors. But for most people in most parts of the world, the obvious question is this - is there any reason why I should care if those people live or die, if I should pay one more penny to fuel their yaughts?

And in point of fact, in order for that amount of wealth to stay that concentrated; a great deal of people need to shrug and not begrudge the few grains it takes from their ricebowl.

Andrew Shirvell interview provokes many questions.

Many of the questions are really quite obvious, such as, how is this man not fired yet?  Here's the story link.

"Welcome to 'Chris Armstrong Watch,'" Shirvell wrote in his inaugural blog post. "This is a site for concerned University of Michigan alumni, students, and others who oppose the recent election of Chris Armstrong -- a RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST, RACIST, ELITIST, & LIAR -- as the new head of student government."

Among other things, Shirvell has published blog posts that accuse Armstrong of going back on a campaign promise he made to minority students; engaging in "flagrant sexual promiscuity" with another male member of the student government; sexually seducing and influencing "a previously conservative [male] student" so much so that the student, according to Shirvell, "morphed into a proponent of the radical homosexual agenda;" hosting a gay orgy in his dorm room in October 2009; and trying to recruit incoming first year students "to join the homosexual 'lifestyle.' "

Cooper was rather gentle with the poor, deluded fellow, when I'm sure that in the back of his mind he just wants to grab him by the tie and drag him out of the closet, kicking and screaming.


Because, Andrew, darling... the MOST obvious question is this - are you in conscious denial that you are gay for various pragmatic, political and social reasons, or is it more of a delusion?

There are many excuses for being this obsessed about a dimpled cutie like this.

Goodness, dear, the photos you took of him - you never once show an unflattering photo. He's got big ears, a bit of a tummy and doesn't spend enough time on his hair,  but your photography belongs in a shrine, the graffitti notwithstanding. 

But, well, that's really just "first amendment protected speculation" of the sort Shirviell indulged in on his blog, before he made it "invitation only." A bit late, that...

One wonders what close circle of jerks are welcomed there, and one does hope that at least one is aware of what the terms "actionable statements," "bringing the profession into disrepute," and a few others. One DOES hope that at least one person reviewing the blog and other public statements made by Shirviell are by an experienced lawyer actually qualified to practice before the Michigan bar. The first rule of patronage appointees, Sir; strive NEVER to embarrass your patron.

It's not that you are a prig and something of a prick, Mr. Shirviell. It's not that you are something of a judgmental tool. It's not your moralism or your homophobia. The issues are, sadly, more foundational than that.

 The important questions are the ones that Shirviell should have asked and answered for himself before well, certainly before trying to defend himself in the court of public opinion.

Like, say, how will this reflect on me and my elected boss?

There are some private opinions one may hold as a public official that, well, if they cease to be private, raise questions about your understanding of what your public duty is.

Cooper underlined this painfully by simply asking  the assistant Attorney General of Michigan, an officer of the Court and one generally expected to have a broad familiarity with the state of civil and criminal law in his jurisdiction, whether or not his blog met the criteria for cyberbullying as defined by the State of Michigan.

His answer - or rather, his non-answer - was not so much an attempt to dodge a concern he was aware of, it was a revelation that it had never occurred to him. Clearly in his mind there is a "queer-bashing" exception to that definition.

Now, that speaks to him as a rather small and not terribly intelligent person, and he's certainly an embarrassment to people of the faith he claims to share, but that's really not the problem. As an assistant attorney general, one might reasonably expect him to find himself dealing with civil rights cases, harassment and bullying cases and, well, employing "Prosecutorial Discretion."

When you get destroyed on cross by a journalist - well, there are many people that reflects on, whether or not you "choose to comment on matters related to my employment." Any lawyer should realize that a refusal to comment IS a comment. Cooper surely does.

And that comment reflects on those, sir, who thought you were qualified to have a law degree, it reflects on your Church, it reflects on other, less rabid homophobes family values advocates; it reflects upon your boss, the office of the Attorney general, it affects the chances of your boss being re-elected and any ambitions in that direction you might have had. It raises the question as to whether your particular brand of social conservatism respectable or appropriate in a public official.



