Five Lies We Live With
Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Make no mistake about it, this is a dishonest age. That our daily lies are purportedly advanced in the cause of the common good, nevertheless do not make them any less lies.
Beware of sudden and apparently reasonable “calls for civility.” That pathetic mantra is usually voiced by a liberal administration and its supporters when criticism mounts that they are taking the country too far to the Left — like the Clinton implosion in 1993 or Obama today. I fear “civility” does not mean one should not write novels or produce movies contemplating murdering George Bush — that’s sort of an understandable agitprop art. “Civility” does not mean the New York Times should not give discounts to run ads in wartime like “General Betray Us.” That’s needed dissidence. Civility does not suggest that a Sen. Durbin, or Sen. Kerry, or Sen. Kennedy not use inflammatory language that compares our own troops or personnel to terrorists, Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalinists, or Saddam Hussein’s torturers; that most certainly in not uncivil. And it was certainly not impolite for Rep. Stark to call President Bush a “liar.”
“Civility” does not mean that we should not spew hate at anti-war protests; that’s grass-roots popular protest. It doesn’t mean that we should not employ Nazi and fascistic labels to tar the President of the United States like John Glenn or Al Gore or Robert Byrd did. “Civility” does not mean that a shrill Hillary Clinton should not scream that the Bush administration is trying to silence critics, or suggest that the commanding general of an entire theater was lying to Congress in ways that require a “suspension of disbelief.” That’s needed pushback.
O Ye of Little Memory! Do we recall any American shock when the Guardian published Charles Brooker’s lament — “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?” And I don’t recall anyone felt that language was getting too heated when Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, fumed, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.” And was it not The New Republic that highlighted Jonathan Chait’s infamous “Why I Hate George W. Bush” article? Of course, there was that thoroughly civil New York play, “I’m Gonna Kill the President.”
So, please, spare us the sanctimonious rot about being shocked by conservative metaphors like “lock and load” or “targeting” vulnerable Democratic districts. Like it or not, “civility” has nothing to do with real civility that is bipartisan in fashion and necessary for tolerance in a politically diverse culture. It simply means that conservatives must be stopped in their Neanderthal opposition to an enlightened agenda by any means necessary — by being uncivil to them when conservatives are in power, and demanding they not do the same when liberals run things. All political parties wish it both ways; but in the present age, the media and a cultural elite really have convinced themselves that speaking out against Barack Obama is a sort of heresy while smearing the Bush “regime” was de rigueur.
Diversity? Not.
Beware of the ubiquitous “diversity.” Diversity does not mean needed difference, as in a community of religiously diverse people — for example, a Harvard with plentiful booths in the free speech area promoting Mormonism, or ROTC, or support for Israel, or anti-abortion. “Diversity” does not mean 51-49 % votes in the faculty Senate over condemning or supporting the Iraq War of 2003.
“Diversity” does not equate to a faculty department equally divided among Marxists, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. No, sadly “diversity” is a second-generation word that was by needs reinvented to supplant the Orwellian “affirmative action.”
In the 1980s, American elite culture grasped that the old superstructure of racial preference was both too cumbersome and too narrow all at once: Too cumbersome in the sense that too many were asking uncomfortable questions like, “Why are we giving preference in hiring or admission to a Spanish aristocrat named José Lopes, as if he were a supposedly underprivileged Mexican-American who suffers from a legacy of racism?,” or “Why is someone in the upper-middle class who is half African-American given preference, and not a poor darker Mohinder Singh from the Punjab who in theory would encounter as much or more discrimination?,” or “Why are all these cynical white-looking kids claiming their grandmothers were one-eighth Cherokee?”
And yet affirmatives action was also all too narrow in the sense that should not upper-class women, and wealthy gays or hyper-achieving, wealthy Asians, likewise, be entitled to help?
In answer to both the contradictions of racial preferences and its narrowness, “diversity” came onto the scene. To the degree that anyone could establish that they were not completely white, male, Christian and heterosexual, they were “diverse” members of the community and could perhaps find some advantage or boost in the fierce competition for jobs and influence and money. No one could define diversity, but miraculously all seem to recognize it when they saw it.
The real diversity — that of differences in thinking and independence of opinion — was hardly welcome, and any sort of call for such genuine diversity of thought was seen as hostile and sometimes had to be dubbed “reactionary,” “racist,” “homophobic,” “sexist,” etc.
So we ended up with “diversity” meaning “university” — a synonym for monolithic intolerance, for everyone worshiping “diversity” without exception. If that seems harsh, it is also the way things are.
Wind and Solar and Millions of Green Jobs!
“Green Power” and “wind and solar” oddly do not mean that we are going to power our homes and cars with entirely new fuels, at least in our lifetimes.
Instead that entire green lexicon assures us that we can feel good about ourselves by symbolic gestures, like subsidizing a noble wind farm or putting up an impressive solar panel through government subsidies that mask the current non-competitiveness of such alternate power. The truth is that 21st-century internal combustion engines are revolutionary compared with their fossilized predecessors just three decades ago. Like it or not, such engines — preferably in the near future burning natural gas that is becoming more, not less retrievable, and in combination with batteries or biofuel blends — will continue to power our cars. Semi-trucks, earth-moving equipment, and tractors are not going to become electrically powered any time soon.
“Stimulus” is thus a lie as it is used, or at best a half-truth.”
Stimulus as a term used by the Progressives simply means that a certain segment of voters are being bribed with the money of minority suckers. The historical record clearly shows that it does not work to truly stimulate the overall economy. The Great Depression did not end until the U.S. Congress in 1948 put an almost complete stop to FDR’s New Deal programs. The only real way to truly stimulate the economy is through tax breaks and severely cutting government spending. Anything else only worsens the problem.
Amen. It is too bad that rational thought is often trumped by feel-good idealism.
Keynesian doctrines are ostensibly a rational approach to solving economic troubles. In the real world, however, politicians always interpret it as a way to bribe key constituents. There are no exceptions whatsoever! The evidence is abundantly clear that both FDR and Obama spread the money around to their voters. Those committed to the opposition barely get a few dollars of government largess thrown their way.
At it’s core, Keynsian sounds reasonable. IE, take money out of the economy when it is over heating, and put the money back in when it is faltering.
The problem comes when you try to implement such a policy in the real world.
How do you tell when the economy is over heating, and not just in a quick growth spurt?
How do you tell when the economy is faltering, and not just in the midst of processing some change in conditions?
