“Who's In Charge?” - Part 3 - March of the Penguins... er, Progressives
In 1914, Woodrow Wilson was asked "can't you let anything alone?" he answered with, "I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill." These Elites, now calling themselves “progressives”, imagined themselves the world's best examples and dreamed big dreams of establishing order, justice, and peace at home and abroad (under their control, of course). This meant they needed power. Real POWER.
Wilson was the first American 'statesman' to argue that the Founders were wrong to deprive the U.S. government of the power to reshape American society. Nor was Wilson the last to invade a foreign country (Mexico) to "teach [them] to elect good men." World War I and the chaos at home and abroad that followed it showed the Progressive's international schemes required blood and promised more to be shed. Their domestic management had not improved Americans' lives, but given people a taste of arbitrary government, e.g., Prohibition. Any difficulties with their plans and programs were written off as the result of the American people's backwardness - and the Elites decided there was something deeply wrong with America. Progressives began to look down on the masses, saw themselves as the vanguard of the future, and began to look abroad for examples to emulate.
Many Progressives joined the "vanguard of the proletariat," - the Communist Party. Many were deeply sympathetic to Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Progressive were united, however, in being bitter about America and its attitudes. In 1925 the ACLU sponsored a legal challenge to a Tennessee law that required teaching the biblical account of creation. The trial, broadcast nationally on radio, as well as the movie Inherit the Wind, allowed the Elites to drive home the point that Americans who believed in the Bible were willful ignoramuses. World War II was on the horizon, and Progressives agreed on one thing: the approaching war should be blamed on the majority of Americans, because they had refused to lead the League of Nations properly (i.e., let the Elites rule).
Franklin Roosevelt began the process that turned the Elite class into rulers. America's problems would be fixed by a "brain trust" (picked by him). His New Deal's solutions turned the Progressives in charge into powerful bureaucrats and (later) into powerful lobbyists. In the old saying: they came to Washington to do good, and stayed to do well.
Recently, Barack Obama described his opponents' clinging to "God and guns" as a characteristic of inferior Americans. He justified himself by pointing out he had said "what everybody knows is true." Confident "knowledge" that "some of us, the ones who matter," have grasped truths that the common herd cannot, truths that direct us, truths the grasping of which entitles the Elite to discount what the common folk say. Instead, we (the Elite) are to to presume what they mean and act accordingly. After all, The Elite are the only ones worthy to lead, and are - in fact - destined, to rule.
The Elite has a single agenda - accumulating POWER for itself. Despite claim of intellectual superiority and public mandates, it stakes it holds power the oldest technique: patronage and promises thereof. Following what has become SOP - Standard Operating Procedure - for the Left, is maintains a political machine focused primarily on providing tangible rewards to its members. They often provide rank-and-file activists with modest livelihoods, and substantially enhance the upper levels' wealth. Regardless of whatever else they may do or accomplish, they must feed the machine by transferring money or jobs or privileges (civic, as well as economic) to the party's clients, directly or indirectly. The Elite's standard approach to any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of the government . This means those who run it (the Elite) will profit by paying for political support with privileged jobs, contracts, etc. The Elite use this approach not just for economic downturns and social ills but also for natural disasters (hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.) and environmental concerns (climate change, species extinction, etc.). There can be no doubt that control such power and money makes Americans ever more dependent on those who wield it.
By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, the Elites have made themselves the arbiter of wealth and poverty. The economic value of anything depends on sellers and buyers agreeing on that value as civil equals in the absence of force. However, modern government is about nothing if not tampering with civil equality. By using this power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices - or even to buy in the first place - modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. If you are not among the favored guests at the table, you are on the menu.
Modern laws and regulations are hideously long because wordiness and length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally. The Obama health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others (because their senators offered key political support), but more importantly to codify bargains between the government and various parts of the health care industry, state governments, and large employers about who would receive what benefits (e.g., public employee unions and auto workers) and who would pass those indirect taxes onto the general public. The financial regulation bill of 2010, instead setting unequivocal rules for the entire financial industry in few words, spends some 3,000 pages (so far) tilting the field exquisitely toward some players and away from others.
These and other products of Democratic and Republican administrations and multiple sessions of Congress empower countless boards and commissions arbitrarily to protect some persons and companies, while ruining others.
In 2008, the Republican administration first bailed out Bear Stearns, let Lehman Brothers sink in the ensuing panic, but then rescued Goldman Sachs by infusing cash into its principal debtor, AIG. Then, in 2009, its Democratic successor used similar discretionary power (and money appropriated for another purpose) to give major stakes in the auto industry to labor unions that support it on election day.
The Elite will even admit that they do not read the laws. They don't want to. They don't have to. And they don't want the governed to have the slightest clue what its rulers are doing. This is because, under the Elite rules, laws exist for the sole purpose of granting POWER, and all anybody has to know is who gets the benefit (i.e., the Elites, one way or another). By making economic wealth and power dependent on regulation, the Elites teach the common folk that personal wealth and prosperity *must* be bought with the coin of political support.
For the last twenty years, as Democrats and Republicans joined forces to force banks to make loans for houses to people and at rates they would not otherwise have considered, builders and investors had every reason to make as much money as they could from the ensuing inflation of housing prices. When the bubble burst, only those connected with the ruling class at the very bottom and at the very top were bailed out - the middle (and subsequent generations of them) were left to pay the bill.
Similarly, by taxing the use of carbon fuels and subsidizing "alternative energy," the Elites are busy creating the world's biggest opportunity for making money out of things that few (if any) would buy without government intervention and largess. Example: the U.S. ethanol industry exists almost exclusively because of subsidies. The prospect of legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions and allot certain amounts to certain companies set off a feeding frenzy among large companies to show support for a "green agenda," because such allotments would be worth tens of billions of dollars. That is why companies hired some 2,500 lobbyists in 2009 to deepen their involvement in "climate change." At the very least, such involvement profits them by making them into privileged collectors of carbon taxes. And, you will note, that the programs, economic objectives and political desires have very, very little - if anything - to do with addressing or “fixing” any technical aspects of energy production.
Any "green jobs" created in this environment are creatures of subsidies. The end result of these actions upon “climate change” is debatable. I can argue that there is NO WAY to accurately measure the short or long-term effects of current political proposals. And I'd be right, because virtually all the scientific research in this area has been focused on creating POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION for 'action'; not on making sure we “fix the problem.”
The one KNOWN effect of all political proposals to address climate change is simple: it increases the number of people dependent on the Elites, and teaches Americans that satisfying the desires of the ruling class is a safer and more certain way of making a living than producing goods and services that people actually want to buy. Having the Elite ruling class pick economic winners and losers redirects the American people's energies to tasks the Elites deems more worthy than what Americans might choose for themselves. Thus the Elites achieve what they want: power and control.
According to the Elites, if left to themselves, the average American will do the wrong thing.