Oh, and one final note:

After allegedly stalking and harassing Armstrong outside his home, Shirvell, a University of Michigan graduate who cited pride in his alma mater among the reasons for attacking the student body president, was banned from the Michigan campus on Sept. 14 by the University's Department of Public Safety.

There's a bullet point for the resume, Andy me lad.

Huckabee at the Values Voter Nadir

Mike Huckabee Sums it all up:

"It sounds so good, and it's such a warm message to say we're not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition," Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. "Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no preexisting conditions."

I find it hard to summon up an intelligent counter-argument. It's so utterly morally bankrupt, particularly from a man of such conspiciously public "faith" that the most cogent thing I can say is "drink bleach and die in a fire."

Because, well, that's what he just said to you and yours!  So while it may be rude on the face of it, well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Denizens, Attention!

Denizens! Attention!

This is one of my favorite graphic novels at the moment. Noir enough for my taste but with an edge of hope - or at least anticipation.

I don't generally feature graphic novels and comics here - I don't know why not, but I don't. But today I'll make an exception that becomes a new rule. Because frankly, good art outlasts bad politics, and generally it doesn't make me want to punch my monitor. Lesya herself seems far more interesting than Gordon Campell.

Name: Lesya
DOB: October 1st, 1986 ..

well, i was born in Kiev, Ukraine. then we moved to America when i was 8. so i have lived and went to school in Sacramento, California. been through a few states but lived always in Sac. did not like Sac at all.
and then we moved back to Ukraine, which is where i am now.

so English is my 2nd language(or 3rd if you include Russian) i cant spell properly to save my life, but i'm fluent in English. more so then in Ukrainian or Russian. i mean i read like mad, i ought to be.

    if you want to find more art and such by me, check out my Deviant art page.

Speaking of monitors..

i really hate to do this, but right now i have no choice. my brothers monitor died. so we put his computer next to mine and we my monitor. its bigger and better and used to be his. he gave it to me. and for a gamer, thats big.

so we need to buy him a new one. because we cant keep sharing. but right now, we are in a very low money situation. so i'm looking for help. i wont ask you to donate. i dont feel comfortable with that, but would anyone like a commission? help speed up my updates? =) they are not at all expensive, and it would help out a lot!  i could draw you as your fav video game character, or villain. anything really. 

 The opportunity to become a patron of the arts is nigh-irresistible - particularly when it's inexpensive and makes a difference. If only I wasn't down a computer and a monitor myself at this very instant - for I'd absolutely love an original piece by Lisya.

Mr. Dawkens is wrong in the right way.

Do please watch this video in which Richard Dawkens (The God Delusion) affirms that his sect of Athiesm does indeed reject the idea of an "absolute morality" and is, indeed, rather alarmed by the whole thing. 


He then goes on to establish that most people of faith reject many "moral standards" and social norms that are stated in the Bible - slavery and stoning adulterers, for example. He's entirely correct, so far as he goes... Please watch the video, and I'll get into the "however" of it after the jump.

Let Them Stand In All Their Awesome Majesty

Courtesy Derp.com

I just noticed I hadn't posted here for several days. It's not because I haven't been blogging; I've been writing at Politicususa. It's a very liberal blog and I'm trying to be the moderately profane voice of reason.

Aside from that, I'm still recovering from a move and that always leaves me flatter than a pancake for several weeks. But I have been paying attention to the news, and a number of things have struck me as being worth making a record of, as timeless indicators of our time. In other words, if I need to explain the following links, I'm not sure it would be worth the time it would take me to write, or you to read.

So Let These Stand In All Their Awesome Majesty

Radicals behaving radically...

"UNBELIEVABLE - Don't you people understand this is just what everyone expected and were waiting to happen!!!," one upset tea partier commented to Cucci's post. "Now everything we have fought so hard to accomplish will be wiped out by one headline 'Tea Party in Maine Eats It's Own'"

None dare call it "Jesuetical."

A Catholic "scholar" attempts to create an algebraic proof of the inferiority of homosexual marriage. 

