On the value of minding one's own business.

quotes by meiteniite25
Buy shirts at zazzle.com

There's a fundamental principle of fiscal and, yes, even social conservatism, which may be stated as follows:

"Don't sweat the small stuff."

If you would like it in more Biblical terms - and I do, for it proves just how obvious and old the precept is, it can also be summed up as "straining at gnats and swallowing camels."

That is to say - for explaining the obvious is my lot in life - a fixation on a trivial detail can distract you from large and critical matters. Most of life amounts to doing the best you can with what you have for the largest net effect. This applies to everything, from heating your home to keeping a community running to the essential goal of keeping people as healthy as possible - because plague is a bad thing, and almost always plague comes due to the mistaken assertion that "those people" don't deserve "luxuries" like sewers and access to clean drinking water, and certainly "taxpayers" should not be forced to "subsidize" these "useless and unproductive" people.

Well, if you see sewage-treatment, garbage collection, roads and firefighting to be "luxuries" that should be "means-tested," you really need to go and make your own way in some remote mountain valley. In any urban area, it's irresponsible - and prohibitively expensive - for anyone to maintain a sole-use infrastructure for these basic requirements. The principle here applies to all the general needs of any large collection of people who got there however they got there to do whatever it is they do to become part of that community.

I illustrate this with two different issues, two differing ideological viewpoints, both illustrating the beam in the other fellow's eye - while doing nothing about the mote. So to speak. Both are cases of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Mich. woman warned to get license for babysitting kids until school bus arrives A Michigan woman who lives in front of a school bus stop says the state is threatening her with fines and possibly jail time for babysitting her neighbors' kids until the bus comes, WZZM reports.

Lisa Snyder of Middleville, Mich., says she takes no money for watching the three children for 15-40 minutes each day so that the neighbors can get to work on time.
The Department of Human Services, acting on a complaint that Snyder was operating an illegal child care home, demanded she either get a license, stop watching the kids or face the consequences, WZZM says.

Snyder calls the whole thing "ridiculous" and tells the Grand Rapids TV station that "we are friends helping friends!"

A DHS spokesperson tells the station that it has no choice but to comply with state law, which is designed to protect Michigan children.

Now, we are missing a big chunk of information here - how much a license would cost under these circumstances, and what meeting the requirements to be licensed in the first place would be. But that is almost beside the point. It's what triggered the action in the first place, a complaint. A citizen, using the power of government to interfere in the lives and arrangements of people who were meeting their own needs without having "gotten proper permission."

Perhaps the complaint was triggered by something important, perhaps the investigation found things that the agency - once they were forced to investigate, were legally obligated to address. Perhaps there were even significant, real issues regarding child safety. We should be able to assume that, for DHS should never be wasting their time on matters of less critical urgency, and it should be staffed by people trained and experienced in making these calls for the benefit of children and the community as a whole, empowered by regulations that tell them within what circumstances they may act and to what degree - not authoritarian checklists designed to restrict discretion and ensure that the "wrong people" are not gaining an "undeserved benefit."

You know, like free childcare from someone willing to provide it, and probably no less qualified than they are themselves.

This has the stench of the doctrinaire liberal - who's quite sure that no-one is qualified to wash their own hands without having been forced to read and initial a seventeen-page "training" written in such a way as to ensure that no-one who actually needs to know the information will be able to read it.

And on the other end of the spectrum...

t r u t h o u t | Denying Health Care to Immigrants Would Be Harmful to America: "A 2007 congressional study of procedures used by six states to verify citizenship eligibility for Medicaid discovered that the six states spent $8.3 million to verify applicants' immigration status, only to apprehend eight undocumented people trying to game the system. How many physicals could have been purchased with that money? Our immigration laws prohibit the entry of any person with a contagious disease, or a physical or mental disorder that may pose a threat to others, and deny residence to those who have not received vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases."

This is such an obvious issue that I've hesitated to bring it up. It's contentious. It has all kinds of racial implications. It involves illegal immigrants - who are Mexicans, probably Catholic, and who - if not properly restrained - might expect some social recognition. If left unchecked, can full-scale multiculturalism be far behind?

I wax sarcastic - and I do it to illustrate how easy it is to forget the essentials while having a food-fight over trivia. If you do not happen to care for Mexicans or Appalachan Yankees, nobody is forcing you to mingle socially. That's up to you. Mind your own business and allow others to mind theirs. Do not demand that an accounting be made to prove that "those people" are not gaining some diffuse benefit they "don't deserve." Why? Because the accountants have to be PAID. You don't want "your tax dollars going to illegals." Well, if a few dollars pains you, doesn't a million per illegal found pain you more? And if to you "cost is no object" to "ensuring the law" - I reserve the right to kick your ass until your brain is restarted - because that sets the intent of the law on it's head.

If someone is flipping my hamburger or picking my collards, I would very much prefer that they did NOT have tuberculosis or hepatitis or meningitis. I would very much prefer that if their children attend school with my children - and let's not argue the importance of them doing so - I don't want my kids bringing home easily preventable diseases, much less "critters." And I frankly do not care about their immigration status, or even if they are one of the vanishingly small number of illegal immigrants who have gotten welfare benefits (such as they are in the US of A) by means of fraud.

My immune system is not set up to check passports, and neither is yours, so shut the hell up and stop sweating the small stuff.

So health care legislation that is designed with conspicuous malice to deny health-care to "illegals" makes about as much sense as making head-lice mandatory.

I rather hope that I do not have to explain these two cases have in common, but I'll do so anyhow, so that I can tie it to things you can point to when you wish to agree with me in public. As of course you will...

It's Authoritarianism - the distinct and often odious need of a certain fraction of the population to be In Charge and In Control. People - in general - have been so conditioned to respect and defer to Authority that we barely even question whether that authority is qualified - even though our ability to suspend judgment is challenged with every encounter with government or corporate paperwork. One theme that runs through it all is a surprising willingness to spend ten dollars in a probably futile effort to prevent one dollar from reaching the "wrong hand."

But any successful enterprise - public, private, communist, socialist, collective, co-operative, faith-based - whatever their political, economic or social structure and whether their efforts are valued in cash or on some theoretical Social Utility Index - ALL succeed or fail by keeping their eyes on the intended goal and being internally quite ruthless about ensuring that the process doesn't preclude the prize.

This requires a good deal of personal discipline, a willingness to review and revise procedure as advised by experience and above all, never letting the need for control over others to become the primary motive for people to belong to the organization.

The key to maintaining a lawful and orderly society is to have as few laws as possible and a social consensus about "order" that is as inclusive as possible. It's not hard to find operational definitions of what "law and order" look like, definitions that in their origins predate even English Common Law. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is one such expression - but I may not actually want you to do unto me as you would have me do unto you. Indeed, I might find what you want me to do unto you to be challenging or even distasteful. So I prefer the more individualistic "And it harm none, do as you will."