They will use land inefficiently in suburbs and exurbs, making it necessary to use energy to transport them to jobs and shopping. Americans drive big cars, eat lots of meat as well as other unhealthy things, and go to the doctor whenever they feel like it. Americans think it's OK to spend the money they earn to satisfy their own private desires even though the Elite knows that correct motivations lie in improving the community and the planet. The Elite knows that Americans must be forced to to live more densely and closer to work (as assigned to them by the Elites, where they will be 'most effective'). Americans must drive smaller cars and change their lives to use less energy, their dietary habits must improve, they must accept limits in how much medical care they get, they must divert more of their money to support people, cultural enterprises, and plans for the planet that the Elites values higher. So, ever-greater taxes and intrusive regulations are the mechanism the Elite use to 'improve' the average American (and, coincidentally, allows the Elite cadre to feed and grow itself).
The 2010 medical law is a template for the Elite's economic modus operandi: the government taxes citizens to pay for medical care and requires citizens to purchase health insurance. The money taken and directed is money that the citizens themselves might have used to pay for medical care. In exchange for the money, the government promises to provide care through its "system." The boards, commissions, guidelines, procedures, and "best practices" that constitute "the system" become the arbiters of what any citizen ends up getting. The citizen might end up dissatisfied with what "the system" offers. But when he gave up his money, he gave up the power to choose, and became dependent on the bureaucracy his money pays for and which raises the cost of care. In 2008, the House Ways and Means Committee began considering a plan to force citizens who own Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to transfer those funds into government-run "guaranteed retirement accounts." If the government may force citizens to buy health insurance, by what logic can it not force them to trade private ownership and control of retirement money for a guarantee as sound as the government itself? Is it not clear that the government knows more about managing retirement income than individuals?
* * *
Coming next time in the “Who's In Charge?” - Part 4 -
Who Decides?
Monday, November 1, 2010
“Who's In Charge?” - Part 2 - Vox Populi, Vox Dei or “My God, How did we get in this mess?”
“Who's In Charge?” - Part 2 - Vox Populi, Vox Dei or “My God, How did we get in this mess?”
* * *
Start with the polls... When asked if they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election (2012), Republicans win and the margin is rising daily. But when a poll has the option "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily - the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind.
Most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well. However, only about a fourth of “Republican” voters say Republican officeholders represent them well. From this data, we can calculate that existing officeholders - both Democrats and Republicans - gladden the hearts of about one-third of the total electorate. Most of these happy folks are Democratic voters, with a smattering of a few Republicans.
Clearly, this means that Democratic politicians are effectively the representatives of the Elite Ruling Class. Because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters, the rest of the self-identified Republicans vote for them reluctantly, they represent aspirants satisfied with a junior role in the Elite Ruling Class. In short, the Elite Ruling Class has a party (the Democrats).
Significantly, about two-thirds of all Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents - lack a party in electoral politics. And they are increasingly not happy with this situation. Sooner or later, and regardless of how well it is handled, that clear majority of voters pent-up demand for appropriate representation will be filled. By someone. Almost anyone.
Consider that in in 1968 Governor George Wallace taunted voters with the statement "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between the Republican and Democratic parties. At that turbulent time, on only 13.5 percent of voters agreed. A mere twenty-four years later, in 1992, Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency simply by speaking ill of the Elite Ruling Class. (Don't forget that at one point, Perot was favored by 39 percent vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton.)
The Elite Ruling Class was undeterred. It has not only it burgeoned in size and power, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans' conviction that the Elite Ruling Class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the Right Thing. The rest expect (correctly) that it will do more harm than good.
The main difference in 2010 is they are no longer afraid to say so.
It is hardly surprising that the Elites attempt to cajole the voting public to desire to be “more like Europeans”. The Elites had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008 with this in mind. After all, Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by those who presume to be their betters, and distrust of the rulers is expected. The goal was never satisfaction or even to provide Good Government. The goal is simply to perpetuate the status quo of those in power.
Wait a minute... Just WHO are these Elite rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing down to privileged Elites? What sets the Elites apart from the rest of us?
Many believe that our technologically-based modern society has become so complex and productive, and the technical skills to run it so rare, that it requires a new class of highly educated officials. An equally ridiculous belief is that Good Government requires a cadre of those dedicated to globalization: including the multinational manager, the technologist and those who desire some kind of meritocracy (in which they are conveniently considered the best of the best).
Most explanations are counter-intuitive. Wealth? The Elites do live in our big cities' priciest enclaves and suburbs, but they are no wealthier than most. They do have neighbors with whom they do not associate - just as the intellectuals in control of social science and humanities departments which control the educational system seldom associates with physicians and physicists.
Elites, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative "nonprofit" and "philanthropic" sectors which (mostly) rely on largess and drive public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government funding in one form or another. Somewhat surprisingly, they vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on streets named for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. An identifying mark is the fact that they draw their money (and political orientation) from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in general.
Professional prominence or position will not secure a place as an Elite any more than access to mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the Elites. Like a fraternity, this societal class requires ONE THING above all else - being seen as “in” with the Right people, giving the required signs that one is on the Right Side, and joining with others of their ilk in despising Those On the Outside. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and idols, and is shown to be a willing tool for the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among the established Elite ranks.
The reality: The Elites grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its symbiotic connection with an ever-increasing government bureaucracy. But the most disturbing characteristic of these New Elites is a certain attitude: I'm better than you... and I deserve it.
An example: in 1984, Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor of law, (and noted leftist) can "write" his magnum opus by using the products of a student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, Tribe claims (perhaps correctly) that the plagiarism was "inadvertent." Follow this approach with confidence since the Law School's dean, Elena Kagan, can be counted upon to appoint a committee that issues a secret report that "closes" the incident. (Incidentally, in 2010, Kagan eventually ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Hmmm.)
Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and by any measure - all ended up getting rewarded. By contrast, technically detailed and learned papers along with distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not “qualified” for their legitimate and reasonable questions about “climate change” to be taken seriously. For (accepted) members of the Elites, group identity and allegiance always trumps high academic achievement.
Don't the Elite go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn't most of them get good grades? Yes... So what? Getting into America's "top schools" is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile. American secondary schools are generous with their As. In fact, many teachers are criticized and ruthlessly brow-beat into submission with for daring to grade based on actual knowledge acquired: you're going to damage little Johnny's chances at Getting Into A Good School!
Since the 1970s, it has been virtually impossible to flunk out of American colleges. It is an open secret that "the best" colleges require the least work and give out the highest grade point averages. The Elites use this training ground to recruit not through meritocracy but rather by accepting people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to Fit In With The Crowd. The most successful neither write books and papers that stand up to honest criticism. They don't release their academic records either. Thus, the Elites avoid negative selection. Curiously, but not surprisingly, it has dumbed itself down while defining itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.
Attitude is key to becoming an Elite. The first tenet is that "we" are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional - and must be properly controlled and restrained by their betters (us). Lost in the shuffle is the paradigm that "all men are created equal".
Experience teaches us that we are so unequal in so many ways. Setting yourself up as a “superior example of humanity” is extremely tempting and all-too human. Our Founding Fathers liked the idea of true equality because they believed that all men are made in the image and likeness of God, and because they were yearning for equal treatment under British law.