E=MC² is a liberal conspiracy to promote "relativism", according to a Conservapedia entry.

In the entry, "Counterexamples to Relativity," the authors (including Schlafly) write:

The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1]

To what does that reference lead? Why, a note by Schlafly:

See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by Barack Obama. Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold

Meanwhile, somewhere on the Road To Damascus...

"How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."

Bob Inglis Regrets the strategy now...

GOP Politician Confirms What Was Long Suspected: Republicans Intentionally Feed the Racism, Anger, and Paranoia of the Far Right

And then there was the digg censorship scandal and the increasing drumbeats for war against Iran, against all common sense and military wisdom.

I picked these links more or less at random, from things I'd dugg and stumbled. They all go to illustrate why for a while, the very idea of writing a coherent post on why any or several of these things are Bad just makes me Too Tired.

Ignatieff - "In the middle of the word accountability is the word count"

Michael Ignatieff is making a damn solid point. It's the sort of point a conservative leader should be making; that your government is only as good as the data it has on hand... unless of course you are governing to American Conservative standards, where "post-modernism" and wishful thinking have taken the place of facts.

The allergy of the modern Western Conservative to facts in evidence is akin to a virus, and it's spread, methinks, by the like of Rupert Murdoch, who's propagandist organs are waved in our faces daily.

God forbid a government should actually do some hard science to find out what it's citizens, it's small business communities, it's regions and it's future require in terms of sensible and sustainable public policy. That sounds like something that notorious communist, Barry Goldwater might say.

Chromefishtians: It's nice when you can see them coming.

I disapprove of chromefishtians.
I call them that to set them apart from people that have read, understood
and follow the things Christ actually said.

H/t William K. Wolfram

To paraphrase Louis CK – it’s true, people are just different in Oklahoma.

Yep, I do adore it when people who stand foresquare against doing one single damn thing Jesus ever said to do, in regard to the poor, the suffering, the orphan, the widow and the stranger at your gate promanently label themselves so you can quietly choose to do business with someone reputable.

Crisis In the RCMP: A Musical Run-around

A Canadian Icon, the world around. Photo Credit: Mrs Logic

The RCMP are not just a police force. They are an iconic organization, inextricable from our collective identity as Canadians. 

We expect them to do far more, with far less, with more scrutiny than others and we expect them to do all this while serving as one of the great symbols of our nation. 

The great difference between police in other nations (and indeed, even other Canadian police forces) and the RCMP is that to some degree, people think of police in general as "them," while somehow, the RCMP are seen as "us."

Astonishingly, this works. More often than not, members of the RCMP live up to this impossible standard with elan. And while everyone knows it's an impossible ideal, that could only be achieved in film and story... it's amazing how far trying can take you.

So, when the RCMP fucks up, when it's members do things that are very much beneath the standards of outcome that we expect... well, if you happen to be an American... imagine having your flag spit on you!



We. Are. NOT. Pleased.

This leads me to a couple of open questions which seem to be illustrated by problems within the RCMP. There do seem to be long-standing issues that needed to be addressed. But things are clearly becoming worse, rather than better and that the result of the Steven Harper Government and it's Authoritarian brand of Conservatism, a philosophy which seems more and more radical and autocratic as each day passes.

You see, in Canada (and I would like to think that would be true in all civil contexts), respect is earned, authority is granted to the able and worthy; trust is cultivated and traditions that maintain and enhance trust in institutions that are worth trusting are diligently maintained and preserved.

Progress in all realms, social and political, is made by building upon foundations well-laid in the past. The RCMP are one of our cornerstones. There is more than a little concious myth-making involved here. These are the stories we tell each other that state who we are as a Nation, as a People, as Canadians. It is what we want our children to aspire to. It is an example we strive to live up to. It speaks to us of our commitment as a people to what outcomes we expect.

We do not wish to have an adversarial relationship with our police, nor may they ever become the iron fist of autocratic power.

Peace. Order. Good Government. THAT is our ideal. There can be no peace, order or good government when government sees itself as above their fellow Canadians, indifferent to their welfare and without need of their good will.