When you take the money out of the economy, where do you put it?
Assuming you can find a safe place to store the money so that it is no longer stimulating the economy, how do you keep the politicians from raiding the kitty in order to buy votes.
Assuming you can decide the economy is actually faltering, how do you get the money back into the economy before the natural recovery begins?
Keynsianism is like all liberal programs. They look good on paper. They are utter disasters whenever you actually try to implement them.
John Maynard Keynes had a childishly immature appreciation concerning the intellectual brilliance and moral virtue of the elites. Their advanced academic training would supposedly inoculate them from the normal temptations afflicting the common folk. Their willingness to sacrifice on behalf of society was beyond dispute. The Founding Fathers were worried about vile and rapacious individuals causing harm—and therefore set limits on the power of our elected officials and government bureaucrats. But that mindset is so yesterday! Our present elites are benevolent and wonderful. We do not need to fear their increased power.
I doubt Keynesian approaches would work even if they could be implemented. But they can’t even be implemented, because nobody’s a Keynesian until the chips are down. During the good times the pols have coffers full of cash, so they say, “Hey, we can afford to spend this!” During the bad times they remember Keynes, who allows them to say, “Hey, we can’t affort NOT to spend more!”
MarkTheGreat wrote:
“At it’s core, Keynsian sounds reasonable. IE, take money out of the economy when it is over heating, and put the money back in when it is faltering.”
No, sir, that does NOT sound reasonable. Not if you understand basic economics. There really is no such thing as “the economy”, in the sense of Keynsian economics. It’s not a “thing” that can be manipulated. What we call, “the economy” is simply a large collection of individual actions and decisions, and is not amenable to such macro-manipulation. This is as fundamental a misunderstanding of economics as Communism is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Neither CAN succeed.
And if you had actually read what I wrote, instead of stoping at the first paragraph, you would have seen that I made pretty much the same point that you did.
MarkTheGreat wrote:
“At it’s core, Keynsian sounds reasonable. IE, take money out of the economy when it is over heating, and put the money back in when it is faltering.”
Actually, at its core, Keynsian is all wrong. Like communism, it is wrong in its fundamental assumptions about reality, particularly about human nature.
“The Economy” is not a monolithic THING that can be manipulated. It is a collection of individual decisions and actions, and is not amenable to elitist manipulation. At least, not with good results.
“When you take the money out of the economy, where do you put it? Assuming you can find a safe place to store the money so that it is no longer stimulating the economy, how do you keep the politicians from raiding the kitty in order to buy votes. Assuming you can decide the economy is actually faltering, how do you get the money back into the economy before the natural recovery begins?”
That’s comical, and it’s comical that no one has criticized it. You don’t take the money out of the economy in the sense of having money which then must be put somewhere to keep it out. Rather, you destroy money by raising interest rates. This is possible because banks create money by lending. I don’t mean that they create dollar bills. The money supply is not only dollar bills; it includes demand deposits (checking accounts) as well as other things. There is far more money than currency. Unfortunately, it is impossible to explain this briefly without putting a lot of thought into it, but I recommend that you read up on fractional-reserve banking. You could try getting ahold of a short book called “Money Mechanics,” which the Fed published 50-60 years ago. It’s out of print, but there’s a PDF of it as page images somewhere on the web.
When I wrote “it’s comical that no one has criticized it,” I really should have written “it’s comical that several people have replied to your message without pointing out your misconception of money.”
“The only real way to truly stimulate the economy is through tax breaks and severely cutting government spending. Anything else only worsens the problem.”
Actually less taxation and spenidng and meddling does not “stimulate” the economy but rather reduces the government drag on the economy.
Even more than the drag on resources, the incredible uncertainty (or rather, the certainty of further erosion) makes what resources are available just too risky to invest.
One of the worst fallacies of Keynes (who actually had only one semester of economics during his schooling) and that era, was that production would take care of itself, the consumption needed to be stimulated. Well, consumption is natural, production is NOT.
Robert Higgs has argued persuasively that the Great Depression ended in 1946, primarily because FDR was no longer around. Higgs, and even more so Gary Best, make a strong case that regime uncertainty was a major factor in prolonging the Depression. In fact, Best argues essentially that FDR did not give a rat’s ass if the U.S. economy recovered or not, as long as he (FDR) continued to get re-elected. In FDRs view, the primary purpose of relief was to generate people would would vote Democrat (which polls indicate that they did, 85-15 per cent).
The common view that WWII ended the Depression is, in Higgs’ assessment, completely wrong.
The US government is nothing more than a sock-puppet for Corporate Amerika.
We tolerate the presence of illegal-aliens since they lower the cost of labor. More profits for the Corporations!
We bail-out the banks, auto companies and insurance companies (I’m sure I’m missing others)and leave the check for John Q. Public to pick up the tab!
We don’t force the general agreement of accepted accounting principles to help out the banks with all their fraudulent books and “assets”.
We look the other way while Goldman Sachs gives almost $1,000,000.00 in campaign bribes to Obama.
We see the New Mexican government give millions in tax breaks to rich Hollywood fat-cats to shoot movies there while increasing taxes on the non-rich!
I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of it.
We have the worst government the corporations could buy.
You sound dangerously left-leaning to be reading VDH… You are aware that corporations are owned by people…right? If you think they are doing so well, buy stock.
Since when is being for the average American “left-leaning”???
I realize Corporations are owned by people, but they are also considered individuals by law.
Thus, why should these “individuals” be given greater privileges than the non-corporations? Because they have so much money they have bought the politicians who run the place.
If you can’t see that our nation is now being run for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many, you’ve lost your bearing and are now just a corporate hack.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with your paranoid rantings has sold out to the enemy.
Prove how they are “paranoid”. Everything I’ve said is a fact.
I suspect you didn’t know about GS political donation to Obama?
Or that Illegals are intentionally being allowed to stay here?
The fact that you believe your rantings to be reality based just proves how paranoid you are.
If left-leaning, he speaks for a bunch of us, this right-leaner included. The fascistic oligarchy at the top echelons of government and Wall Street have steered us over the cliff. They are all capitalists on the way up (houses for everybody!!) but become socialist leeches on the way down (bail us out or else!). This country will turn itself around when the reasonable left AND right unite to confront this common enemy, including Goldman Sach’s chief bottom bitch, Obama himself.
As PJ O’Rouke said, “When govt controls buying and selling, the first thing that is bought and sold is govt.”