The notion of “equality for all” was eventually attacked by resorting to "science." In the early 1800's, Technical journals concluded different breeds of animals and plants produce inferior or superior results. Slave owners were citing the Negroes' “inherent deficiencies” as evidence they should remain slaves indefinitely. Sen. John Pettit of Ohio, in 1835, declared the idea that "all men are created equal" was a "a self-evident lie." The Elites quickly adopted the "scientific" notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men *should* subdue inferior ones. In fact, they are *obligated* to subdue lower beings or, at the very least, try to improve them (as they see fit, naturally).
Abolitionists liked believing freeing Negroes would improve them in *all* ways. And, of course, Southerners *had* to be punished and reconstructed by force. Entering the 20th century, the Elite began to eye social reform. They were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they - The Elite - were clearly the most highly evolved of all, and therefore should step up to be the self-appointed guardians and “improver” of the species as a whole.
Enter the Progressives.
* * *
Coming next time in the “Who's In Charge?” - Part 3 -
March of the Penguins... er, Progressives
* * *
Start with the polls... When asked if they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election (2012), Republicans win and the margin is rising daily. But when a poll has the option "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily - the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind.
Most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well. However, only about a fourth of “Republican” voters say Republican officeholders represent them well. From this data, we can calculate that existing officeholders - both Democrats and Republicans - gladden the hearts of about one-third of the total electorate. Most of these happy folks are Democratic voters, with a smattering of a few Republicans.
Clearly, this means that Democratic politicians are effectively the representatives of the Elite Ruling Class. Because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters, the rest of the self-identified Republicans vote for them reluctantly, they represent aspirants satisfied with a junior role in the Elite Ruling Class. In short, the Elite Ruling Class has a party (the Democrats).
Significantly, about two-thirds of all Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents - lack a party in electoral politics. And they are increasingly not happy with this situation. Sooner or later, and regardless of how well it is handled, that clear majority of voters pent-up demand for appropriate representation will be filled. By someone. Almost anyone.
Consider that in in 1968 Governor George Wallace taunted voters with the statement "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between the Republican and Democratic parties. At that turbulent time, on only 13.5 percent of voters agreed. A mere twenty-four years later, in 1992, Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency simply by speaking ill of the Elite Ruling Class. (Don't forget that at one point, Perot was favored by 39 percent vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton.)
The Elite Ruling Class was undeterred. It has not only it burgeoned in size and power, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans' conviction that the Elite Ruling Class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the Right Thing. The rest expect (correctly) that it will do more harm than good.
The main difference in 2010 is they are no longer afraid to say so.
It is hardly surprising that the Elites attempt to cajole the voting public to desire to be “more like Europeans”. The Elites had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008 with this in mind. After all, Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by those who presume to be their betters, and distrust of the rulers is expected. The goal was never satisfaction or even to provide Good Government. The goal is simply to perpetuate the status quo of those in power.
Wait a minute... Just WHO are these Elite rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing down to privileged Elites? What sets the Elites apart from the rest of us?
Many believe that our technologically-based modern society has become so complex and productive, and the technical skills to run it so rare, that it requires a new class of highly educated officials. An equally ridiculous belief is that Good Government requires a cadre of those dedicated to globalization: including the multinational manager, the technologist and those who desire some kind of meritocracy (in which they are conveniently considered the best of the best).
Most explanations are counter-intuitive. Wealth? The Elites do live in our big cities' priciest enclaves and suburbs, but they are no wealthier than most. They do have neighbors with whom they do not associate - just as the intellectuals in control of social science and humanities departments which control the educational system seldom associates with physicians and physicists.
Elites, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative "nonprofit" and "philanthropic" sectors which (mostly) rely on largess and drive public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government funding in one form or another. Somewhat surprisingly, they vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on streets named for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. An identifying mark is the fact that they draw their money (and political orientation) from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in general.
Professional prominence or position will not secure a place as an Elite any more than access to mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the Elites. Like a fraternity, this societal class requires ONE THING above all else - being seen as “in” with the Right people, giving the required signs that one is on the Right Side, and joining with others of their ilk in despising Those On the Outside. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and idols, and is shown to be a willing tool for the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among the established Elite ranks.
The reality: The Elites grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its symbiotic connection with an ever-increasing government bureaucracy. But the most disturbing characteristic of these New Elites is a certain attitude: I'm better than you... and I deserve it.
An example: in 1984, Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor of law, (and noted leftist) can "write" his magnum opus by using the products of a student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, Tribe claims (perhaps correctly) that the plagiarism was "inadvertent." Follow this approach with confidence since the Law School's dean, Elena Kagan, can be counted upon to appoint a committee that issues a secret report that "closes" the incident. (Incidentally, in 2010, Kagan eventually ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Hmmm.)
Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and by any measure - all ended up getting rewarded. By contrast, technically detailed and learned papers along with distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not “qualified” for their legitimate and reasonable questions about “climate change” to be taken seriously. For (accepted) members of the Elites, group identity and allegiance always trumps high academic achievement.
Don't the Elite go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn't most of them get good grades? Yes... So what? Getting into America's "top schools" is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile. American secondary schools are generous with their As. In fact, many teachers are criticized and ruthlessly brow-beat into submission with for daring to grade based on actual knowledge acquired: you're going to damage little Johnny's chances at Getting Into A Good School!
Since the 1970s, it has been virtually impossible to flunk out of American colleges. It is an open secret that "the best" colleges require the least work and give out the highest grade point averages. The Elites use this training ground to recruit not through meritocracy but rather by accepting people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to Fit In With The Crowd. The most successful neither write books and papers that stand up to honest criticism. They don't release their academic records either. Thus, the Elites avoid negative selection. Curiously, but not surprisingly, it has dumbed itself down while defining itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.
Attitude is key to becoming an Elite. The first tenet is that "we" are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional - and must be properly controlled and restrained by their betters (us). Lost in the shuffle is the paradigm that "all men are created equal".
Experience teaches us that we are so unequal in so many ways. Setting yourself up as a “superior example of humanity” is extremely tempting and all-too human. Our Founding Fathers liked the idea of true equality because they believed that all men are made in the image and likeness of God, and because they were yearning for equal treatment under British law.
The notion of “equality for all” was eventually attacked by resorting to "science." In the early 1800's, Technical journals concluded different breeds of animals and plants produce inferior or superior results. Slave owners were citing the Negroes' “inherent deficiencies” as evidence they should remain slaves indefinitely. Sen. John Pettit of Ohio, in 1835, declared the idea that "all men are created equal" was a "a self-evident lie." The Elites quickly adopted the "scientific" notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men *should* subdue inferior ones. In fact, they are *obligated* to subdue lower beings or, at the very least, try to improve them (as they see fit, naturally).
Abolitionists liked believing freeing Negroes would improve them in *all* ways. And, of course, Southerners *had* to be punished and reconstructed by force. Entering the 20th century, the Elite began to eye social reform. They were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they - The Elite - were clearly the most highly evolved of all, and therefore should step up to be the self-appointed guardians and “improver” of the species as a whole.