For really, that's what a civilization must require - that it's members agree to conscientiously avoid doing harm, and be accountable for those occasions when they fail to avoid harm. All else is details and window-dressing that is very appealing to those who aspire to large offices in high-status locations. And we should not have any particular objection to rewarding those with such needs in such coin so long as their efforts are responsible and professional.

But when they clearly see their privilege as being defined by the ability to screw with other people without a single thought to what direct or indirect consequence that interference may bring, it's time to renegotiate the power exchange, by means as peaceful and nonviolent as possible. But clearly, it's time to stop suggesting and to start insisting.

For right now, not only does the US social dialog amount to "sweating the small stuff," it's clear that "sweating the small stuff" has become the definition of every aspect of it's government. A government, I should point out, that is a faithful and quivering slave to the sort of people who pay for it's "services" and demand it's sops and token legislation aimed at the habits and liberties of others, with no beneficial outcome other than annoying the hell out of society as a whole. This has the predictable outcome that most people are breaking or ignoring many laws most of the time - often without any idea that there is, or could even possibly be such a law in the first place.

I am a classical, small government fiscal conservative. I temper my Jeffersonian idealism with a foundation solidly resting on the conservative pragmatism of Edmund Burke. And frankly, I favor the rights of the individual over the rights of any group of people, because it's the efforts of individuals that matter, when you get right down to it. Any large group of people - be it Greenpeace or the Tea-Party movement - is motivated by and empowered by individuals. Take away two or three key individuals and the rest will wander off, confused, searching for a new cause or a new Leader.

Well, we need to expect a lot more of those Authorities - and permit them a good deal less of our power in exchange for their services. Clearly, they've been operating at a level that exceeds their executive competence.

Strategic Vision, LLC - False Front Fraud?

Science it works, Bitches by BoogieMonst
View other Science T-Shirts

Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight.com just dropped a grenade into the wonkosphere. If you aren't familiar with fivethirtyeight, it's where you go if you want to know how good polling numbers are and the best publicly available insight into what those numbers mean.

One of the things I learned while exploring the statistical proprieties of the Iranian election, the results of which were probably forged, is that human beings are really bad at randomization. Tell a human to come up with a set of random numbers, and they will be surprisingly inept at trying to do so. Most humans, for instance, when asked to flip an imaginary coin and record the results, will succumb to the Gambler's Fallacy and be more likely to record a toss of 'tails' if the last couple of tosses had been heads, or vice versa. This feels right to most of us -- but it isn't. We're actually introducing patterns into what is supposed to be random noise.

Sometimes, as is the case with certain applications of Benford's Law, this characteristic can be used as a fraud-detection mechanism. If, for example, one of your less-trustworthy employees is submitting a series of receipts, and an unusually high number end with the trailing digit '7' ($27, $107, $297, etc.), there is a decent chance that he is falsifying his expenses. The IRS uses techniques like this to detect tax fraud.

Yesterday, I posed several pointed questions to David E. Johnson, the founder of Strategic Vision, LLC, an Atlanta-based PR firm which also occasionally releases political polls. One of the questions, in light of Strategic Vision LLC's repeated failure to disclose even basic details about its polling methodology, is whether the firm is in fact conducting polling at all, or rather, is creating fake but plausible-looking results in order to increase traffic and attention to its core business as a PR and literary firm.

I posed that question largely as a hypothetical yesterday. But today, I pose it much more literally. Certain statistical properties of the results reported by Strategic Vision, LLC suggest, perhaps strongly, the possibility of fraud, although they certainly do not prove it and further investigation will be required.

The discussions on his threads tend to be both sprightly and incomprehensible - with perl code and statistical expressions used without regard to the safety of bystanders.

SCIENCE!

If you want to see what "getting your ass peer-reviewed all over the bar" looks like, go watch. Nate seems to be holding his own, but it's kinda like watching fencing without knowing the rules, which are statistics and math.

But there are a number of other questions regarding the credibility of Strategic Vision, LLC, (http://www.strategicvision.biz ) one of which being that it is NOT the polling firm, Strategic Vision, Inc, (http//www.strategicvision.com)

So, not only confusingly similar names, but similar domain names. Similar enough to be grounds for legal action, I would think.

I'd consider that, coupled by the low-rent, post-office-box "Offices" to be a classic indicator of a possibly questionable group, as is the immediate reaction of Strategic Vision, LLC to earlier, more basic questions by Nate. Parsing this requires no understanding of the math or the science. It just requires an appreciation of human nature.

...in regards to Nate Silver's statements, we categorically deny them and will refute them. We have a call into our attorney on this and fully intend to take action that will vindicate us. I wish Nate had contacted me directly yesterday when he began this tirade, I could have answered his questions fully to his satisfaction prior to damage being done to our reputation. Now that he has made these accusations and posted them online, I must and will defend our company's reputation through all legal avenues available. The reason that we are going the legal route is he has attempted to do severe damage to our reputation and what is he going to do when we disprove him just say I am sorry. That isn't enough at this point.

The issue that concerned Nate Silver was that SV(LLC) does not disclose their methodology - how they collect their data from whom they collect their data, by what means, and what do they do with the data once they get it in order to wring meaning from it. Actually, he was more blunt than that, asking the most fundamental questions that one should never HAVE to ask firms of this type:

1. Are you actually polling anyone at all? Or are you just throwing some numbers up on a webpage and hoping nobody calls you on it?

2. What is the location of your "offices" in Tallahassee, Madison and Dallas? Why is there no street address or phone number listed in association with them? How come none of the locations show up in a Yahoo! or Google search?

3. Why would you pick the name "Strategic Vision, LLC" for your company when the name "Strategic Vision, Inc." was already in use by an extremely well regarded, San Diego-based research firm that has been in business for more than 30 years? Are you deliberately trying to confuse your potential clients and leverage Strategic Vision, Inc.'s much stronger brand name?

"We have a call into our attorney " is really all the answer a conscious human being needs, as
a commenter on the tampabay.com story cited below points out.

Wow. This is a public relations firm we're talking about? That sort of response is what I expect from an engineer-turned-CEO or frat-boy-turned-CEO who will hire a PR professional in a few days to undo the damage they just did.

And their attorney is going to tell them that filing suit is pretty much the dumbest thing they could possibly do because it will give Nate Silver the opportunity to look at all of their data and question their employees and principals under oath, and then discuss his conclusions in a public forum where he can't be sued for what he says (litigation privilege).

As things stand, they can fall back on "well, Mr. Silver didn't have all of the data, and he made some minor errors, and it's all really just a big understanding" but that won't work if they've had to produce everything in discovery and the defense has had weeks or months to go over it with a fine-toothed comb. Litigation gives Nate Silver a bigger magnifying glass to search with and a bigger megaphone to announce his conclusions.