Is it any surprise that when the biggest determining factor in how well a major corporation does economically, are govt regulations, that all major companies will try to control the creation of those regulations. To benefit themselves and hinder their competitors.
The only solution to this morass is to take away from govt the power to pick winners and losers. The solution is not to give more powers to govt, as you have noted, those new powers will also being corrupted by those who’s livelihoods depend on corrupting govt. The power is not to write yet another layer of regulations and laws, which will either be ignored, or will be corrupted by exemptions and loopholes written on behalf of those whom the regulations were designed to control.
The only solution is to eliminate govt as the dominate player in the economic sphere.
Another point about govt control is that it forces companies to try and corrupt govt. The first company to buy itself a regulator or politician gets a huge leg up on it’s competitors. This fact forces all companies to try and be the one who buys the most and the most influencial politicians.
Don’t blame companies for doing what govt forces them to do.
Govt corrupts everything it touches, including the free market.
The free market can only work effectively in a moral society. We had an incredible amount of government non-management and un-regulation in the Banking and housing sector in the last decade, The SEC didn’t enforce the law in the 2000-2009 and the robber barons looted the nation.
I’m all for the free-market, but when everyone is looking the other way while Madoff, Goldman Sachs, CITI, BoA and the rest of the vultures are getting away with murder no one is inclined to buy your “free market” solutions.
“We had an incredible amount of government non-management and un-regulation in the Banking and housing sector in the last decade”
Do you honestly believe that? What would you consider an appropriate level of government management and regulation then? Seriously…
The free market is at it’s most effective when individuals pursue their own self interest.
On the other hand, govt only works properly when run by angels. Since angels are few and far between on this plane of existence, then govt never works and is always captured by the least ethical amongst us.
The idea that you can use govt power to improve the free market has been discredited by every socialist economy that has ever existed. Only fools and totalitarians believe otherwise.
@ Russell:
“We had an incredible amount of government non-management and un-regulation in the Banking and housing sector in the last decade.”
Huh? Banking, housing, and insurance are the most heavily-regulated sectors of the economy. If by “un-regulation” you mean lack of regulation, you need to look again. If by “un-regulation” you mean deregulation, could you cite exactly what deregulation occurred under Bush II? I think you’ll find, if you critically examine the MSM’s brainless repetition of all Republicans as big deregulators, Bush II did very little that could be interpretted as being free-market based. The last serious round of deregulation in banking and finance in general was under Clinton.
I don’t disagree with your basic assertion that corporations have far too much influence in politics and that governments, both state and federal, too frequently favor them in a manner completely unfair to the smaller and less-connected. Do think about MarkTheGreat’s point: Corporations do what they do because it is the best way to profit from the system created by central planners and their supporters.
If you want corporate money and influence out of government, make sure that government doesn’t have the power or ability to dispense favors. That’s the solution, rather than…what? Adding further regulations, that can further be made to work in favor of the connected?
There is a difference between being pro-market and being pro-corporation.
The solution is to make govt so weak and powerless that buying it’s favors isn’t worth anyone’s time.
The Government is **weak**. They can’t say no to endless bailouts and it does the bidding of Wall Street and the Big Banks.
I’m all for limiting the size and scope of government as today we have a hateful socialist government.
The problem is that some people on this forum are wedded to ECONOMICS UBER ALLES and that has and is the downfall of our nation.
We need to return to a time when our nation didn’t put profits over people.
Let’s start by ending our foolish “free trade” trade policy which has devastated our industry shall we?
The government is “weak”? That’s nonsense.
The government holds a monopoly on the use of physical force — the government is laws, rules, regulations and controls, backed by guns and jails.
The problem, as “MarktheGreat” has stated, is that government now has a noose around the neck of every business in America — it has the total, arbitrary power to destroy any business it chooses, or benefit it by crippling its competitors.
In this environment, is it any wonder that businesses seek to influence the government in their favor?
The solution is a complete separation of economics and state, in the same way and for the same reason that we have a separation of church and state. The name of such a system is laissez-faire capitalism.
And why do you oppose free trade? The alternative is coerced trade, i.e. trade done according to the dictates of government force. Do you not see that such a policy will simply encourage more manipulation of the rules by businesses — the very sort of destructive influence you decry?
Restrict government action — i.e. restrict the use of physical force — to the only situation in which it is justified: use such force only in retaliation against criminals, i.e. only against those who’ve initiated the use of physical force (or threat thereof) and thus violated someone’s rights.
Restricted to such activities, government will have no power to pick economic “winners and losers” and neither Wall Street nor the Unions nor any Corporation will have any means of gaining power over you or your property.
As the Declaration of Independence states, the purpose of government is to “secure our rights” — Period! Nothing justifies the notion that its purpose is to manage and dictate the details of our lives or our economic activities — and as long as we permit government to do so, it will continue to wreak havoc on both our personal and economic lives.
The Government is **weak**. They can’t say no to endless bailouts and it does the bidding of Wall Street and the Big Banks.
I’m all for limiting the size and scope of government as today we have a hateful socialist government.
The problem is that some people on this forum are wedded to ECONOMICS UBER ALLES and that has and is the downfall of our nation.
We need to return to a time when our nation didn’t put profits over people.
Let’s start by ending our foolish “free trade” trade policy which has devastated our industry shall we?
In case you have not noticed, over the last few decades corporations have been merging into mega-corps. The Defense Industry has gone from hundreds of major companies to a handful of mega-corps (to big to fail). This is also happening in the Financial and Banking industry (to big to fail) and automotive industry. Next on the list is the health care industry through the insurance companies. Our country is in the process of finalizing the merging of Government and the Mega Corps consolidating all major industries. New regulations will be used to prevent smaller companies from starting or growing. Government and Corporations have merged into a symbiotic relationship and acts as a giant parasite on the people and the economy. They have created a defacto monopoly. People may own stock in these corporations — but, the elite control them. Government is weak? Government is strong? Which ever way you look at it — government had to have the power to accommodate this relationship and if it did not, Corporations would have help government obtain that power. If the government was weak with very little power this relationship could never have occurred. With ever increaseing government power you ultimatly end up with what we are becomming. Mankind is subject to corruption and the lust for power… and government is a convient tool.
“New regulations will be used to prevent smaller companies from starting or growing.”
True and it is beginning with the proposed new law to further regulate the financial industry.