Enter the Progressives.
* * *
Coming next time in the “Who's In Charge?” - Part 3 -
March of the Penguins... er, Progressives
“Who's In Charge?” - Part 1 - The Elite Have No Clothes
“Who's In Charge?” - Part 1 - The Elite Have No Clothes
Caveat: I'm going to toss barbs at both sides of the political spectrum in this multi-post series, but, honestly, most of it will fall on the Left: that's where more of the obviously guilty are easily spotted. That said, I'd like to point out there are more than enough folks bouncing around on the Right that do EXACTLY the same things. And I'll poke at them early and often to prove it. There's plenty of blame to go around, but assigning (or dodging) blame accomplishes nothing and its not my purpose. These ideas are not unique or original to me: bits and pieces can be found in many articles and commentaries, as well as a novel or two. I do agree with the points raised, whether I like them or not. In spite of appearances, this diatribe isn't about Democrat-vs-Republicans, conservative-vs-liberal, or even or left-vs-right: it's a social commentary. In short: things are a mess, we've done it to ourselves, and fixing it will be painful. People are (finally) starting to realize that some serious changes are needed. The Real Problem has two-prongs: (a) the changes required are/will-be extremely painful, difficult and challenging, and (b) there are way too many folks who don't like the fact the unwashed rabble is rising up at all...
Let's begin with a trip back to the fall of 2008... Over-leveraged investment houses are starting to have financial problems. A real estate bubble - created primarily by politicians on both sides in support of partisan and personal political gains - is starting to unravel and will burst. In a panicked response, the Republican and Democratic parties, the heads of major corporations (mostly financial), and multitudes of editorial pundits from otherwise extreme odds (from the Wall Street Journal to The Nation magazine) jointly decided spending over $700 BILLION of taxpayer monies to buy "toxic assets" was the only alternative to a "systemic collapse" of the entire US economy.
President George W. Bush, his would-be Republican successor John McCain, and the Democratic-party winner in the 2008 election, Barack Obama were *all* in agreement on this point. And, just to keep things rolling - they, their cabinets, and cohorts in Congress, jumped up to implement an unprecedented commitment of around 10 TRILLION dollars (that the Treasury didn't have) which *had* to be spent Right Now to 'stimulate' the economy. The voting public which installed them in office got ZERO explanations about how the the difference between the assets' nominal and real values happened in the first place. They also failed to explain (or even seriously consider) why letting the market itself define these asset's real value and adjust matters into winners and losers would totally collapse the country as a whole. In the face of what has become a monumental financial burden on the next several generations of taxpayers - the public objected loudly, forcefully and immediately - usually by margins of 3 or 4 to 1 against this outrage.
Ignored from the beginning, the taxpayers got their nose rubbed into a stinky pile of Reality and finally realized that NO ONE in EITHER PARTY or would take their objections seriously. Worse, the vast majority of pundits (on all sides) didn't hold the bureaucrats feet to the fire, WHICH IS THEIR JOB. The common folks in the hinterlands were justifiably upset that decisions about THEIR money was being made in bipartisan backroom deals, attended only by self-interested parties who *all* had their hands in the trough. And they hit the ceiling when they confronted the fact that laws affecting the most minute details of day-to-day life were being voted on by people who had not read them - and the politicos thought this method of conducting the country's business was just fine, thank you very much. And please get back to work - we need the tax revenue.
This situation - as much as anything else - lead to the birth of the Tea Party movement. And take a moment to note I'm talking about “taxpayers”, not just “voters”. You see, the taxpayers - the ones footing the bill - also started to recognize they were becoming outnumbered by the masses who existed solely to vote themselves largess from the public pocketbook. And these leeches were becoming ever bolder in their claims upon the productive efforts of others.
While the common folk were still reeling in shock from this hideous revelation, the power brokers suddenly changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries - but (again) refused to explain why to the unwashed masses footing the bill. In effect, they were operating as though it was their right to decide ad ho on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding.
Now, after the rumblings among the citizenry became unavoidably noticeable - just after the 2008 election - most Republican office holders began to argue against TARP, against bailing out the auto industry, and against the several new "stimulus" bills. They suddenly and quite hypocritically had developed an aversion to the summary expansion of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Now that they were able to quickly recognize a film-flam shuffle after being kicked in the face a few times, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. And the self-promoting agitators sweetly did this with the clear and obvious motive of trying to latch onto a ground-swell of public dissatisfaction with the bureaucracy to prop up their own selfish ambitions. You see, the public (slowly) realized the Republicans had been more than happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Only the direction was different, not the tactic.
For the first time in decades, taxpayers began to understand that the differences between Bush I - Clinton - Bush II - Obama were matters of degree and direction, not substance. In fact, for the last two years (2009-2010), the entrenched, establishment Republicans only showed a desire to ever-so-slightly modify the (Obama) government's agenda, and were even eager to join hands across the aisle with Democrats to hatch new and grand spending schemes (if only the Democrats would let them join in the fun).
Orrin Hatch aspired to be Ted Kennedy. Lindsey Graham set aside his legitimate questions about climate change simply for the sake of appearing to be on the Right Side of History. Republicans were just as guilty as Democrats in claiming superior insight into highly technical matters, and each side showed a disturbing tendency to treat average Americans as if they were nothing more than spoiled, whining and annoying children who needed to be spanked until they assumed their proper place in the political food chain (e.g., as the food). The vast majority of the Republican party did not rise up against the bureaucracy simply because they already were (or wanted to be) part of the Ruling Master Class. This so-called “upper crust” of the “best-and-brightest” had devolved into an inbred, self-serving and self-promoting bureaucracy in its worst form.
Throughout history, in America - and just like everywhere else - some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But only recently did those who drew their money and status from different sources became predictably of the same opinion on any given matter. No longer was "bureaucrat" a dirty word. Ditto "social engineering." The schools and universities that formed yesterday's elite imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed.
The Intellectual Elite had carefully crafted an educational system that exposed people to the exact same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. And, worse, it vigorously objected to independent thought in all forms. There can into being a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins - e.g., against “minorities” and the “environment”, and saints - e.g., working for “the public good” (while lining their own pockets). They have been taught to always use the Right Words while avoiding the Wrong Words. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, so did their own fame and fortune pushing them up ever higher.
Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, has never held a non-government job. Whether formally employed in government, out of it, or halfway (i.e., becoming a lobbyist) , this ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. And these elitists recoil in terror at the simple prospect of having to even listen to that majority of otherwise functional Americans who are not oriented to see government as a be-all-end-all.
This country has indeed separated into a class-based society. Not rich and poor. Not the haves and have-not. Instead it is divided into those wish to rise in control of the public arena and those who wish to be left alone and remain private. While most Americans pray to the God "who created and sustains us," the elite prays to ITSELF as "saviors of the planet" and “improver of humanity”. These two distinct groups battle of "whose country" America is, over what way of life will prevail, and - more importantly - who is to defer to whom and about what.