Posted by: blakdawg | September 25, 2009 at 09:56 PM

Which leaves everyone wondering - what value can be placed on the SV(LLC) polls, which tend to break in favor of Republicans when SV(LLC) polls people about politics. It should be observed that many polling firms DO have a "house effect" that breaks one way or another, and that their polls are nonetheless considered entirely respectable. These firms generally ARE transparent about their data collection and data analysis. But there's a difference between a "house effect" and "lying," and if the question can arise, it must be resolved, so that nobody gets confused as to the difference.

The question is fairly important to Nate, considering that's what he does - evaluate polls. It's also a matter of concern to the polling industry as a whole, and that's how this whole mess arose. Jim Galloway explains:

[T]he American Association for Public Opinion Research, a kind of brotherhood of pollsters, publicly censured Strategic Vision for its failure to cooperate in an investigation into voter surveys conducted during the 2008 presidential primaries.

New Hampshire was the main focus – you’ll remember that Democrat Hillary Clinton surprised everyone with her win there. Twenty-one organization were asked to provide their statistical internals in order to help figure out what went wrong.

A final report was published in April. One finding: Techniques for developing polling models – weighting and such – are becoming increasingly murky. Often they’re declared to be trade secrets, and protected as such. The AAPOR argues that transparency is the only way to maintain public confidence in polling.

Said the association today, in a statement posted on its Web site:

Strategic Vision LLC was the only polling firm that did not provide sufficient methodological information (as defined by the AAPOR Code) about its surveys and refused to provide that information in response to AAPOR’s repeated direct requests.

For more than one year, AAPOR was unable to obtain the following basic information about Strategic Vision LLC’s polling in New Hampshire and Wisconsin: who sponsored the survey; who conducted it; a description of the underlying sampling frame; an accounting of how “likely voters” were identified and selected; response rates; and a description of any weighting or estimating procedures used. AAPOR considers the release of this information for public polls to be a minimum requirement for professional behavior among those who conduct public opinion research.

The important part of the story for me, is this:

“What we are asking for is people in the profession to behave in a professional manner, and to release the methods through which they do their research – because these are crucial to understanding it,” Miller said. [Peter Miller, president of the AAPOR, is a professor associated with the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.] “That’s our whole interest. That’s all we care about. We’re not trying to make some claim about the quality of Johnson’s research or anybody else’s.”

Here’s the catch:

“We’re saying we can’t know anything about quality if we don’t know what you did,” Miller said.

The argument in the thread at fivethirtyeight has raised the question as to whether Nate's analysis of SV(LLC's) polls (he used data from over a hundred polls they had done) has succeeded in pointing out data manipulation, or if it has simply detected noise that would ordinarily result from their sampling and data analysis.

I have no idea. At this point, I doubt anyone else does.

But then - as the The American Association for Public Opinion Research pointed out - that's precisely the problem.

Science!

I must be a very strange person, for if asked to name favorite music, They Might Be Giants are right up there with Leonard Cohen, AC/DC, The Sex Pistols, Scott Joplin and The Traveling Wilburys.

All these artists manage to scratch my brain in one or more ways. A TMBG song is something that will make you wonder if you actually liked it - and make you play it all day to figure it out. On the other hand, when they want to get down and say something important, they can do that too. Turns out they have done several children's albums, and having "taught the controversy" about numbers and letters, their latest one is about science. The intro song, "Science is Real," explains in a simple way what science is, what it's for, and how it works.

In this particular climate of ignorance, a children's song that explains rationalism and the scientific method is important.



Just think about trying to write a song that does that and which a three-to-five-year-old would want to dance to and which doesn't make adults want to scream and run from the room.

The album is called Here Comes Science and is available at Amazon and the other usual places. It makes a perfect gift - for teachers and the children of relatives who might not value that book-larnin' stuff so much. You might just want to slip a copy to the school librarian, too. :P

Rhetorical Question: Is this sign racist?

IMG_1487
Originally uploaded by NineTwelvePhotos

If you need a reason to understand why reasonable people from left to reasonably right of center are pretty much convinced that opposition to health care reform has everything to do with the black president who's for it and little to do with any rational reason to be against it - well, heeer's your sign!

I'm not saying there aren't legitimate criticisms of the Democratic HCR proposals. Indeed, the latest one is getting rocks thrown at it by people loosely described as "intelligent carbon based lifeforms."

That's because it's a crappy bill intended to please corporate lobbyists. It's so crappy it doesn't even deserve a partisan or ideological critique. Further, it's probably a fairly cynical ploy on the part of a lawmaker to avoid having to choose between staying bought and getting re-elected.

It's a sad day when the advocates FOR universal health care also have to be the critics of bad health care legislation. That's the case when no conservative can speak without their words being tainted with crap like this.

But then, who's fault IS that? Evil is flourishing because good men have done nothing..
Since the Regan administration.

There is no conservative moral high ground in the United States today, and the Tea Party movement is proof of it. Anyone willing to stand with someone who will say such a thing - much less argue that it's not "really" racist - is unworthy of consideration. And I think little better of those who simply choose to say nothing at all. I dropped my support of Ron Paul for far less than this.

Racism requires such concentration upon tending one's prejudices that it becomes impossible to think around it. You cannot develop public policies to benefit everyone in any rational, conservative, intelligent, efficient way if your first priority in government is to make absolutely sure that "certain people" are kept down and never, EVER gain any benefit from anything government does. It's an extraordinarily expensive way to go about accomplishing very little.

That sort of willful incompetence is harmful to everyone. Even white racists who think they are doing a "heckuva job." See that smiling face above, so proud of her wit, so happy that someone stopped to take her picture. If it doesn't insult you to the very core of your being that ANY intelligent, qualified lawmaker does anything to pander to such stupid people - you have little appreciation of the fiscal impact of that pandering.

If you happen to recognize her, don't be shy. Thank her for making it too embarrassing to be known as a Conservative in polite company.

Let me be explicit, lest I be misunderstood. In no way should this woman or anyone like this woman be threatened. No violence, not a hint of outrage.

The proper response to this is no different than a child who has a childish, public tantrum. It is ignored, and if it persists, the response is a deadly quiet, precise reminder of the behavior expected of young ladies and gentlemen and to what degree such behavior marks the offender as unworthy of association with their betters.

Then they are escorted away from the presence of the grownups.

THAT is the proper response to offensive misbehavior on the part of children of all ages.

Keeping the Moral High Ground.