So when a civilian bureocrat is appointed as the "top cop" by a Canadian Prime Minister, you would reasonably draw a number of conclusions.

First, that the institutional structure of the RCMP is considered to be part of the problem, and that "fresh eyes" are in fact honouring an exception to the rule in the breach of it.

And second, despite his outsider status and perspective, that person would be selected due to being an exemplar of the values we hold; someone who was willing and able, conciously and tempermentally, to earn the trust and respect of this iconic force. Someone extraordinary, in other words, with the skills, perspectives and background to bring such an important institution back on track.

Well, no such luck there. The CBC reports:

Senior RCMP members have complained about Commissioner William Elliott to some of the highest levels of the federal government on two separate occasions in the past seven days, CBC News has learned.

Senior RCMP members have complained about Commissioner William Elliott to some of the highest levels of government on two separate occasions in the past week. (Canadian Press)
The complainants, possibly as many as 10, include some of the force's top officers, including deputy commissioners Tim Killam and Raf Souccar.

They have accused Elliott of being verbally abusive, closed-minded, arrogant and insulting. One complaint described Elliott, who became the first civilian to head the Mounties in July 2007, in a rage, throwing papers at another officer.

The Prime Minister's Office didn't deny the complaints were made but declined to comment Monday. Neither Elliott nor the deputies would comment.

"The RCMP is a very hierarchical organization, where people respect the rank," said Linda Duxbury, a professor at Carleton University who wrote a study on the Mounties and their command.

For members to go outside the force with "a complaint against the head of the RCMP means that many people have been pushed beyond a point where they're willing to tolerate it," she said.

Fate rests with PM

The apparent protest against the commissioner comes a month after Canada's top spy, CSIS director Richard Fadden, made comments to CBC News that the agency had two provincial cabinet ministers and a number of municipal politicians under surveillance for their relationships with foreign governments.

Both Elliott and Fadden were appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and their fate rests with him. The CBC's Brian Stewart, who has followed the Mounties for decades, said the RCMP protest is unprecedented.

Harper will have to sort out whether this is a valid protest by top RCMP staff or whether Elliott has made a lot of enemies trying to reform the organization, he said.

"That's what the prime minister is probably going to have to sort out very quickly and then decide, I think, which force is going to have to go: either the commissioner or the group protesting against him," Stewart said.

Now, I'm sure there are many problems and I'm equally sure there is more than enough blame to go around. However - and of all people, Mr. Harper should understand this - how you go about dealing with a problem, and how your approach is perceived by the people and institutions you see as being problematic may well make it impossible to do anything useful whatsoever.

Further, I think it a fair observation that, given the nature of Mr. Harper's missteps, his vision of what Government is and who it is intended to benefit is to some measure divergent from the ordinary Canadian. In particular, his repeated Prorogues of Parliament have been seen, by this writer, at least, as an unwillingness to be held to account.

This leads me to suspect a lack of accounting skills as well as a willingness to be seen as a cheat, so long as the cheat happens to work for a while. A man, in other words, unwilling or unable to live up to the expectations of his station. Not a leader, an overseer. Not an authority, but an Authoritarian. One who expects the tug of a forelock as his due.

I'm starting to think of Mr. Harper as being not so much a bad Conservative as a moderately decent Republican, sharing the general Republican distaste for a government that might inconvenience powerful sponsors and donors.  He seems willing to advantage cronies and the like-minded without any regard to an overall understanding of or respect for our traditions, our history, or the rather marvellous and beautiful place that Canada has become. And his response to criticism is at best evasive, and at worst amounts to, "oh yeah, whatcha gonna do about it?"

Canada became what it is despite people like Steven Harper. I very much do not wish to see us go down the path our southern cousins have taken, where the mere suggestion that the fortunate have some investment in or measure of duty toward their less fortunate neighbours is assailed in terms so ugly and intemperate that I can barely abide reading it. What decent person would wish to live in a society defined by the Sarah Palins and Andrew Brietbarts of this world, who think of these reprehensible and uncivilized persons as exemplars of citizenship? How could you be comfortable with any end that could be achieved by such means?