And, just as the only Republican which Democrats will claim to actually admire once said (who was quoting from the Gospel of Mark), "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
* * *
Coming next time in the “Who's In Charge?” - Part 2 -
Vox Populi, Vox Dei or “My God, How did we get in this mess?”
Caveat: I'm going to toss barbs at both sides of the political spectrum in this multi-post series, but, honestly, most of it will fall on the Left: that's where more of the obviously guilty are easily spotted. That said, I'd like to point out there are more than enough folks bouncing around on the Right that do EXACTLY the same things. And I'll poke at them early and often to prove it. There's plenty of blame to go around, but assigning (or dodging) blame accomplishes nothing and its not my purpose. These ideas are not unique or original to me: bits and pieces can be found in many articles and commentaries, as well as a novel or two. I do agree with the points raised, whether I like them or not. In spite of appearances, this diatribe isn't about Democrat-vs-Republicans, conservative-vs-liberal, or even or left-vs-right: it's a social commentary. In short: things are a mess, we've done it to ourselves, and fixing it will be painful. People are (finally) starting to realize that some serious changes are needed. The Real Problem has two-prongs: (a) the changes required are/will-be extremely painful, difficult and challenging, and (b) there are way too many folks who don't like the fact the unwashed rabble is rising up at all...
Let's begin with a trip back to the fall of 2008... Over-leveraged investment houses are starting to have financial problems. A real estate bubble - created primarily by politicians on both sides in support of partisan and personal political gains - is starting to unravel and will burst. In a panicked response, the Republican and Democratic parties, the heads of major corporations (mostly financial), and multitudes of editorial pundits from otherwise extreme odds (from the Wall Street Journal to The Nation magazine) jointly decided spending over $700 BILLION of taxpayer monies to buy "toxic assets" was the only alternative to a "systemic collapse" of the entire US economy.
President George W. Bush, his would-be Republican successor John McCain, and the Democratic-party winner in the 2008 election, Barack Obama were *all* in agreement on this point. And, just to keep things rolling - they, their cabinets, and cohorts in Congress, jumped up to implement an unprecedented commitment of around 10 TRILLION dollars (that the Treasury didn't have) which *had* to be spent Right Now to 'stimulate' the economy. The voting public which installed them in office got ZERO explanations about how the the difference between the assets' nominal and real values happened in the first place. They also failed to explain (or even seriously consider) why letting the market itself define these asset's real value and adjust matters into winners and losers would totally collapse the country as a whole. In the face of what has become a monumental financial burden on the next several generations of taxpayers - the public objected loudly, forcefully and immediately - usually by margins of 3 or 4 to 1 against this outrage.
Ignored from the beginning, the taxpayers got their nose rubbed into a stinky pile of Reality and finally realized that NO ONE in EITHER PARTY or would take their objections seriously. Worse, the vast majority of pundits (on all sides) didn't hold the bureaucrats feet to the fire, WHICH IS THEIR JOB. The common folks in the hinterlands were justifiably upset that decisions about THEIR money was being made in bipartisan backroom deals, attended only by self-interested parties who *all* had their hands in the trough. And they hit the ceiling when they confronted the fact that laws affecting the most minute details of day-to-day life were being voted on by people who had not read them - and the politicos thought this method of conducting the country's business was just fine, thank you very much. And please get back to work - we need the tax revenue.
This situation - as much as anything else - lead to the birth of the Tea Party movement. And take a moment to note I'm talking about “taxpayers”, not just “voters”. You see, the taxpayers - the ones footing the bill - also started to recognize they were becoming outnumbered by the masses who existed solely to vote themselves largess from the public pocketbook. And these leeches were becoming ever bolder in their claims upon the productive efforts of others.
While the common folk were still reeling in shock from this hideous revelation, the power brokers suddenly changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries - but (again) refused to explain why to the unwashed masses footing the bill. In effect, they were operating as though it was their right to decide ad ho on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding.
Now, after the rumblings among the citizenry became unavoidably noticeable - just after the 2008 election - most Republican office holders began to argue against TARP, against bailing out the auto industry, and against the several new "stimulus" bills. They suddenly and quite hypocritically had developed an aversion to the summary expansion of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Now that they were able to quickly recognize a film-flam shuffle after being kicked in the face a few times, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. And the self-promoting agitators sweetly did this with the clear and obvious motive of trying to latch onto a ground-swell of public dissatisfaction with the bureaucracy to prop up their own selfish ambitions. You see, the public (slowly) realized the Republicans had been more than happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Only the direction was different, not the tactic.
For the first time in decades, taxpayers began to understand that the differences between Bush I - Clinton - Bush II - Obama were matters of degree and direction, not substance. In fact, for the last two years (2009-2010), the entrenched, establishment Republicans only showed a desire to ever-so-slightly modify the (Obama) government's agenda, and were even eager to join hands across the aisle with Democrats to hatch new and grand spending schemes (if only the Democrats would let them join in the fun).
Orrin Hatch aspired to be Ted Kennedy. Lindsey Graham set aside his legitimate questions about climate change simply for the sake of appearing to be on the Right Side of History. Republicans were just as guilty as Democrats in claiming superior insight into highly technical matters, and each side showed a disturbing tendency to treat average Americans as if they were nothing more than spoiled, whining and annoying children who needed to be spanked until they assumed their proper place in the political food chain (e.g., as the food). The vast majority of the Republican party did not rise up against the bureaucracy simply because they already were (or wanted to be) part of the Ruling Master Class. This so-called “upper crust” of the “best-and-brightest” had devolved into an inbred, self-serving and self-promoting bureaucracy in its worst form.
Throughout history, in America - and just like everywhere else - some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But only recently did those who drew their money and status from different sources became predictably of the same opinion on any given matter. No longer was "bureaucrat" a dirty word. Ditto "social engineering." The schools and universities that formed yesterday's elite imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed.
The Intellectual Elite had carefully crafted an educational system that exposed people to the exact same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. And, worse, it vigorously objected to independent thought in all forms. There can into being a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins - e.g., against “minorities” and the “environment”, and saints - e.g., working for “the public good” (while lining their own pockets). They have been taught to always use the Right Words while avoiding the Wrong Words. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, so did their own fame and fortune pushing them up ever higher.
Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, has never held a non-government job. Whether formally employed in government, out of it, or halfway (i.e., becoming a lobbyist) , this ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. And these elitists recoil in terror at the simple prospect of having to even listen to that majority of otherwise functional Americans who are not oriented to see government as a be-all-end-all.
This country has indeed separated into a class-based society. Not rich and poor. Not the haves and have-not. Instead it is divided into those wish to rise in control of the public arena and those who wish to be left alone and remain private. While most Americans pray to the God "who created and sustains us," the elite prays to ITSELF as "saviors of the planet" and “improver of humanity”. These two distinct groups battle of "whose country" America is, over what way of life will prevail, and - more importantly - who is to defer to whom and about what.