A little reminder on the tactical and strategic value of maintaining the moral high ground.

t r u t h o u t | The Moral Character of Our Country: "What the revisionists fail to understand is that morality is not a tool of advantage for the strong and/or the privileged to be used and appealed to when it is in their interest to do so, and when it is not, to be modified, ignored, or manipulated. Nor is morality a prop, a façade through which we may proclaim our superiority and/or condemn others. If morality is to have any meaning at all, it must recognize as a fundamental principle the dignity and the rights - the lives and well-being - of ALL human beings. If we do not value persons, all persons, not just members of our particular community, religious group, ethnic group, gender etc., and respect their dignity and their rights, then all other things, whether it is property, possessions, national boundaries, the flag etc., lose their meaning and their value as well. Like justice, morality is blind and requires universal and equal application, holding everyone to the same standard. It is the hypocrite, the rogue nation, that attempts to modify the tenets of morality, or argues that it be ignored, or rationalizes loopholes (collateral damage) through which to pursue their individual or national interest.

Further, the refutation of revisionism rests not on moral argument only but on sound war fighting science as well. Contrary to the view of the revisionists, knowledgeable military tacticians who understand the nature of asymmetrical/counterinsurgency warfare, realize that despite what may have been the perception in the past, morality and military science share common concerns. Consider, for example, the status of noncombatants. While much mental effort has been expended explaining ('rationalizing' is probably better) that innocent deaths, though regrettable, are necessary and justifiable as collateral damage, both the moralists and the military theorists such as Gen. Stanley McCrystal, the commanding officer of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, agree that killing noncombatants is not only immoral and illegal but counterproductive to achieving the military goals necessary for success (victory) in asymmetrical/counterinsurgency war, i.e., winning the hearts and minds of the people. It has become clear, therefore, that morality and military science are fundamentally compatible and the move to abandon or 'modify' the former indicates a lack of understanding of the latter. Collateral damage, then, is not only morally disingenuous, it is militarily unsound and those who advocate that we abandon or modify this particular moral (and legal) criterion are both morally and militarily misguided and lack expertise in both areas of study."

Emphasis mine.

This argument apples just as strongly domestically as internationally. It applies to the "war on drugs, the "war on terrorism" and the "culture war," particularly when we see these situations re-framed in such a way as to make our ethical principles "more flexible" to "fit the emergent nature of the situation."

The author was pointing out the moral dimension of health care reform, and reasoned their way to this observation. Ultimately, all actions are governed by ethics, simple, broad principles from which we draw our morals.

Warfare, far from being a "special case" in which the "ordinary rules" do not apply, is a case wherein the the cause and effect dynamics of human nature are painted in blood for all to see. The Karma of war has sharp teeth and moves swiftly indeed; actions that are unethical, unjust and stupid breed resistance from the enemy and demoralize those who are supposedly on "your side."

This is exactly the situation celebrated by chairman Mao's observation that "The revolutionary swims in a sea of peasants." And that very understanding is being illustrated with rocket grenades built, smuggled and even fired by ordinary Afghans and Iraqis of no particularly fixed religious or ideological orientation more complex than "get the HELL off my LAWN!"



You would think that Republicans would understand that most basic motivation. The fact that they do not indicates some moral and practical confusion as to who's lawn it actually is.

And so I draw the circle closed. When one group of people sees another group of people in terms of a problem that stands in the way of achieving their goals - problems that can, may or must be eliminated to achieve that goal - what we have are incompatible moral structures. It's not exactly a stretch to understand why people targeted for elimination will determine that to be an immoral act, one which entirely justifies a response. Obviously, there are no better placed people to understand the depth of delusion here than - in the alleged words of Boss Tweed - that half of the poor hired to kill the other half.

When morality becomes a means to rationalize expedient action, instead of a framework to define RIGHT action, it becomes, at best, an impediment. It's certainly not an argument that is persuasive to those who, in examining it's tenants, can easily see themselves as being "the next group up against the wall." C.F. The Solidarity Movement.

Ideology counts, but it counts with a sword. And in the other pan of the balance, we weigh the Politics of Personal Survival. That which weighs more, well... I suppose in pragmatic terms, it depends on where the sword cuts - and it's a persuasive argument against using it at all.

Ideological movements tend to create their own antithetical movements which in turn tend to be traduced by opportunistic bastards who see them as a horse to ride to immortality and damnation.

It's an environment that encourages the development of absolute moral systems that work from xenophobic first principles. To mention two, but hardly the only examples, the Dominionist theocratic movements within the Conservative Evangelical Protestant movement and of course the equally un-scriptural and immoral theocratic Islamic movement exemplified by Osama Bin Ladin.

Each show distinct similarities in rhetoric and rationalizations to the equally delusional religions of Communism, Fascism and "New World Order Neoconservativism."

For both groups, "right" is defined as actions that advance the group and "wrong" as things that disadvantage the group - as defined by their hierarchical leadership, of course.

Frankly, I attribute much of the growth of these groups to the breakdown of the concept of the rule of law and respect for the individual, much of which was sacrificed on the alter of the Cold War by all participants.

But ultimately, all individuals of any intelligence must come to the conclusion that if a nation or cause would not hesitate to sacrifice them in the name of "national interest" or "national security" or "for the good of the People" or for the "advance of the Cause," they understand that the most fundamental tenant of the social compact with them no longer exists.

That fundamental tenant is that they are as significant to the society as any other person, that their value does not flow from wealth or position or status; that these things are role and reward, a product of a complex interaction between fortune, necessity, opportunity and education, all of which depends upon those that the pathological narcissist would dismiss as being "Useless Mouths."

When you are somewhere within the top third of the pyramid, it makes very little sense, even in an hierarchical, patriarchal, disorderly authoritarian sense - to blow up the bottom third.

It makes the creation of a different pyramid an imperative, for it defines the leadership as being unworthy, having violated the social compact. Self-preservation is the strongest motivation of all, and there is no higher cause for creating a social order than mutual self-interest.

Therefore, violating that compact is a misdeed that is both grave and self-defeating.

When you have large numbers of people within a culture who see their interests as being in conflict with a much greater number of individual, lawful citizens, and who see no problem with acting unethically toward those people, who rationalize their unethical and unjust activities with exactly the same words and reasons as do incompetent generals who are quite willing to "destroy the village in order to save it," they have made a fateful choice. They have designated more enemies than they can possibly dispatch, and, short of a dignified redefinition of the terms of engagement, they are in a situation defined long ago by the Great Sage of War, Sun Tsu.

12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:--

13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?

14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.

Note that the moral high ground is Sun Tsu's most important consideration. And here's another observation from him that is of immense importance to the current world situation.

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

You got some impressive points there, Jethro

Watch CBS Videos Online

Related story via CBS

...many black voters saw Wilson's actions as part of the heated rhetoric from conservative activists whose protests, including one on the Capitol grounds Saturday, have included depictions of Obama as Adolf Hitler and the comic-book villain the Joker, according to those attending the meetings. It was one thing to have such remarks at town hall meetings during the summer recess but completely different during a presidential address to a joint session of Congress, Clyburn and other black Democrats argued, and Democrats needed to stand up for the nation's first black president.