The Democrat’s new financial regulations will quash start up companies by increasing regulation of venture capital and angel investment making such investment much more difficult to provide and receive.
Angel and venture capital investment is a miniscule part of the financial sector in terms of the dollars involved, but is absolutely critical for the future of the country. America’s start up funding market is unarguably a resounding success – and Obama, Dodd and the Democrats are apparently intent on it’s controlled destruction.
I’m the founder of an alternative energy start up and we’re on the verge of a funding deal with an individual investor and that deal is now threatened by new government taxes and regulations and the attendant increased risk and uncertainty being forced into the market.
First, the health care bill increases the capital gains tax obviously making an investment opportunity like ours less valuable and more risky. Second, other uncertainties injected into the future economy by our government (uncertainties that must be accounted for by an investor when making an investment decision) in the form of increasing costs, taxes and interest rates due to the health care bill, cap-and-trade, and now increased control of the financial market by the government, all serve to increase the risk and decrease the ROI of investing in start up companies.
Dodd knows full well what he is doing, but in fairness I’m not certain that Obama understands our economy well enough to know what he is doing.
So, our funding deal is in jeopardy. Over 200 very good jobs may not be created and our technology, which we and our investors believe can achieve much good for the people of America, may be prevented from coming to market.
And the potential collapse of what should be a win-win start up funding deal is directly attributable to the actions of our current government.
You know what the difference between a populist and a socialist is?
That’s a trick question. There isn’t any.
They both want to create a powerful govt to make sure that people/businesses only do what they want them to do.
Profits before people has to be among the stupidist statement ever thought up by the socialists.
Regarding free trade, that is what made this country great. Those who can’t compete usually whine about shutting down the competition. Losers want to close the borders. You sir are a loser.
Yeah, that’s what I want. A weak, powerless government like the ones that currently exist in some of the old Soviet Bloc countries. Then Canada can take over the northern third of the country, Mexico can take over the southwestern third and First Nation people can take over the rest….hurrah for a weak government!
Are you unable to diferentiate between govt and military? They are not the same thing.
Oh, go stuff your empty head in a bucket.
Doctor Hanson:
I marvel at your ability to spell out in such a clear manner and great detail the many “stupid” things We The People have done to ourselves over the past five decades. You are truly a “Titan” in the department of truth.
Unfortunately for those who will follow us in this declining nation the message is not sinking in with far too many Americans. Bloviating is so much easier than unifying to rid ourselves of the disease that spreads over the nation from Washington D.C.
Some very intelligent people follow your writings on this site but somehow the need for a unifying leader doesn’t seem to cross too many minds.
I guess the Ring Master Bill O’Reilly, at what is fast becoming the Fox News Circus, will once again select John McCain as the Republican candidate for President in 2012.
Does anyone know who is going to lead the charge in 2012. I’d like to hear plans designed to solve problems rather than having them redefined over and over and over. We know what needs to be done, what we don’t know is who is going to finally stand up for the Constitutional Republic we inherited. Who is able and willing to call down the liars when it counts, at the ballot box?
Your untiring efforts are a terrible thing to waste. I wish you well and thank you for your service to our country.
Ron Paul? Why not?
Because national suicide is not an option.
I forced myself to listen to Rep. Paul this AM on the Don Imus radio show.
Paul is a nut. He has these crazy conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve and “unending war.”
Earth to Paul: The Islamic terrorists started the war. We need to finish it. No thanks to you, it is mostly finished. What were we supposed to do? Quit?
Mitt Romney has the desire, experience and campaign money to do the job. Also he is *way* smarter than Obama.
I thought Sen/Dr. Tom Coburn had a chance, but he’s already been demonized by both the right and left.
But it is interesting that in a nationwide poll, Ron Paul ties Pres. Obama. Translation: Anyone but Obama.
Elect Huckabee President, put Palin in as Party Chair to drum up support for the party, make Paul Ryan VP, and appoint Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary, or maybe Chairman of the Fed. A Fed Chair who actively endorses dissolving the Fed is one whom we could finally trust to be honest about the books. He’ll publicly audit it himself if he can’t get Congress to do it.
Palin 2012. No more old men at the zoo, no more cream of nothing soup – she is far and away the best genuine conservative alive today and would make a brilliant President. It would be a Reagan era for the 21st Century. She has charisma, charm, brains and a lot more trouser (toughness) than the namby pamby say one thing do another Republican old guard. They are all as bad as each other and nothing more than a slightly more racially and religiously diverse old boys club. No more!
Palin 2012. And 2016 too.
Huckabee is only small govt so long as the people do what he thinks is right. The minute he disagrees with someone’s behavior, he is quick to invoke govt to fix that.
I’m sorry, good ideas or not, appearance does count for a lot, especially on the international stage. Electing a president who looks like a children’s show host (Huckabee), or a judge on American Idol (Palin), or Frazier’s dad from the TV show (Paul), won’t make our enemies or opponents take us any more seriously than they do now with the boy king leading things.
We need someone who looks, and talks, like they have some testosterone in their blood streams, someone who won’t look like a dweeb or beta male when standing toe to toe with Putin, Aneedadinnerjacket, etc. Someone when mentioning that military options aren’t off the table doesn’t look like they’re pissing their pants, or lying, while saying it.
Cornhead, and others…Apparently, you call people names without doing any research. The concept of undending war comes from many places, Ron Paul is only quoting the words used on the left. The concept comes from a joining of economies, so that, like mutual assured destruction did with nukes, if anyone takes down any economy, all economies will suffer, hence, no real “winners” in any war, just limited actions that accomplish goals. Glenn Beck is in the middle of doing this subject right now.
The effect of the Central Banks is well documented. Their concept, for years, has been to force a country to take on a Central Bank, but not one the country actually owns or controls, but a private bank owned and controlled by them. Ours was set up just like the rest, with seed money from the government, then the rest was printed, loaned to the bank principals to put up their share, then reloaned, and voila! the Central Bank was born. You should, maybe, do a caveman….you know, do a little research before you call someone crazy? While I can disagree with him on blaming Islamic terrorism on our foreign policy (it began before we even hand one, so, kinda using the timeline as my sole evidence for now on that one, Dr. Paul), he’s right about the money. It’s all about the Central Bank, the money, and the world economy.
Obama is just a figurehead for those who wish to control the world, to keep wars from devastating us, to nanny us into being a better people. They already do. America has been a fascist state for many years, since before Nixon (A REPUBLICAN! GASP!) created the EPA, or Johnson created the Great Society.