And, just as the only Republican which Democrats will claim to actually admire once said (who was quoting from the Gospel of Mark), "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
* * *
Coming next time in the “Who's In Charge?” - Part 2 -
Vox Populi, Vox Dei or “My God, How did we get in this mess?”
Saturday, October 23, 2010
At Least It Only Lasts 24 Hours
Steve,
Of course I can't predict which of my days will wind up better or worse than the others. But one thing I do know is that of the next 365, 364 of them will start out with a built-in advantage. One of them in fact will have to climb harder than all the rest, since it will always begin several hundred yards farther down the hill.
Now I don't mind celebrating other people's birthdays. Those give me the opportunity to rejoice that the calamity of age is ruining the lives of my friends at the same steady pace that it is ruining mine. Which reminds me. When asked about it, maybe one in ten seniors will say they enjoy getting older and wouldn't want to be young again - which is really just their way with dealing with the reality that they have no choice about it. Unless you are a fool, why would'nt you want to be young again? I mean, if you instantly became young again, you would in due course arrive back to where you were before and then get to experience that pleasant old age, which you claim to be so hot, twice.
And by the way, I've always considered the standard bon mot to be rationally impossible. It is like wishing a man emerging from a knife fight, "happy stab wound", or another awaiting sentencing, "happy incarceration". In fact, although we don't know it at the time, each of us can have only one truly happy birthday: that being the one at which the entirety of life lies before us. Each year after that we have less and less of it to consume.
Conditioned as they are by Hallmark and American Greetings, which would make the sinking of the Titanic a national holiday if they could, most people would say that apathy, or even outright depression on one's birthday to be plain humbug. I find this as convincing as the idea that a man should say, "Oh look, my arm has fallen off. How marvelous!". So let us be more reasonable than that. Today is my birthday. I'm dealing with it with fortitude. But don't expect me to be quiet about it...
-Chris
Of course I can't predict which of my days will wind up better or worse than the others. But one thing I do know is that of the next 365, 364 of them will start out with a built-in advantage. One of them in fact will have to climb harder than all the rest, since it will always begin several hundred yards farther down the hill.
Now I don't mind celebrating other people's birthdays. Those give me the opportunity to rejoice that the calamity of age is ruining the lives of my friends at the same steady pace that it is ruining mine. Which reminds me. When asked about it, maybe one in ten seniors will say they enjoy getting older and wouldn't want to be young again - which is really just their way with dealing with the reality that they have no choice about it. Unless you are a fool, why would'nt you want to be young again? I mean, if you instantly became young again, you would in due course arrive back to where you were before and then get to experience that pleasant old age, which you claim to be so hot, twice.
And by the way, I've always considered the standard bon mot to be rationally impossible. It is like wishing a man emerging from a knife fight, "happy stab wound", or another awaiting sentencing, "happy incarceration". In fact, although we don't know it at the time, each of us can have only one truly happy birthday: that being the one at which the entirety of life lies before us. Each year after that we have less and less of it to consume.
Conditioned as they are by Hallmark and American Greetings, which would make the sinking of the Titanic a national holiday if they could, most people would say that apathy, or even outright depression on one's birthday to be plain humbug. I find this as convincing as the idea that a man should say, "Oh look, my arm has fallen off. How marvelous!". So let us be more reasonable than that. Today is my birthday. I'm dealing with it with fortitude. But don't expect me to be quiet about it...
-Chris
Friday, October 22, 2010
I Despair, Part III
Steve,
It's been my experience that most people who habitually refer to themselves as liberals or conservatives are the kind of people who, when presented with a new problem or obstacle, prefer to address it with ideology rather than intelligence. This is not to say that either liberalism or conservatism, in their naked forms, cannot add a useful dimension to intelligence. Surely they can. Or, that a thoughtful, intelligent liberal will always arrive at the same solution which a thoughtful and intelligent conservative will. They don't, or at least, don't often.
In any case, I think you will find that any solution, thoughtfully and intelligently conceived, should be as workable and inoffensive to the liberal as it is to the conservative. Politics however, has become nothing more than the art of not having to admit to this elementary fact. In politics, liberals and conservatives are taught to portray each other as stupid, or heartless, or for that matter against anything which improves the human condition and for anything which corrupts it. What hogwash that is!
We all know that most men and women of the same time and country generally share the same aims and values in their day to day lives. To be sure, some may favor red meat while others are vegetarians. But even then they usually have the aim of a good meal. Most of us want safe neighborhoods, good schools, smooth roads, honest jobs and decent paychecks. Few, if indeed any of us like paying taxes - and just about everyone believes they are taxed too much while the other guy is taxed too little. Finally, except when behind the wheel of a car, most of us are reasonably courteous to one another and disgusted by those who aren't.
With all of these things to unite us, why are we then so confused by the illusion of politics? I mean, if one is convinced that candidate "A" is a scoundrel who burns orphanages and eats babies for lunch, it necessarily follows that any person who votes for candidate "A" is by inference a person who favors burning orphanages or eating babies - either that, or is a blockhead, which is nearly as bad.
Recently I watched a political ad on television where the candidate, a man himself of uncertain dignity, accused his opponent of voting for a bill, the object of which was to furnish Viagra to convicted rapists. You've probably seen it yourself. I then imagined this opponent rising up in the Georgia State Legislature and announcing a bill to address, swiftly and effectively, the problem of erectile dysfunction among known rapists. And what a tumultuous session that must have been! I suppose that as a means of securing the rapist vote, such a gesture would have no equal, but still, strategically unwise.
Now I doubt if this man's opponent is running ads of any greater honesty or credibility.
One day, just once, I'd like to see a political ad whereby a candidate admits to having some faults as well as some strengths, and yet also to the decency of his opponent. In such an ad he or she might even claim their opponent to have some good ideas, but that his (or her's) are a little better and more numerous. I assure you I would leave the funeral of my best friend to go and vote for a person like that - regardless of what their ideas were or experience consisted of. I'd vote for that person if their central motive was to ban alcohol or college football - all the while rejoicing that here, for maybe the first time in American history, was a candidate who prized my intellect over my prejudice.
And thereby we arrive, by way of a meandering road, to my point. Frankly, I can't think of any profession, licit or not, which is as dismissive of intelligence as politics. Even among ditch diggers, one imagines that all things being equal, the smarter ones would be preferred. Yet in politics, intelligence is not only to be avoided, but has become a thing routinely despised.
Most voters accept that a man is perfectly capable of legislating effectively on matters affected by law, history, science, philosophy - even religion - without having any verified knowledge of these arts, so long as he owns a backbone and a good heart. Lately, even this limited standard has been reduced to the point where we only trust leaders with whom we conceive we would enjoy having beers with at the neighborhood bar.
Thus, pity the man running for office who can demonstrate an early and passionate interest in law, history, science, philosophy, religion, or all of them, by producing a record of academic achievement in any of these fields, since none of that matters when confronted by an adversary who understands, by osmosis, "the real world".