Clyburn has not publicly called Wilson's remark racist, but he told reporters immediately after the speech that Obama is the only president to have been treated in such a manner.

Some black lawmakers were more direct.

Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), who received hate mail from constituents during Congress's August break, said Wilson had just returned from the rowdy town hall forums at which the most heated accusations were leveled at Obama.

"I think he was caught up in a moment. The issue is: Would he have done that if the president were white?" Scott said, adding that few Republicans opposed the "level of rhetoric" against Obama in August. "We've got to realize racism is playing a role here. I'm hopeful that this will be a wake-up call for us to get it off the table."

Democrats emphasized that it was not just members of the Congressional Black Caucus seeking to reprimand Wilson, and that a broad cross section of Democrats supported the measure, including Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). Hoyer had argued publicly that Wilson had to make a formal apology from the well of the House chamber or face some sanction.

But Wilson has refused to offer any apology beyond the private phone call he made Wednesday night to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. In a show of defiance Monday, the lawmaker was the first Republican to speak when the chamber opened for a round of brief speeches. Rather than apologizing, Wilson hailed the "patriots" who attended his August town hall forums and opposed a "government takeover" of the health-care system.

But, isn't racist speech protected by the First Amendment? Yeah, but racist ACTIONS are not, and may well mandate the application of the SECOND in extreme circumstances. You see, armed mobs of stupid people are a not inconceivable problem, thanks to racist rabble-rousers like Wilson.

Just accommodating their pin-headed xenophobia bears a price, as Digby shows with real numbers and stuff by ganking a comment from their blog in toto. The full post ain't much longer, and in service of this cause, one good gank deserves another:

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Comment Of The Day

by digby

From Pseudonymous in NC:

Let's talk about real costs. A 7% payroll tax and $120/month -- that's what gets your average French person his/her healthcare -- copays, prescriptions, the works. No unexpected bills, no sticker-shock, no wrangling with insurers.

I'd pay that. I could afford that. I'm not going to pay for dogshit insurance from a corporate parasite, though.

I would guess that's something a lot of people would agree with --- if anyone would make the argument.
.
digby 9/15/2009 01:00:00 PM Comments (33) | Trackback (0)

Liberals, progressives and smart people have a learned aversion to provoking teh stupid, for we all know what happens next: sudden, mindless violence. But since it is sudden and mindless, it can be provoked to enlighten those witnessing the offense.

Come to think of it, we may be seeing just that. It's one of the biggest monkey wrenches in the Community Activist toolkit. But if I were a member of a group committed to provoking such a circumstance, well, I'd be wearing body armor under this t-shirt and packing me some hi-test pepper spray.



Compelling Points by webcarve
The Stupid, It Burns! Oval Fire by webcarve

Monday T-Shirt Rescue and Linkfest.

I've been doing internet chores all day, one of which was to get started on fixing my Zazzle stores. They've been improved, you see. And you know what that means... a lot of work. So I figured I'd try to get started on turning a pile of designs into some sort of coherent organized form.

And of course, I found some old designs I rather liked. Most of these have been used in blog posts over the last several years, but some haven't, and some are topical again.

I'm interspersing with stories I thought worth a thought, with an eye toward there be some vague relationship...

Spafford 2.0 Template by webcarve
Many t-shirt designs available at zazzle

On Being Hated In a Nation of Assholes

by: David Sirota

I'll put it bluntly: We are becoming a nation of haters - a nation, really, of assholes, or at least dominated by assholes. And sure, maybe we've always been that way - but what's different is that it's become almost impossible to pretend otherwise. There's no more delusions, no more fantasies. Despising one another and ignoring the substance of issues has become the defining mark of Americanness in the 21st century - and that's a tragedy.

Human Genome XX T-Shirt by webcarve
View other Geek T-Shirts

Great Minds Think by webcarve
Browse Graphictruth T-Shirts

HL Mencken on Religion by webcarve
Create custom t-shirts with zazzle

Get off my lawn! T-Shirt by webcarve
View other My friends T-Shirts

And that kind of sums up my view of the general mood out there in the blogosphere today, what with tea party louts and screaming health care opponents. It's all rather depressing, and the biggest reason I take time to make shirts is to take the edge off.

Upon a careful consideration of views expressed within the public square.

IMG_1302
Originally uploaded by NineTwelvePhotos

Oh HELL no!

Thank you for leaving no doubt whatsoever about which direction to go in order to reach Civilization from here.

Please, as a matter of principle, I implore you to refuse any form of Government subsidized, sponsored or regulated health care.

Your principled stand will make a lasting statement worthy of your sacrifice!

KICKASS Fired Up! Ready to GO! design for Health Care Reform

It's time to apply astroturf production values to the most important "Progressive" issue.

It boggles my mind that this is even considered a "progressive" cause. I mean, Teddy Roosevelt tried to get this done. It is a no-brainer, taken for granted, basic issue for the rest of the developed world. To this Anti-authoritarian, fiscally conservative Libertarian, my view is, "if not for things like this, what the hell is a government for?"

I run the numbers through my mind and I compare the roughly 4 to 5 percent overhead of various forms of government sponsored and regulated health care to the double-digit overheads of "private enterprise" "solutions", couple that with the rape, pillage and burn tactics that lack of any useful regulation has permitted and I can't see any honest person supporting this Status Quo. Unless their health care depends on supporting it, of course.

This is not about "govenrment intruding into your life." This fight is really about who's government it is, and who does it benifit. Currently, it aint you. It belongs to corporations.

Well, it's time to crotch-kick them back into their proper place.

Here's two designs ready to go, with extensive templates that include your twitter or other social media details. They are telegenic, designed to grab attention and feature your cause. And they are affordable. More so in bulk. I will be making versions of the graphics publicly available if you want to make your own buttons or shirts, but if you want only a couple, this is probably your best option.

Fired UP! Ready to GO! Dark Multitemplate Shirt by webcarve
See more Fired up T-Shirts

Fired UP! Ready to GO! Light Multitemplate Shirt by webcarve
Create a custom tee shirt using Zazzle

Unethical Sluts : A Blog Post in three Unnatural Acts.

Wanna have a quick look-see to find out what one of the poster-boys for Family Values gets up to on your dime and your eyeball-time?



I have absolutely no problem with legal prostitution. I'm a Libertarian. It's your right to do things that make me think you might be kinda sad and pathetic in spots, but I think it's a relatively responsible way of getting needs met without harm to others, while being willing to admit that my thoughts about you are "My stuff, not your stuff."

But by "harm" I don't just mean the risk of STD's or other personal consequences. I feel you are entitled to enjoy all the karma you generate - positive and negative. By "harm" I mean embarrassing your friends, family, colleagues and sponsors. People you owe for helping you get where you are. People who have every right to expect some discretion on your part, for even if they are not morally deserving, they are arguably contractually entitled.