No doubt the lure of power without the need for proper accounts of it's use is tempting. It is ever so much easier to rule a people who see the abuse of power as being emblematic of power, and wish you to do more of it on their behalf, in order to justify their own lack of character.

To me, I'm reminded of people who spend twenty or thirty thousand dollars "investing" in a commercial grade kitchen, to be used only for microwaving hot-pockets and noodle cups. I'm not interested in voting for a man who's every ambition is fulfilled by being called Mister Prime Minister and who will consider his legacy complete by having had the opportunity to repay a few old grudges or engage in some theatrical warfare. There must be a substance evidenced by the appearances - and I do not believe our current crop of Conservatives understand as a party that there is a distinction to be made there.

But that brings me back to the RCMP an institution that is entwined with our entire concept of the rule of law and our high expectations of ourselves. We need them to find themselves again, for their loss in that regard is ours; clearly, we need a leadership that actually understand how and why our nation has been governed as it has long been, and to what ends and to what ideals and for who's benefit that governance is each Canadian's rightful due.

We have no need and will gain no benefit from a slavish imitation of how things are done by a rulebook written in a borrowed stateroom of a yacht owned by some US Neo-conservative think tank. A man who would be welcomed at the C-Street Church has no place within any proper Canadian political party.

I anticipate the next election with no little pleasure.

Glenn Beck, Goldline, Fools and their Money

Never Give a Sucker an Even Break

The title is derived from lines from

two earlier films. In Poppy (1936),

he tells his daughter, "If we

should ever separate, my little plum,

I want to give you just one bit

of fatherly advice:

Never give a sucker an even break!"

In You Can't Cheat an Honest Man (1939),

 he tells a customer that his

grandfather's last words,

"just before they sprung the trap" were,

"You can't cheat an honest man;

never give a sucker an even break,

or smarten up a chump."

"Never give a sucker an even break." may well have been my father's motto, and it evidently is Glenn Beck's. It strikes me as odd how much the two of them resemble each other - and W.C. Fields.


The infographic below gives a simple and brutal explanation of how Beck's confidence game works. It's one of the oldest scams on the books, and I learned it at my father's knee.

• Convince the audience that there's an urgent need or crisis they were unaware of. 
• Assure them that only they are lucky or smart enough to hear of this dread condition, that is is being concealed, suppressed by means of conspiracy or ignored by "the ignorant and easily led."
• Produce some glossy hype that shows, beyond doubt, how this particular nostrum will grow your hair, clean your oven, boost your libido and attract a mate, all without needing to wear gloves! You don't even need to think about it, the benefits are so obvious!
• Convince the mark that the matter is so urgent and the need so great that they cannot afford to wait, they must call that number right now.
• Try to find an "intangible" value that a court can not convict you of misrepresenting. That is to say, it would be fraud to sell 100 dollars worth of gold for 300 dollars as a good investment. But "investment grade collector's coins" have an intangible value that is defined as what the buyer is willing to pay.

Infographic by The Big Picture

That's a point brutally made in the infographic - and it's a point authorities seem willing to debate in front of a judge.

"Goldline International is under investigation by the Santa Monica City Attorney’s office, jointly with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, as well as being the subject of a separate investigation by Congress into the possible criminal practices. The firm has been the subject of an ABC Nightline News Exposé, as well as an investigation by NY Congressman Weiner).

Goldline is not selling gold bullion. It's selling gold coins with some (debatable) collector's value, at a mark-up that would make an ordinary coin dealer gape in envy.

When the Zombie Apocalypse comes and you need to barter gold for food and shotgun shells - nobody will give a damn about the collector's value of your gold coins. They will want to know what it's purity is. And for that, dear people, you want to buy Canadian Maple Leaves or Credit Suisse bars at an reputable gold brokerage, assuming, of course, you credit the idea that an ounce of gold is likely to be worth as much as a case of whiskey or a box of shotgun shells.

Me, I'd hedge my investments with a solar power rig and a "ethanol fuel distillation apparatus," if you take my meaning. After the Zombie Apocalypse - well, the BATF will probably have it's hands full.

Mind you, I really have little sympathy for those making investment decisions on the advice of a known and famous liar.