Pfah! Isn't the academic record of law, history, science, philosophy and religion nothing more than a patiently accumulated and analyzed account of the "real" world? I mean, what planet, exactly, do professors at universities teach the history of? Mars? Jupiter? And for that matter, even if they do teach the history of Mars and Jupiter in place of Earth's, how can anyone who relies on the local bar or the race track for wisdom be expected to know the difference?
Enjoy...
Chris
It's been my experience that most people who habitually refer to themselves as liberals or conservatives are the kind of people who, when presented with a new problem or obstacle, prefer to address it with ideology rather than intelligence. This is not to say that either liberalism or conservatism, in their naked forms, cannot add a useful dimension to intelligence. Surely they can. Or, that a thoughtful, intelligent liberal will always arrive at the same solution which a thoughtful and intelligent conservative will. They don't, or at least, don't often.
In any case, I think you will find that any solution, thoughtfully and intelligently conceived, should be as workable and inoffensive to the liberal as it is to the conservative. Politics however, has become nothing more than the art of not having to admit to this elementary fact. In politics, liberals and conservatives are taught to portray each other as stupid, or heartless, or for that matter against anything which improves the human condition and for anything which corrupts it. What hogwash that is!
We all know that most men and women of the same time and country generally share the same aims and values in their day to day lives. To be sure, some may favor red meat while others are vegetarians. But even then they usually have the aim of a good meal. Most of us want safe neighborhoods, good schools, smooth roads, honest jobs and decent paychecks. Few, if indeed any of us like paying taxes - and just about everyone believes they are taxed too much while the other guy is taxed too little. Finally, except when behind the wheel of a car, most of us are reasonably courteous to one another and disgusted by those who aren't.
With all of these things to unite us, why are we then so confused by the illusion of politics? I mean, if one is convinced that candidate "A" is a scoundrel who burns orphanages and eats babies for lunch, it necessarily follows that any person who votes for candidate "A" is by inference a person who favors burning orphanages or eating babies - either that, or is a blockhead, which is nearly as bad.
Recently I watched a political ad on television where the candidate, a man himself of uncertain dignity, accused his opponent of voting for a bill, the object of which was to furnish Viagra to convicted rapists. You've probably seen it yourself. I then imagined this opponent rising up in the Georgia State Legislature and announcing a bill to address, swiftly and effectively, the problem of erectile dysfunction among known rapists. And what a tumultuous session that must have been! I suppose that as a means of securing the rapist vote, such a gesture would have no equal, but still, strategically unwise.
Now I doubt if this man's opponent is running ads of any greater honesty or credibility.
One day, just once, I'd like to see a political ad whereby a candidate admits to having some faults as well as some strengths, and yet also to the decency of his opponent. In such an ad he or she might even claim their opponent to have some good ideas, but that his (or her's) are a little better and more numerous. I assure you I would leave the funeral of my best friend to go and vote for a person like that - regardless of what their ideas were or experience consisted of. I'd vote for that person if their central motive was to ban alcohol or college football - all the while rejoicing that here, for maybe the first time in American history, was a candidate who prized my intellect over my prejudice.
And thereby we arrive, by way of a meandering road, to my point. Frankly, I can't think of any profession, licit or not, which is as dismissive of intelligence as politics. Even among ditch diggers, one imagines that all things being equal, the smarter ones would be preferred. Yet in politics, intelligence is not only to be avoided, but has become a thing routinely despised.
Most voters accept that a man is perfectly capable of legislating effectively on matters affected by law, history, science, philosophy - even religion - without having any verified knowledge of these arts, so long as he owns a backbone and a good heart. Lately, even this limited standard has been reduced to the point where we only trust leaders with whom we conceive we would enjoy having beers with at the neighborhood bar.
Thus, pity the man running for office who can demonstrate an early and passionate interest in law, history, science, philosophy, religion, or all of them, by producing a record of academic achievement in any of these fields, since none of that matters when confronted by an adversary who understands, by osmosis, "the real world".
Pfah! Isn't the academic record of law, history, science, philosophy and religion nothing more than a patiently accumulated and analyzed account of the "real" world? I mean, what planet, exactly, do professors at universities teach the history of? Mars? Jupiter? And for that matter, even if they do teach the history of Mars and Jupiter in place of Earth's, how can anyone who relies on the local bar or the race track for wisdom be expected to know the difference?
Enjoy...
Chris
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Clean Energy Investing
Chris,
you said:
"According to denialists, investors like Deutsche Bank - and for that matter, anyone else interested in investing in companies like Solyndra - are just making the science up as they go along. AGW really isn't happening, as the theory goes, and private companies, as well as governments, are more or less betting on a losing horse. Sooner or later AGW will be exposed as the hoax it really is and all that investment in clean energy is going to go right down the tubes."
I must say I 100% disagree with your conclusion. I am also quite disappointed at your use of a wide-scope tar-bush in an attempt to paint 'denialists' into some perceived 'corner' created by AGW enthusiasts. I will respond in detail in a subsequent post. Which leads to your next comment:
"And if a problem doesn't exist, what possible reason could we have for investing in a solution?"
Investing in "Clean, Green Energy" and investing in an unproven and highly suspect AGW 'solution' are 2 entirely different things. And you know it. Don't mix apples and oranges.
With respect to your economic analysis, the structure, functions, control and operations of the economy of China and the US are totally different. The government plays a different role in each. If you are advocating a rejection of the current US economic approach (e.g. based on capitalism principles with many operational variations), in favor of a China-like, government-controlled, centrally-managed style (e.g. based on Socialist and Marxist philosophies), then I think you're barking up the wrong tree about the proper role of government for the U.S. We've got enough issues with government bureaucracy interfering with the 'free-market', without adding the needless burden of central planning. Sure, central planning works very well - but only for the ultimate benefit of those holding the controls.
You can be free or you can be a willing slave. (Let's not banter over definitions here, you know what I mean.) I'd rather be free to fail rather than forced to live in fear of bureaucratic reprisal, and begging for my continued existence according to the whim of those who consider themselves to be my political 'masters'... I thought you did too.
- Steve
you said:
"According to denialists, investors like Deutsche Bank - and for that matter, anyone else interested in investing in companies like Solyndra - are just making the science up as they go along. AGW really isn't happening, as the theory goes, and private companies, as well as governments, are more or less betting on a losing horse. Sooner or later AGW will be exposed as the hoax it really is and all that investment in clean energy is going to go right down the tubes."
I must say I 100% disagree with your conclusion. I am also quite disappointed at your use of a wide-scope tar-bush in an attempt to paint 'denialists' into some perceived 'corner' created by AGW enthusiasts. I will respond in detail in a subsequent post. Which leads to your next comment:
"And if a problem doesn't exist, what possible reason could we have for investing in a solution?"
Investing in "Clean, Green Energy" and investing in an unproven and highly suspect AGW 'solution' are 2 entirely different things. And you know it. Don't mix apples and oranges.
With respect to your economic analysis, the structure, functions, control and operations of the economy of China and the US are totally different. The government plays a different role in each. If you are advocating a rejection of the current US economic approach (e.g. based on capitalism principles with many operational variations), in favor of a China-like, government-controlled, centrally-managed style (e.g. based on Socialist and Marxist philosophies), then I think you're barking up the wrong tree about the proper role of government for the U.S. We've got enough issues with government bureaucracy interfering with the 'free-market', without adding the needless burden of central planning. Sure, central planning works very well - but only for the ultimate benefit of those holding the controls.