I'm quite willing to let adults be adults, if they are responsible about it. And it harm none, do as you will. But the first clause is at the front for a reason. One of the most obvious occasions of harm is when stupid is found in "unholy congress" with arrogant.

Air Force Amy is, like hot. And we understand why you might want to have that picture with her and her delightful compatriots. But, hey, dumb-ass, did you not read the release? Did it not occur to you that this kinda makes you look like a total tool? It really doesn't show a great deal of respect for the moral viewpoints of a large swathe of your viewers. It kind of implies that you are pandering to their views in public while partying on their dime in private. Don't you think?

If you feel the desire to do things in private that completely contradict your public stance, the public stance you are being damn will paid to take, maybe you shouldn't pose for brag photos!

Morally speaking, it's no different than a whore who drugs a client and steals his wallet because zie thinks that theft and betrayal is somehow more dignified than providing expected value for promised funds arrived at after an honest negotiation.

When you claim to speak for a broad spectrum of the US Social Conservative movement, and then do stupid things that would embarrass the hell out of a large percentage of that population - well, it makes them feel like they were taken for a ride. Like they were played. Used. Led around by their noses. Fed a line. Conned. Betrayed. I would say that such feelings would be entirely valid.

But Hannity isn't even the best example of such stupidity. It's lurid and funny and awful and I'll admit using the titillation factor to my advantage - but now that I have your attention, I'm going to point out that the boobies are only significant in that they may have contributed to male stupidity. I'm going to use the next idiot to explain why. He makes Hannity look smart. And that's really, really hard.

Republican California Assemblyman Mike Duvall has set a very, very high bar for conspicuous public stupidity - and it's due to the same sort of stupid that caused Hannity to pose for a picture with Hof's stock in trade. Due to his addiction to stupid, he's managed to profoundly piss off his targeted constituency. (And hopefully, to an extent that might actually be morally instructive, as opposed to moralistically. )

He's a not just a state assemblyman. he was - wait for it - a member of the ethics committee and the utilities (energy) oversight committee. Who is taking sexual bribes. From energy lobbyists. In Post-Enron California. It's breathtaking.

His bragging violated the trust of every single person involved with him, licitly and illicitly. He was bragging of how he was cheating on his mistress - one energy lobbyist - with another lobbyist.

So, he was managing to cheat twice - with each. In their roles as lobbyists, and in their roles as mistresses. If you include his wife, it's a trifecta. When you add in the legitimate and illegitimate interests of his clients and constituents, the only appropriate word is "clusterfuck."

An interesting point is made dryly here:

In April--two months after Duvall became vice chairman of the Utilities & Commerce committee--privately owned California utility giant Sempra Energy hired Barsuglia as one of its top lobbyists, according to Secretary of State records. Barsuglia, who has a law degree and once worked as a speechwriter for Governor Pete Wilson, had previously worked at the California Retailers Association (CRA). During 25 months of work at CRA, she reported that she incurred no reportable lobbying expenses.

It's an arch way of implying "she's a whore" without actually saying it, but circumstances tend to validate that observation. But she IS a lobbyist, and frankly, the distinction between lobbyist and whore is primarily a question of style.

I condemn neither trade. I observe that human nature is human nature, and this is yet another example of pretending that human beings are different than they are, or that human needs for power, influence, sex and comfort are inherently sinful. I will assert with conviction they are not.

But the transaction costs can send you straight to hell, in a metaphorical sense. At the very least.

It seems that Orange County has been "blessed" with an "advocate" who gets his jollies, in part, by betraying trust. Who likes dirty sex and dirty deals because "dirty is sexy." That strikes me as unacceptable from any vantage. It's not the sex. It's not even the corruption. It's what those acts reveal about the sort of person he is. Someone who seeks power for the sole purpose of abusing it, while laughing at the people stupid enough to give it to him.

During his political career, Duvall has unabashedly espoused conservative
 principles and is known as a partisan Republican with a knack for theatrics:
 He has noisily driven his Harley-Davidson motorcycle to functions. In 2008, 
Duvall blasted efforts to condone gay marriage. Legislatively, he has 
proposed bills to aid the insurance industry and government contractors 
feeding off the state's massive transportation kitty.
 He has offered a law to alter the First Amendment rights of Americans by
 banning anti-war activists from putting the names of fallen soldiers on 
T-shirts with messages such as "Bush lied" on the front and "They died" on the back; he observed that the dead soldiers fought to protect freedom, and "opportunists" should not be allowed to "exploit" the sacrifices with political messages opposing war.


Such thinking impressed certain constituencies. Earlier this year, the man who never graduated from high school received "100 percent" approval scores 
by the California Republican Assembly, the state's leading conservative outfit, and the Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), a fierce guardian of traditional family values.


"Assemblyman Duvall has been a consistent trooper for the conservative causes," CRI president Karen England announced in March. "For the last two years, he has voted time and time again to protect and preserve family values in California. We are grateful for his support of California
 families.'"

Acknowledging the CRI award, Duvall observed in a press release that as long as he is in office, he would work to protect "California families" from "constant assault in Sacramento."

The Orange County News reports elsewhere that Duvall's exploits were "the worst-kept secret in Sacramento," so I leave to you to judge the repute and stature of the very family values groups that were negligent, incompetent and/or complicit in sponsoring this cheap Boss Hogg clone.

Perhaps they picked him because of what they knew him to be, rather than what they thought him to be. It's the less insulting presumption, if you think about it.

As we've seen with the Blessed Sarah, there are people who have a deal of power on the Right, particularly within the Chromefishtian right, who value a fine looking facade with a malleable core over a substantial candidate who might have inconvenient moral objections to achieving the "right" political outcome.

I need an illustration for that. Oh, yes, here it is...

Christ and the Pharisees....In this scene the Pharisees rebuked Christ, saying- "Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath Day"- but Christ reproved them saying "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath Day"...Matthew 12:1-8 Luke 6:1-5

You may have some familiarity with the rest of the story. It's sort of an object lesson as to what happens to people who's principles transcend appearances. And it appears that in Orange County, ain't no-one willing to take a risk on a representative who might actually be living the values they profess.

Oh, no. They want people who LOOK like they do, but will never, ever, back those who are precisely what they say they are.

That's how you get "family values feminists" like Palin.

And "family friendly" "personalities" like Hannity.

It says something about how much regard these organizations and power-brokers hold "family values" types and to what degree they honor their intelligence and critical thinking skills. Oh, and the principles of your faith. That is to say, no more than I do. Possibly even less. But unlike me, they are also perfectly willing to smile, shake their hands and congratulate them on taking their daughter to the purity ball - only to make lewd jokes at their expense later.