W.C. Fields was right as far as he went, but my father was of the opinion that sheering such a flock was almost a civic duty; that it was the only way to "smarten up a chump."

But he married a chump, and she never did. She would just move on to the next confidence man, thinking each one in turn would have the Instant Answer To Everything. And were she alive today... she'd be telling me all about how I should be buying gold, to hedge against the inevitable decline of the communistic fools paradise I live in.

I think it wiser to vote for "someone smart."

Does Steven Harper gets his ideas from Glenn Beck?

How to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less

Want to annoy Fox News' Glenn Beck in five minutes or less while simultaneously making sure your community gets its fair share of federal money? Fill out and return the 2010 U.S. Census questionnaire when it arrives in your mailbox.

Few other issues seem to whip media conservatives into a frenzy of misinformation and half-baked conspiracy theories like the decennial count of Americans.

You see, for the world of "conservative journalism," the census is a manifestation of everything they fear. Put yourself in their shoes: Obama's administration is hell-bent on imposing a socialist-fascist-communist-totalitarian-Marxist police state, and now he's sending us all mail! Even worse, Obama's thugs may show up at your door to get a more accurate count.

Why wait for the third installment of the Twilight franchise when you've got these scary bloodsuckers wanting to ... gulp ... count you?

To hear Beck tell it, the Census is just part of the "modern day slave state." Hardly surprising for a man who has called President Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people" and claimed Obama's policies in general are driven by little more than "reparations" and a desire to "settle old racial scores."

Now, if this seems familiar - perhaps by reading comment threads - you also have a fair idea of where such ideas are coming from, and more to the point, to what demographic they are intended to pander.


Against the idea of the census? It's not just stupid, it's Glenn Beck Stupid. 

Sara Palin's House, as seen from Taiwan

"Ah wad some power the giftie gie us

To see ourselves as others see us."

— Robert (the stupid, it) Burns

The Courtship of Eddie's Ideology

Given the way politics have been drifting
in the direction of NeoConservatism
and NeoFeudalism, I think Edmund Burke himself
would consider crossing the aisle.

I get excited when I stumble across something that appeals to my own confirmation bias.... I mean, my nuanced, principled and well-founded view of our social, economic and political landscapes. Nice Guy Eddie brings the heat...

Since I don't let an ideology do my thinking for me, I don't really care what positions fall under which label. I really, just DON'T CARE. I'm not trying to Liberal here, I'm just trying to be RIGHT. (As in "correct," not "wing.") And the way I see our modern discourse going, there are really only two groups:

One is very strictly and narrowly defined, and I've written about them here here here and here, for example. And to be with this crowd, you must accept EVERY bit of Dogma, even the ones that contradict other ones, you must swallow every lie, accept every bit of obviously questionable evidence, and utterly reject ANY evidence or argument to the contrary of ANY point. What's more you must accuse your opponents of committing all of the sins you do, and you must HATE them, because they are out to destroy this country. You must believe in your own perfection and the perfection of your positions and that you have a mandate from God that justifies this belief. At worst, the weakest in this camp merely keep quiet, fail to criticise the big-talkers, and silently tell themselves that it will all, somehow be OK, since at least the OTHER GUY'S not winning. 

Then they're are people who can't abide this kind of insanity. And almost regardless of what positions they actually hold, the people in the first camp call them "Liberals" and demonize them.
So, from my POV, there are really on two school's of thought: Radical, Right-Wing Reactionary Authoritarianism... ...and those who reject it.


They have robbed the words "conservative" and "liberal" of any real meaning. Not that I care... I don't really buy into labels... ...which apparently makes me a Liberal.

This is rather what I was thinking when I wrote Crossing the Aisle in Defense of the the Social Contract over at Politicususa..

...[T]hey founded both a nation and established a Constitution that was, indeed, a codified social contract, remarkably well-annotated as to it’s intent, as perfect as the times permitted and designed to allow amendments as times and and need required. It was a recognition that the individual was the foundation of and the entire rationale for the state, that all justice and all rationale for governance flowed from them.  When that essential truth is lost, when position and power depend upon the whims of a foreign court or personal fortunes, there is no such thing as liberty;  merely degrees of licence, of increasing expense and exclusivity.