The only possible solution is voluntary taxation. Take away their power to spend our money, they have no ability to be corrupt, with no power to sell. It can be done, but rather than listening, or taking action, it will be too easy for everyone to just continue on with what’s been done in the past.
Like electing a Democrat for Republican president, which is what you’ll get in Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or any other candidate they let slide through (and yes, this means you, too, Mike Huckabee). The only way they’ll let a real Republican through is if he’s really for One World Government, like Reagan and Bush Senior and Junior were. But if Coburn, Inhofe, DeMint, Bachman, or anyone else gets a taste to run in their mouths, watch out for the Demonization to begin, as you’ve noticed. Funny, huh, they demonized the Republicans, giving us Democrat lite McCain/Romney/Huckabee/Guliani to pick from, while demonizing Thompson, Hunter, and Tancredo, trying to make them look bad? Feeling manipulated yet?
Because he’s a lunatic? However much sense he makes about a lot of fiscal policy, he’s barking mad on foreign policy and frankly, no matter how hard he tries to disclaim it, enough crazy, paranoid, bigoted shit was published under his name in the 70s and 80s for me to ever take him seriously.
You better hope his ideas take hold…otherwise we are doomed. People are still stuck in the left/right paradigm and with the mindless nonsense of US world dominance. How convenient that we now have an enemy that has no borders and we have no way to determine if or when we have defeated the enemy. It is a never ending war or our own creation. We will collapse under the strain of trying to maintain our empire. Government exists to serve the people however; today it seems that the people are just so much cannon fodder to serve our government’s grandiose vision of itself.
Jihadists don’t really exist, they are just invented by those who want us to be part of a one world govt.
Riiiiight.
You discredit yourself as soon as you start ranting about “OMG!!! The American EMPIRE!!!”, just as the lefties do when they rail on about how imperialistic we are. Neither side apparently even knows what the words they are using mean. Conspiracy theory crap about “endless wars” is pure hookum, sad as it is to admit, war pretty much is a natural human condition, I have already pre-ordered our host’s book that comes out next week, I’m interested in his take on the mater.
CGW, my respected friend, it is a mistake in my opinion to pin all ones hopes onto some GREAT LEADER who will save us from far-left harms. The Dems and way too many Indies just made that mistake, didn’t they, and all the rest of us are paying for it now. All pols have limitations and flaws, just as do the rest of humanity, and will likely disappoint eventually. May I ask you to consider all the elections of 2010 from the Senate to Dogcatcher as a starting point to replace all those who have been in office so long that they, or those of them who are naturally inclined to it, feel superior to those who elected them and care nothing for our interests.
FRED:
Thanks for your thoughtful response. In my humble opinion, what you suggest is a plan to take back America just as the Socialist/Marxists took it away from We The People due to our collective lethargy over many years. Time is not on the side of those who plan on rolling back the O’Bama wreckage in the distant future via local elections.
Yes on Ron Paul and no on Ron Paul illustrates the problem precisely. Conservatives have no plan on how to defeat the Socialist/Marxist takeover of the Republic. Division diminishes. Unification around a non-politician candidate for President in 2012 would at least provide a breath of hope.
Commenting on Dr. Sowell’s latest column at Townhall.com Highlander Juan said it much better than I ever could.
Freedom:
“We have been taught in our government schools by the socialists and progressives for two generations, and the results are clear – we have no idea what our American culture and American laws are all about.
And if we are not lawful, how can we expect or demand our government to be lawful?
This has been a long term battle for control of our country by our sworn enemies on the left. They have done an excellent job of dumbing us down so that we have no cautionary concerns about being taken over by forces from within.
So, we’ve lost the battle. Now what?”
Highlander Juan
John Boehner? Loved his empassioned floor speech opposing healthcare!
Soon, but not TOO soon. (Time is actually on our side.)
It drives the Left crazy not to have any clear targets to shoot at. Let em stew for a while, shooting at shadows. The thing they fear most is a galvanizing leader on the right. They will come out with all barrels blazing the moment one does; so let doubt gnaw at them a while longer.
Besides, there are risks that go along with peaking too early.
Someone who embodies the best traditions of the GOP will have to join hands with someone who resonates with the Tea Partiers. There are some excellent contenders already out there and some frontrunners will start to emerge after November. Meanwhile, cultivate your will to prevail.
Ain’t it the truth! We are being boxed in by all sides of illogic and insanity for the ‘feel-gooders’ who are nothing more than ‘greed-mongers’ pulling the puppet strings.
Keep it coming VDH. We predicted that ostracism by means of the spurious label of racist was their predetermined plan of rebuke.
Power and centralized authority animate the career politicians. Dictating with impunity, entrenched in their gerrymandered citadels, they know they have engineered one citizen one vote obsolete.
Policies have one purpose: rewarding dependent constituencies and threatening them with withdrawal of welfare paid for by the dwindling number of tax payers relentlessly constricted by the hydra-like demean of entitlements.
The illusion of sovereign wealth, state or national, has a single source: Ponzi scheme.
The media celebrities in the fourth estate have long lost any understanding of wealth creation. Their pursuit of celebrity is their only purpose and their only fear is losing it.
A once industrious and free people is now overpowered, under the rule of our historic first Islamic apostate president whose only belief is “après moi, le deluge.”
Thank you for this thoughtful essay. This is an important subject, deserving of our careful consideration.
It seems to me that the system of freedom the Founders gave us needs the truth, as much as it needs the law.
2 great films that reveal the human cost of totalitarian societies portray those societies as based on certain lies, lies that need to be backed up by the force of the state. I’m talking about Katyn (a Polish film about the massacre that made the news because of the recent Polish airline crash) and The Lives of Others, which received the Oscar for the best foreign film a few years ago.
They are both truly great films, and they both make clear the terrible human cost of being forced to live a a lie. They are also magnificent reminders of the freedom we (still) enjoy.
Thanks again, Prof. Hanson
Beyond the giant pile of falsehood, sir, comes the question: what to do?
If we truly are an exceptional country, then do you foresee an unprecedented break with traditional doom for our Bourbon-esque debauchery?
The ‘Contract From America’: does it attack the systemic issues well enough?
Whatever solutions we pursue, we must attack centralization and complexity, or we’re just throwing Mary Kay into the pigpen at random.