You can be free or you can be a willing slave. (Let's not banter over definitions here, you know what I mean.) I'd rather be free to fail rather than forced to live in fear of bureaucratic reprisal, and begging for my continued existence according to the whim of those who consider themselves to be my political 'masters'... I thought you did too.
- Steve
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Steve,
We're spotlighting an interesting October 10th article from the NYT here, "Silicon Valley’s Solar Innovators Retool to Catch Up to China", which briefly chronicles the progress of emerging solar panel manufacturers in Silicon Valley. From the article:
"...But as the companies finally begin mass production — Solyndra just flipped the switch on a $733 million factory here last month — they are finding that the economics of the industry have already been transformed, by the Chinese. Chinese manufacturers, heavily subsidized by their own government and relying on vast economies of scale, have helped send the price of conventional solar panels plunging and grabbed market share far more quickly than anyone anticipated."
Now by all appearances, due to a burgening domestic demand for clean energy products, Solyndra is probably going to remain viable for the immediate future. But as for the future of the industry in this country as a whole, well, things don't look too good. As far as clean energy is concerned, we've fallen far behind the world's major players - and the gap is widening at a frightening pace. Tellingly, the article goes on to say:
"In the third quarter of 2010, venture capital investment in solar companies plummeted to $144 million from $451 million in the year-ago quarter, according to the Cleantech Group, a San Francisco research firm.
We're spotlighting an interesting October 10th article from the NYT here, "Silicon Valley’s Solar Innovators Retool to Catch Up to China", which briefly chronicles the progress of emerging solar panel manufacturers in Silicon Valley. From the article:
"...But as the companies finally begin mass production — Solyndra just flipped the switch on a $733 million factory here last month — they are finding that the economics of the industry have already been transformed, by the Chinese. Chinese manufacturers, heavily subsidized by their own government and relying on vast economies of scale, have helped send the price of conventional solar panels plunging and grabbed market share far more quickly than anyone anticipated."
Now by all appearances, due to a burgening domestic demand for clean energy products, Solyndra is probably going to remain viable for the immediate future. But as for the future of the industry in this country as a whole, well, things don't look too good. As far as clean energy is concerned, we've fallen far behind the world's major players - and the gap is widening at a frightening pace. Tellingly, the article goes on to say:
"In the third quarter of 2010, venture capital investment in solar companies plummeted to $144 million from $451 million in the year-ago quarter, according to the Cleantech Group, a San Francisco research firm.
The paucity of capital and the sheer size of Chinese solar panel makers have proved particularly problematic for companies like Solyndra and MiaSolé, which make photovoltaic cells using a material called copper indium gallium selenide, or CIGS.
...While Silicon Valley companies were working on the problem, silicon prices fell and Chinese companies like JA Solar, Suntech and Yingli Green Energy rapidly expanded production of conventional solar panels, supported by tens of billions of dollars in inexpensive credit from the Chinese government as well as other subsidies like cheap land.
...Chinese solar panel makers now supply about 40 percent of the California market, the largest in the United States, and the bulk of the European market, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a research and consulting firm."
Now let's stop here for a minute and reconsider the post I put up a few moons back on Deutsche Bank. Elsewhere in the blogosphere, I've seen a few denialist reactions to the article on which that post was based. JoNova's is here. At SPPI, Ross McKitrick actually went to the trouble of composing an entire pamphlet: "Response to Misinformation from Deutsche Bank"!
I wasn't particularly suprised to find the denialist reaction would be so predictable. According to denialists, investors like Deutsche Bank - and for that matter, anyone else interested in investing in companies like Solyndra - are just making the science up as they go along. AGW really isn't happening, as the theory goes, and private companies, as well as governments, are more or less betting on a losing horse. Sooner or later AGW will be exposed as the hoax it really is and all that investment in clean energy is going to go right down the tubes.
In an incredible act of irresponsibility, the current crop of Republican candidates for congress have cynically judged the political winds, decided to deny the findings their own country's scientific establishment, and assert that global warming isn't happening. Nothing to see here folks, move right along...
What this means in real terms is that the U.S. public, as well as companies like Solyndra and investors like Deutsche Bank, are going to have to wait at least a few more years for a U.S. Government capable of developing a coherent, effective energy policy which addresses climate change and encourages the growth of the domestic clean energy industry. None of that is going to happen so long as we're stuck in denial of the very problem itself. And if a problem doesn't exist, what possible reason could we have for investing in a solution?
Now I doubt if the rest of the world is going to sit on their hands and wait for us to smarten up. The Europeans have already put in place a crude, often abused, yet nevertheless functional system of cap and trade - which has created an environment most favorable for advances in clean energy. Spain for instance already supplies over 13% of its energy needs from renewables - whereas that percentage has actually been declining here almost every year over the last 60 years, and now stands at 10% (down from over 20% in 1959). England has just finished building the world's largest off shore windfarm, (turbines courtesy of Vestas, Denmark). Most European nations are aiming at producing a minimum of 20% of their energy from renewables within the next ten years - which (incredibly) would put them where we were 60 years ago. Apparently the Europeans get it.
Over on the other side of the world, China has now become the largest manufacturer on Earth of wind turbines and solar panels. And not only that, but has now become the world's largest renewable energy producer - as well as the first developing country to create a national strategy for addressing climate change. You can read the policy here. And if this strikes you as mere propaganda, do your research. China is not only backing up that policy with action, but regularly exceeding the policy's benchmarks. Meanwhile, back here in America we're still trying to figure out the First Law of Holes.
We should have seen this coming. Yet back in 2001, when we still had the muscle to develop a far-sighted energy policy, what we got instead was shotgun marriage to big oil (and coal) courtesy of Dick Cheney's narrow minded Energy Task Force. It took almost four years and an aggressive legal challenge to get the Administration to release any records of those meetings. How's that for an "open and honest" government? The Bush Administration put together an energy policy with far reaching consequences for virtually every citizen in the U.S., yet refused to tell the public who really authored it. And when we found out, all the major players turned out to be (surprise!) representatives from every single major player in the coal and oil industry - including the ever so patriotic and unselfish Ken Lay... you know, the guy who was indicted and convicted on six counts of securities and wire fraud.
Steve, if there's a silver lining here its tiny and not very encouraging, but its all we here in this country have to go on at this point: Change will come. But it probably won't originate in the forums of public opinion or the halls of Congress. It's going to happen in the board rooms of the Exxon's, the Peabody Coal's and the Duke Energy's. These people aren't stupid. I'd like to think they're motivated by a concern for the health of the planet - but if past history is any indication, I'm not banking on it. However, sooner or later they're going to wake up to the same conclusion that the rest of the world has already recognized, namely, that renewables represent an astonishingly rich souce of future profits. I hope when they do it won't be too late.
-Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