Granted, these ideas were indeed Liberal.  Scandalously so. But that was more than 200 years ago and in general, it has worked out well. The principles of the American Revolution – it’s foundational ideas – have taken root worldwide, and not so much due to might, but due to the fact that it works. And as a person of reflexively conservative nature, I assert:“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

All that is required is the acceptance that all people are of inherent worth, that each is due individual respect from their peers and their governments and that each person is to be presumed, unless otherwise demonstrated, capable of moral agency, and that the principle duty of government is in fact to safeguard and expand that liberty.

I once thought this to be the great common understanding of Conservatism. For that document is foundational to the social compact that is the United States. The principles it’s based in are basic to what every other Conservative who does not dismiss the Enlightenment as a brief aberration are the essence of Western Civilization. The rule of law, the concept of the inalienable rights of man and, yes, a sharp separation between Church and State, lest the two be come one thing that serves neither end at all well. That, if you might recall, casting back on most of human history, is a nearly unavoidable  conclusion.

At any rate, if a Social Contract is Liberal while ditching the Constitution and the New Deal is Conservative – I guess it’s time for me to cross the Aisle.

 There's been a good deal of musing online about what truly is meant by freedom and liberty. As the Tea Party sorts quite reasonably point out, the whole movement was started by Libertarians. And whatever you may feel about Libertarians in general, it is indisputable that Libertarianism places a great deal of emphasis on individual liberty. An excerpt from this wonderful article, Conservatives v. Libertarians: the debate over judicial activism divides former allies, illustrates the tensions within what often seems to be a monolith of "No."

One of the first libertarians to challenge the conservatives' pro-government stance was the political scientist Stephen Macedo, who wrote a short book for the Cato Institute in 1986 with the provocative title The New Right v. The Constitution. Macedo argued that Bork, Meese, and their allies had turned the American system on its head. As he put it, "When conservatives like Bork treat rights as islands surrounded by a sea of government powers, they precisely reverse the view of the Founders as enshrined in the Constitution, wherein government powers are limited and specified and rendered as islands surrounded by a sea of individual rights."


It would be difficult to overstate the role that the Cato Institute has played in critiquing Bork's majoritarian conservatism and in pushing the conservative legal movement in a more libertarian direction. In addition to publishing Macedo's book and producing numerous widely read articles and studies, Cato hosted a seminal October 1984 conference devoted to the topic of "Economic Liberties and the Constitution" Among the participants were the University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein, who argued that the judiciary should play an active role in defending economic liberty (much as it did in Lochner), and Antonin Scalia, then a federal appeals court judge, who advanced the Borkean view that the courts should defer to the political branches on such matters. "The Supreme Court decisions rejecting substantive due process in the economic field are clear, unequivocal and current," Scalia declared. He added that "in my view the position the Supreme Court has arrived at is good--or at least that the suggestion that it change its position is even worse."


In response, Epstein argued that under the Scalia-Bork interpretation, "it is up to Congress and the states to determine the limitations of their own power--which, of course, totally subverts the original constitutional arrangement of limited government." The Scalia-Bork view, Epstein said, ignores the Constitution's "many broad and powerful clauses designed to limit the jurisdiction of both federal and state governments," such as the Commerce Clause, which authorizes Congress to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." He said the Borkeans also ignore clauses "designed to limit what the states and the federal government can do within the scope of their admitted power," such as the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which says private property may not be taken for public use without "just compensation," and the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause (on which Lochner relied) and Privileges or Immunities Clause, which says states may not "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens." Taking those provisions seriously, Epstein argued, requires "some movement in the direction of judicial activism" on behalf of economic rights.


This debate brought the conservative-libertarian divide into the spotlight. "That's why the conference was so important as a benchmark," Roger Pilon says. "For the first time, libertarians threw down the gauntlet."