The statists who pose as revolutionaries are fervently immanetizing their eschaton at any cost.
Further to CGW@#3, I second the gratitude for your writing and service to your country, and beyond. This message is truly appreciated here in Canada too. Thank you.
If loose lips (read misuse of language), sink ships, Dr. Hanson is not only giving the ship hope, he’s pumping the bildge, repairing the leak and putting on a fresh coat of paint all in one article.
You sir, are truly extraordinary.
Thought there are always things that could be added to such a list as yours, I would make a special plea to add “reform” to the current crop of rolling lies.
In the word’s present incarnation Democrats need only tag “reform” to the end of whatever legislation they’re proposing, whether it be health care or energy or finance, and legions of Proud Democrats (so their bumper stickers proclaim) fall in line behind the administration. It is a sight to behold. Clueless as to the actual content of the legislation (few, if any, actually read and understand the legislative language) they immediately pillory any objection or pushback as being anti-reform, corporate paid astroturfing. Or worse.
They seem completely unaware that their strings are being played so easily by the Democrat leadership. The delicious irony of it all is that these obvious pledges of fealty come from people who are typically instantaneous in their accusation of Republicans for the same behavior.
We who come here often, for the most part are of one mind. Trolls come and go. I guess they tire of reasoned rebuttal.
It’s sad that the polarization in the USA is so wide. Compare an Olberman, a Maher, and a Franken…or a Rich, Krugman, or Cohen on one hand to a Hanson, Steyn, Krauthammer, Sowell on the other. There’s no comparison. Our guys are the best but that’s what they say too.
It would be sad to see VDH go into politics and waste time saying mundane things to get money to run.
I just can’t figure out why more haven’t come to him for direction.
Oh well. More attention to us. And that’s good.
Interesting to listen to the head of wealth mgt at BofA, Krawchuk, on Squawkbox today (which you can find on line if you’re interested). In general, many individuals have real concerns about their financial future, and what they are attempting to understand now is whether the current conservative shift in trend is the typical post recession type, or deeper in it’s affect on individauls decisions and behaviour. So, yes there is a polarization in the conversation at large, but gauging behaviours and their indicators can provide more of a sense of who is more effective in logic and critical thinking and writing.
It’s a fuzzy link, I realize, but a seed of a hypothesis to pay attention to.
I don’t WANT to get along with those people!
My paternal grandmother actually was half-blood Cherokee…and her grandmother was born on the ‘Trail of Tears’…but it never occurred to me to trade on that for political or social purposes…maybe I’m missing a bet
Or maybe you have a set of values that places the respect of your heritage beyond a transitory result and honours those that came before you and all of the sacrifices and struggles they endured. Now that’s a bet worth cherishing as it appears you do.
VDH’s point re: our foreign oil consumption and how it fuels terrorism has now been spun (read: lie) by the left.
A vet front group (I don’t know who is funding the television ads) points out that high oil prices results in American money ending up in Islamic terrorists’ hands. And the terrorists use the money to build IEDs which harm and kill Americans.
Ergo, we need green power to eliminate our addiction to foreign oil.
Try this instead: why don’t we drill in our own country and reduce the world market price and the percentage of our foreign oil payments?
Our current policy is completely crazy.
Factoid from the latest Weekly Standard: US oil consumption has been flat for 30 years. Thirty years!
Conservatives aren’t setting the message – Lefty is pulling all the levers right now. While we endlessly drone on about not being racist, we don’t have a chance to talk about the real issues. Why aren’t we discussing this health care debacle, the upcoming executive branch banking power grab, or the pending Obama Regime energy tax?
I have a relative that cannot accept that she is being lied to, even
part time. Let’s say you listened to an Olbermann, Maher or Matthews
all the time. Wouldn’t you question their assertions and maybe
Google or Yahoo the topic?
nobody listens to those folks. It’s amazing they’re still on the air, their ratings are truly horrific. All they’ve got is a shrinking loyal corps who drank way too much Kool-Aid. I think they drank that Kool-Aid not by watching or listening to lefty media, but in the classroom. There’s where the worldview of your typical liberal is formed. They conceive of themselves as enlightened, independent, free-thinkers who have it all nailed down, and everybody else is too parochially minded at best. It never seems to occur to them to ask themselves why all these independent free thinkers conform so unusually to rigid uniformity of thought.
Thank you, thank you Dr. Hansen.
Please send everyone you know this blog and VDH’s site.
People say, the silent majority needs to speak-up, sound-off, go march. We are. It is called the tea-party, and can you believe what happened? The President, all democrats and their machine, CNN, NBC, ABC CBS, MicroSoftNBC, every newspaper, etc ALL CALLED US RACIST and every name in the book. These same people all embrace the lies VDH spells out.
Lies are winning in America at this point.
If the lies really are winning then that is a mark against the voters. We fall for the lies. We look for government to rescue us. We may rail against socialism or deficits but how many people want to see government spending that benefits THEM curtailed? We will continue to get the government we deserve. As much disdain as so many of us have for Congress, how many tea partiers will vote against their own member of Congress in November? Only time will tell.
Thank you for the reminder, Doctor Hanson. There is a simple cure, and that is for all of us to shun liars. I’ll have my say in November.
from Webster dictionary
di·ver·si·ty, Pronunciation: \də-ˈvər-sə-tē, dī-\
1 : the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization
2 : an instance of being diverse
They have even changed the orignal meaning of the damn word to include the BS part.
I read recently someone said the definition of diversity in america is simply, “EVERYTHING THAT IS RIGHT AND GOOD.”
VDH:
“Instead, simply imagine what you would do if you lived in dire poverty under a corrupt, racist system and survival was a mere 6 hours a way to the north…”
I don’t have to imagine this, Doctor Hansen, I’m living in one.
And while I am not in “dire” poverty, neither is liberty or salvation a few hours to MY north.
Far from it.
I am, in fact, living in an occupied country, defeated in an illegal war of conquest 150 years ago.
The rest of you are now reaping the harvest of what was sown at Appomatox.
Don’t much like what came of “saving the Union”, do ya?
Another well thought out, succinct evaluation of the current liberal mindset.
Doctor Hansen is fast becoming my favorite political commentator. Watch out Dr. Krauthammer, you’ve got competition!