Is it overkill to bring Sara Palin into the mix at this point? Wait, no. Not when Slate.com and Politico.com come to the same conclusion from radically different directions.

Slate observes - quite reasonably - that someone with a degree in Communications should be able to clearly articulate matters of policy and politics. At the very least, they should be able to come up with a clear, concise reason for why they decided to quit their job. Slate goes on to note she's seemingly very angry that people fail to understand her. That implies that she thinks that she's making sense.

Oh. Dear. Me.

This really does not speak well of whoever finally granted her a degree.

Politico - while not actually stating it, no doubt for political reason, presents us with with an article that might as well be titled: "Sara Palin: She Won't Stay Bought."

So, she's incoherent and untrustworthy. Harking back to Hannity's personal investigation of legal prostitution (since we are speaking of politics), I can find several woman on the Bunny Ranch site with better CV's than Palin's - QUITE aside from their physical attributes.

Air Force Amy is the current star [SO not safe for work]- a veteran, a reasonably articulate speaker, and, unlike Palin - she delivers on her promises and contractual obligations. Assuming she writes her own copy, she's better qualified for Palin's degree than Palin is.

Now, it would have been a great thing had Palin actually been what she was represented to be and still thinks she is; a woman of stature and integrity, if there had been even as much behind the facade that is Sara Palin's image as any of the girls at the Bunny Ranch, or indeed, any remotely telegenic woman with comparable paper credentials. Of which there are millions. And millions.

Counting only the politically active, church-going registered Republicans who have held political office - thousands. Rule out those who are obviously unelectable and you'd still have hundreds, so there's no way in hell that Palin could possibly have been anywhere NEAR the top of that pile.

So, do I think that Palin was willing to play the MILF card? Actually, I think that would be a vile presumption, and I don't have to make it. I DO think people making vital decisions were thinking with the wrong head, on many, many levels. But even there, had they actually gone for a person qualified in the field (because that's the only qualifications they were probably thinking of) they could have done FAR better.

No, I think they picked her because she looked good, sounded good and had no moral convictions whatsoever. In other words, I don't think she "slipped through the cracks" and I don't think it was a "vetting failure." She is exactly what the McCain team was looking for. You were simply not supposed to figure it out.

I think she was seen as having succeeded at the abuse of power, while maintaining an wholesome appearance. It appears, though, that she may be so impaired that she doesn't understand that she IS abusing power. You have to understand the concept of responsibility and cause and effect before you can get away with betraying those ideals.

Here I find myself comparing her to particular prostitutes, and I admit, I started to do with no little glee. But then I realized that it's not an unfair or even an unflattering comparison, if you think of the job in terms of doing the job you are paid to do. The careers have many similar requirements for success; communication, social skills and the ability to attract a loyal following. The differences are simply a matter of scale. Moral considerations aside - and clearly, they were.

And so I am, comparing her to a sex worker. And frankly, I know of a number who have better morals and manners than she does.

Hell, I know of a number who's morals, manners and social skills rise above the common run. But you see, those who live on the bottom of society, those who cannot call upon police or powerful friends, those people really have to avoid situations that could get them jammed up. Therefore, they tend to act ethically. Why?

Because if they don't, they tend to end up on slabs.

That sort of example will clarify your values REAL suddenly. Of course, if you want the insight without the high personal investment you might want to read "The Ethical Slut." And yes, the issues it cover are absolutely identical.

As for the people in the social media who will object to this post and who already have leapt to the defense of each of the people and all of the acts discussed above, there is only one appropriate response.

Maddow & Henke: Cronkite's heir highlights next Buckley?

I had pretty much given up on finding a sane conservative perspective for my blogroll. Hell, I'd pretty much given up on the idea of calling myself what I am, an ethical anti-authoritarian, centrist pragmatist who's policy stance is always in favor of enhancing the practical freedoms and opportunities of the individual or that is to say, an actual Libertarian.

I have strong principles, but to paraphrase Issac Asimov, I try never to let my morality get in the way of doing the right thing. Indeed, I've considerably revised my moral views over the years based on the frequency of collisions between Morality and Reality.

One of the greatest problems of the Right (at this point in history) is a smugly moralistic worldview that tends to sharply restrict their ability to even notice, much less recognize situations in which there might be some complexity involved.

I've battled clinical depression my entire life, and I'm here to tell you (remarkably enough) that that degree of black and white thinking I've come to recognize as symptomatic is no virtue. It makes it quite impossible to make rational, reasonable or even sane decisions. When the medication takes effect and that mental state lifts - it can be embarrassing to look back at what one thought, said and did. Suddenly the color returns and one's life may well be seen as an offensive composition. It rather depends on who's been handing you the crayons, you see.


Now, that's a picture that speaks 10,000 words - and not one of them is worth listening to. And yet - and this is a non-partisan failing - we do. We give these people oxygen, when the only appropriate response is shunning. It's certainly tempting to point, laugh and mock - and I've done more than my share of it. It has it's place, should someone who's viewpoints are generally within the boundries of "arguable" and "sane" commit a correctable lapse. But when we get in the range of Glenn Beck Stupid, the only appropriate response is to stop listening and supporting such speech. Pointedly. En Masse.

That's not "censorship," it's self-preservation. That degree of paranoid stupidity can be contagious. To refer to Papa Heinlein, it's like strong drink; it can cause you to shoot at tax-collectors - and miss.

Refreshingly enough, this is what Jon Henke is saying as a public Conservative, on Rachel Maddow's show. Maddow is a proud left-progressive. I rather think she'd vote NDP up here.

So, two people with philosophies that are about as distinct from each other as can be imagined, having a civil, intelligent and informative conversation.

Entirely refreshing. And it led me to read more of Henke. One bit seemed worth sharing immediately, as an exemplar.

Jon Henke writes at The Next Right.

Megan McArdle has previously postulated Jane's Law.

Jane's Law: The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.

I think it's a good generalization about very broad political dynamics. Thinking about that this weekend, I came up with the following psychological spectrum. People tend towards the left side of the spectrum when it comes to allies; towards the right side of the spectrum when it comes to opponents.

Cognitive biases are a natural human tendency and none of us (including me) are immune to them. It is useful to be aware of the problem.

Two things I like about this. First, he is unashamed of being seen using intellectual tools in public, and second, he's capable of writing short. The second impresses me in particular, I am envious, and I shall be including him in my missing Conservative blogroll.

You may have noticed a complete absence of any links to Conservative sources. The reason for that is, I've been disappointed by the public voices of the Right. If I rely on them for information, references, facts or insights, I run the stark risk of being publicly embarrassed for having said something absurd, untrue, or both. So, over the years, I've dropped them, one by one.