Now, of course economic liberty is an important concept. But economic liberty is not the only form of liberty; indeed, if it's restricted only to the concepts of income and property, it essentially defines most people as being relatively un-free. This is why more left-leaning Libertarians take the seemingly surprising step of supporting collectively-funded, single payer health-care and indeed, something along the lines of a Guaranteed Annual Income. After all, if you do believe that economic freedom is fundamental - then obviously it must cost something to ensure.


The thing that these policies reflect is not any particular bias in favor the poor and disadvantaged, but rather the idea that Liberty is a social good, that enabling people to make a wider degree of choices will tend to ensure that more people will tend to make better ones and that regardless of your philosophy of poverty and it's origins, and inarguably, there are associated costs to society that are utterly unavoidable. Policy simply changes the way in which society will be impacted by the poor.


So you can either pay the poor to be somewhat less impoverished, in a way that also eliminates entire administrative functions designed to target and support depressed local economies, or you can take a more punitive approach - and end up paying far more in terms of urban blight, policing costs, survival - level crime and gang activity that exists to resist and replace an adverserial govenment that sees the poor as a problem to be contained, rather than as citizens with rights.


This is an excellent illustration of the term "inalienable rights" and a practical application of what a "well armed militia" is and was understood to be when the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was crafted. An inalienable right is something that a government may not rightfully nor meaningfully forbid, for there is no legitimate, practical nor cost-effective means of doing so. A law that will cause tension and conflict to the degree that it is enforced, with those it is enforced against, is not just law.


If people are oppressed or feel threatened, they will band together and will strike out at the perceived threat if they must, or to the degree they may, subvert and evade it's effect, generally at the price of far more social cost than that which the law was said to address, with the additional effect that widespread disrespect for the law will undermine the rule of law itself.


Therefore, it's to be understood that the very first principle of good government is to not startle the citizens, nor make them feel that they are regarded in a fundamentally different way than their neighbours, on the other side of the tracks.


Quite aside from "right and wrong" or "right and left," the founders understood that this was the very sort of thing that led to a situation that precluded any meaningful governance at all.


I've referred to the current strain of public policy in the US (and distressingly, in Canada) as "The Galligher School"

Even if every single thing D.A.R.E. and the various "drug warriors" said about slippery slopes and inappropriateness for medical use were factual (a matter of some considerable dispute between those who care more than I, one way or the other), the unregulated consequences predicted by the pearl-clutching nannies would still be less severe than the current state of affairs.

This is leaving aside the entire question as to whether people should be "permitted" to use drugs - since it's clearly failed to change drug usage in any detectable way, it's my presumption that the war is exactly what it seems to be - an ongoing war against people, and that the violence and repression is not a means to an end, it is the entire point.

I refer to it as the "Bigger Hammer" theory of governance. If things don't go as you desire, if people don't behave as you think they should, pull out your  biggest hammer and hit them as hard as you can. I'm quite certain I've referred to it as the Gallagher School of Public Policy. I had no actual idea at the time that it is also Gallagher's idea of Public Policy. Go figure.

So like I said above, the whole point is to smash shit. That's the whole act. Smash shit, say something viciously stupid, and the audience laughs nervously. Confuse that with approval, and carry on.

Arguably, that could be described as what the situation is, in the Untied States - an evident lack of meaningful, effective government, at vast expense, to contrary ends, with no respect for either the economic or personal liberties of any person. And I do honor the Tea Party folks for initially recognizing the issue... but at the moment, their reflexive policy is not political, it is cultural. And their culture - akin to many on the Left, like the Black Bloc - is to simply smash shit they don't like.


I'm a Canadian. I believe that when Ronald Regan popularized the idea that "government is the enemy", that government was unable to help people - well, it was in many ways true. But that's not an inherent problem. It's  a problem in regard to structure, education, regulation and training. It's a confusion about goals, and a long standing and perverse idea that the purpose of government is to fuck with this group of individuals in order to benefit either the largest number of other individuals, or a small number of wealthy ones.


Both ideals are wrong - aside from the morality of it; aside from the principles, or the Constitutionality. Look around you. See the effects on the people you know, the places you travel, the way things were 20 years ago compared to how they are today. These ideas are wrong because they do not work.