The problem would be less acute if you could just identify and discount habitual liars like Kennedy. But what about Republicans like Senator McCain. I seem to recall that he was once in favor of ‘regularizing’ illegal immigrants? I also recall that Mr. Reagan, when he signed the first amnesty law, swore that ‘never again’ would this be necessary…problem solved. Last night on Bill O’Reilly’s show, McCain wanted to sent troops to our southern border. Apparently, he is bothered that they’ve started assassinating ranchers there. But if one votes for the guy, what does his most excellent pirouette mean for future performance? Do any of these guys actually believe in anything at all? Please note: I voted for McCain. Oh well.
If VDH were serving in congress, I can’t imagine him voting for any of this stuff. Oh, they’d threaten to withhold campaign funds, give him lousy committee assignments, give him an office in the men’s room, and make him drive a deux cheveux or something. But I fantasize that he’d just start quoting Thyucydides and Cincinnatus back at them, which I would enjoy immensely. So how can we elect some representatives who can know their own minds enough not to be hideously compromised the first day on the job?
wGRAVES:
“So how can we elect some representatives who can know their own minds enough not to be hideously compromised the first day on the job?”
Short answer, we can’t. Politicians have become a special class of people at this point in the history of America who “serve” to amass personal wealth and power.
Many of the members of the class see the experiment with free representative government to have failed and are now primarily concerned with feathering their respective beds. Selling and buying of votes, coersion, intimidation and lying are simply the tools they take to work each day.
And that’s precisely why conservatives need to identify a unifying leader outside the political class that can and will take the fight to the fakes and liars over the next two years. Now, today, is the time to begin the work.
Winners don’t divide to conquor. They unify to overcome. If I’m wrong about this, what’s the plan to win the war against the Socialist/Marxists knowing the the Constitution is on life support at this point?
“If I’m wrong about this, what’s the plan to win the war against the Socialist/Marxists knowing the the Constitution is on life support at this point?”
Well, the plan is probably the same one it’s always been. Hope we don’t need it.
Well done Mr. Hanson,
A quick note to validate your well defined description of how advanced my, the car industry, is. You can call me a technician now as every automobile I work on is hooked up to a laptop computer for a scan of up to three dozen computers all communicating with the other within the doors of your daily commuter. The engines and transmissions have become wonderfully adept at squeezing as much from an ounce of gasoline as can be imagined.
The small purpose of this note is to hopefully dissuade your readers from buying into the supposed glories of the Diesel and particularly, bio-fuel. Neither worth the expense in the end. LPG has got my attention, at the present.
Thank you, Dr. Hansen. Your work is always exceptional. It is a relief to read someone speaking the truth, naming things for what they are, shining a bright light on the upsidedown madness that has descended upon us. I am grateful to you for your strong and incisive voice.
I love it when right wingers some up with stuff that sounds like it could be spot on, like “The Age of Untruth” but then, of course, it all turns out to be no more, and very much ironically so, another pile of untruths to score political points. The stimulus package, for instance, had history behind its use, but since history is another loathsome science for right wingers, it becomes again something to be avoided when trying to score political points: appealing to daft “common sense” is the tried and true method to rouse a confused rabble.
This coming from someone with a gold card membership in the “confused rabble.”
What would this so called history be?
There has never been a “stimulus” bill that stimulated anything other than govt spending. There has never been one that created permanent jobs in the private sector. There has never been one that created economic growth.
Why is it that left wingers cling so desperately to their favorite myths and ignore the real world outside their doors?
When a post starts by making the claim that Hoover got us into the Depression, you know you are dealing with someone who prefers lies over reality.
Hoover did not get us into the Depression, FDR did. FDR took a very minor recession and through economic mismanagement and outright corruption turned it into a major economic disaster. Unfortunately Obama is all set to repeat each and every one of his idols mistakes.
As to WWII getting us out of the Depression, more myth making. It was not the spending of WWII that broke the back of the depression, rather it was the elimination of 90% of FDR’s economic regulations that finally allowed the economy to recover.
BC-all us people with thinking brains know your call initials “BC” stand for brainless commie or Bolshevik crackhead. Save your insane posts for the Daily Kos(the american Pravda) or the Huffandpuff Po(Tass), where the useful idiots like yourself who dont work for a living(I dont consider being a Soros buttkisser working) go to share there misery and hatred.
Considering Hanson’s field of expertise and the undemonstrated (and, to be fair, undemonstrable) reliability of your claim that history shows that Roosevelt’s spending helped get us out of the depression, your post is pretty funny.
Actually, the only past comparable downturn in the US economy was the Great Depression, and pretty much all economists agree that it ended with WWII and the onset of a huge spike in deficit spending that ended up stimulating the economy. The lessons learned there were applied to the current economic crisis. If you were President, would you have ignored all this? And while there were lots of disagreement among economists about the nature and size of the stimulus package, it was inarguably a legitimate tactic to use to avoid a steeper fall in the economy and to speed up the recovery. The bottom line is that there was absolutely no “untruth” here — just a method chosen to try to repair a badly injured economy.
Actually, virtually no economists think that either FDR’s spending or the spending on WWII were what got us out of the Depression.
Rather it was the eliminating the millions of new regulations created under FDR in his effort to make the economy more “fair”, that finally ended the Depression.
FDR took a minor recession and turned it into a depression. Obama is set to repeat this performance.
‘Actually, the only past comparable downturn in the US economy was the Great Depression, and pretty much all economists agree that it ended with WWII and the onset of a huge spike in deficit spending that ended up stimulating the economy.’
Surprisingly enough, you’re right on what circumstances forced the end of the first great American experiment in social engineering that gave us the Great Depression. Up until the onset of the war things were closer to the stimulus of 2009.
Which brings us to this:
‘The lessons learned there were applied to the current economic crisis.’
Unsurprisingly enough, you’re wrong on this part. The percentage of the huge deficit spending at the onset of WWII devoted to goods and services had negligible effect on any sustained growth. Never does. The percentage of the deficit spending that translated into sustained economic growth was in creating the tooling and infrastructure to respond to the need for modern and effective war material. There was a huge investment in creating brand new industries and upgrading and modernizing existing industries across the spectrum from heavy manufacturing to agriculture to advances in food preservation to tarpaulin manufacturing. The list is endless. This is called capital investment. At the end of the war, those industries then provided jobs for self-disciplined and ambitious returning servicemen which translated into sustained growth in the peacetime economy.
The lesson to be learned there is that deficit spending on capital investment pays off. The stimulus in 2009 did no such thing.