You might wonder why that risk doesn't occur from the Left. It does, of course - but it's possible to avoid, because while there are sites you have to be careful of, there are plenty of sites that present the raw facts first and draw their conclusions from there. And sadly, there's very little need for the left to misrepresent the positions, policies, character or criminality of much of the Right. The plain truth is damnation enough.

It's depressing, but currently, there is far more concern on the Left for the mechanics of getting things Right. And those who are not, or who prefer to hear what they want rather than what is - I treat them exactly the same as I treat their counterparts on the Right. I ignore them.

We are extremely fortunate that the wingnuttery of the Right has not been met with equal fanaticism on the left - for if that had been the case, the United States might well be the midst of a literal, armed civil war.

But as of this moment, the sane people of the left are the ones articulating the issues, and for want of an alternate, also serving (rather badly) in Opposition to themselves.

Sadly, what sane people who remain on the Right are very, very lonely. They must be encouraged, for without the voices of traditional, prudent, sane conservatism, we are impoverished of an extremely valuable perspective on life and politics.

Bleeding Heart Libertarian by webcarve

Dear Morans: What Would Edmund Burke Do (To You)?

Robert Creamer writes in Huffpo about a political backlash against the Republicans for the "Death Panels" lie intended to make people fearful of health care reform.

His last two paragraphs sum up the debt they incur by this starkly, and I'm sure he's correct about the political dimension.

In their attempt to enflame the powerful emotions surrounding the deaths of loved ones by spreading intentional lies, the Republicans have stooped to a new low. The Terry Schiavo case should have taught the Republicans that some emotions are too precious to be exploited for partisan political advantage. Apparently it did not.

But when Americans begin to discover just how far the Republicans have been willing to go to stop health insurance reform, they may receive a new lesson. Republicans will learn that combining those powerful emotions with deceit can create an explosive mixture that they will find impossible to forget.

Correct - but only superficially so. However shrewdly he sees this situation, he sees it through the lens of politics, purely as a political opportunity created by an "emotional reaction."

And for that (and only to the extent that it is true, of course,) he deserves reproof. For it should be clear that there is a larger, ethical dimension that is, or should be obvious to everyone.

We ignore those larger considerations at our peril, for that leads directly to evil flourishing due to the unwillingness of good men to do what they know to be right.


The reason that both the Terry Schaivo case backfired and the current Death Panels lie will have a shocking backlash is that they are evil deeds done by evil men for evil reasons and the political justifications made in favor of doing such things are simply more lies by evil, conscious and willful liars.

To quote my shirt which quotes Edmund Burke, "All that is required for evil to flourish is that good men (and women) do nothing."

It is no accident that I quote Burke, who is correctly credited and blamed for his part in founding a long and storied tradition of philosophical Conservatism amongst the English-Speaking peoples. And yet an overview of his words and his causes reveals complexity, intellectual rigor and above all, a deep and abiding regard for doing the Right thing.



Burke was observing the injustice of law being wielded by commercial interests against the interests of the common man, and he would say no less caustic things regarding corporate theft and the misuse of political office in defense of thieves.




Burke might well be alarmed at the idea of any sort of public health insurance scheme - but I doubt that he'd balk at the idea of some sharp regulatory checks on unrestrained greed, or the application of Justice to those to those who's criminality while in service to the state brought it's honor into disrepute.

As a Whig, he of course approached Right Action in the Whig way. But for the most part, it seems, he did not place the cart before the horse. It's a tribute to the lasting import and continuing influence of Edmund Burke that the Modern Whig Party has been established.

I absolutely endorse that effort, an effort among good men and women to do something. They have realized that the GOP has become a creature of evil, a thing to be discarded and supplanted by a party that does not merely stand against this or that, but which stands staunchly for the things that are worth conserving and are worth achieving.

It is as yet still possible to do something good by political means - and as Iraq Vets, many of the founders have a FAR clearer appreciation of "Politics By Other Means" then have slide-jacking funnymentalist eliminationist peckerheads that have made their exodus from the party a moral imperative.



When someone lies to my face for the third time, in order to induce me to go along with some transparently stupid or evil deed, I stop listening. Indeed, I have no trouble whatsoever using whatever reasonable and necessary force is required in order to remove them from my front porch.

Indeed, I see waiting for the third strike to be an exercise in most Christian charity. But "Three Times is Enemy Action" is a rule of thumb that has served me well. It requires a little forbearance, but with that comes a reasonable certainty of conviction.

But clearly, I'm in a distinct minority, even should I count the current members of the Modern Whigs, It saddens me that one explanation may be my lifelong unwillingness to "go along to get along."

Perhaps if more people were more concerned about right actions and right outcomes, and a little less tolerant of those who think that there is no social problem that cannot be solved by sticking someone else with the expense or the cleanup, a civilization might arise between the borders of Canada and Mexico.

I'm not sure if this sort of situation is what Menckin had in mind when he uttered his widely-cited observation, that "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the Jolly Roger, and start slitting throats."

What I am sure of is this; that when that temptation starts to become a creeping suspicion of an impending moral obligation... it's definitely time for good men and women to do something besides complain. Perhaps you should run for office.

Edmund Burke "Triumph of Evil" Shirt by webcarve
Design customized t shirts at zazzle.com

How "Moonbats" Do Apoplexy. (It's SOO Cute!)

A truly FINE rant found on Democratic Underground via a Twitter recommend.

It starts off like this:

Fuck you. No, I'm not joking. I'm sick of this bullshit.

I'm sick of the way you've corrupted the public discourse. The way you've made it acceptable to hurl any insult you like at public officials. The way you blame us for the current atmosphere of hatred by accusing us of starting it with hating Bush. Like Bush didn't come on the heels of eight years of your tireless efforts to destroy Clinton by any means necessary, like Bush didn't give us good reason to complain. A couple of posters on a website compared Bush to Hitler and you've used it as free license to compare Obama to Hitler 24/7 and I'm sick of your hypocrisy, where it's acceptable to say shit about Obama that you would have had an apopletic fit (and did) if anythign remotely similar had been said about your guys. Keith Olbermann calls Cheney a fascist when he was actually using fascist tactics and you think that gives you the freedom to call Obama a fascist, socialist, Marxist constantly for no reason at all. Fuck you and your bullshit false equivelancy.

And then there's this part in the lower middle that I wish I'd written ...

I'm sick of you praising pure evil. You're letting Dick Cheney be the standard-bearer for Republicanism. Dick Cheney, a man so nakedly evil that even his friends call him "Darth"; a man so callous that Lex Luthor would recoil in terror; a man who probably has dismembered hitchhikers in those man-sized safes and kills plants by his mere proximity. Fuck you.

And then it concludes with this:

Fuck you, you scumridden shitehawks, you make me sick. Just fuck off and die.

EDIT: To remove my brief descent into sexist language. Apologies to anyone who saw it.

Prophet 451, you are so KYUUUUTE!!!!!!!!