You forgot the other Great Depression far worse that that of 1929-46. Of course it was stemmed by doing the opposite of FDR and Obama: cutting government, cutting taxes, and encouraging business growth.
That’s history for you.
“Actually, the only past comparable downturn in the US economy was the Great Depression, and pretty much all economists agree that it ended with WWII and the onset of a huge spike in deficit spending that ended up stimulating the economy.”
So you link an article promising affirmation from “all economists” regarding your/the Admin’s centralizing economic agenda as verified by history, but it offers citation of only one Harvard BS professor-slash-historian?
Try this one:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409
Your linked USAT article does hit on a legit conclusion, however one which doesn’t reflect your implied partisan, egalitarian socio-economic worldview: “Raise taxes, cut spending, or … The final option is to grow the economy fast enough — and grow the deficit slowly enough — that debt becomes a smaller portion of GDP.”
Which is pretty much SOP for what we had going on from 1994-2007, and particularly, from 2003-2007. Unfortunately, despite all the spinning of the Admin’s supporters, and the coalition of same who ridiculed the “deficits don’t matter in a growing economy” attitude of the last, while crying, “debt!”; the actions of the Admin indicate clearly that they are not interested in enterprise or encouraging investment, job creation, or economic growth.
This attitude of economic stagnation also reflects the anti-materialist motivation of the environmental movement.
“Forward looking” will be ending NASA as we knew it.
In your entire essay, I’m in complete agreement except for this one sentence. “NASA as we knew it” deserves ending, at least the way it was conducting the manned space program. For the record, I work in the industry. During the hey-day of the agency, their unofficial motto was “Waste anything but time.” By throwing fully 4% of the federal budget at the problem, they met JFK’s goal of landing on the moon. However, they created a program that was so expensive, it was unsustainable. Since the last lunar landing in 1972, NASA has spend several hundred billion dollars on manned space and has precious little to show for it. They flew the Shuttles over 120 times and managed to only kill two crews but the Shuttle didn’t actually accomplish all that much. They spend massive amounts of money building the ISS as a justification for the Shuttle but the ISS isn’t accomplishing all that much. They’ve started several projects to build more affordable boosters but killed all of them. Ultimately, their proposed solution to Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration was massively over budget, late, and underperforming. It deserved to be killed. If you look at NASA’s history, just about every major program they’ve attempted in the past 40 years ended up being over budget and/or late if not cancelled. They have been a poor steward of the taxpayers’ money.
Now, I don’t know why Obama decided that NASA should buy crew services to low Earth orbit from commercial companies instead of spending tens of billions of dollars building their own capability. It seems space is the only place where Obama thinks private enterprise can work and where Republicans who condemn the proposal believe it can’t. I chalk it up to the “broken clock being right twice a day” explaination but I honestly believe he got this one close to correct.
Ultimately, Obama and most other politicians see NASA as just another jobs program, as spelled out in this Aviation Week & Space Technology article from a couple weeks ago.
NASA Plan Would Spread The Wealth
Proposed work assignments under NASA’s turnabout Fiscal 2011 budget request would spread the agency’s five-year, $6-billion total budget increase — and the new jobs that may go with it — across the agency’s 10 field centers.
In announcing the field center work assignments, Administrator Charles Bolden said April 8 the specific effects on public and private-sector jobs remains to be seen, but he suggested that the $6 billion in additional NASA spending over the current five-year budget runout will translate into more space workers.
With Congress almost unanimously unhappy with the plan to drop the current in-house approach to human spaceflight — after spending more than $9 billion — and moving to a commercial space-transportation industry, that could improve the new plan’s chances on Capitol Hill.
“We have more money, and that would say that you have more jobs,” Bolden told reporters in a telephone press conference that followed a closed-circuit “all-hands” announcement to NASA personnel at the 10 centers.
“The way we in American translate jobs is by money, and the president has put a significant plus-up into NASA’s budget.”
By that measure Kennedy Space Center (KSC), hit hard by the back-to-back cancellations of the space shuttle and the follow on Constellation Program, is a big winner in the new work plan. The $5.8-billion, five-year commercial crew transportation effort will be managed there, as will a $1.9-billion revamp of its ground facilities to accommodate more commercial launchers.
Absolutely – get NASA out of the way.
Can you think of any process that costs more now than it did in 1969? It costs NASA more than $10K to launch a pound into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and they let a half dozen Saturn V’s (200 Tons apiece) turn into scrap and lawn ornaments. The Space Shuttle itself was redesigned a half dozen times, with each exercise reducing capability and raising costs. NASA has become a government bureaucracy – slow, inefficient and wasteful.
We’re not getting into space until private enterprise builds an infrastructure, exploits resources and sells something on Earth for a profit. Government can help, but, as they knew back in the 1800′s – government isn’t good at building a railroad.
NASA never listened to its critics. The space shuttle was always a disaster which imperiled the whole agency. The Russians ironically figured this out first. They had a shuttle, too, which was very much like ours (in fact they stole our design). They shot it up there once, and when it got back they said to themselves, “Wow do you see how much that costs!” Then they developed more realistic and cost effective launch vehicles.
NASA’s hubris insisted on the dang shuttle regardless of how much it ate up their budgets and future viability. The best time to junk it was after Columbia blew up, and we were close. But hubris won the in the end that day, too. So we spent so much energy making that pig fly we plowed not enough on contigency plans.
Here’s a case where the central planners in the Kremlin saw the constraints of government realisitically while the captialist agency saw never ending buckets of money coming, and damn that’s embarrassing to say the least.
I once belittled NASA and somebody told me that because of NASA we have digital clocks and more innovations.
But I thought all we got out of it were rocks. They sent the rocks on tour. I saw a moon rock. Then they went to Mars. The machine on Mars sent pictures back. The pictures were of rocks.
I did like the pictures of Saturn and Jupiter. The Hubble telescope has shown pictures too. But this is expensive artwork.
With the exception of rocket engines, NASA did little to advance any technology.
Digital technology existed before NASA, and NASA was only one customer out of many for it. The Mercury and Gemini capsules used hand wired TTL logic. The Apollo capsule was mostly the same but a few very primitive IC’s were added. When the Shuttle first flew it’s computers were less powerful than the average home computer of the day. There’s a very good reason for this. Cutting edge technology is unreliable. When lives are at stake, you stay with technologies that have been in use for years and are thoroughly understood.
NASA did invest in several technologies, such as remote medical monitoring, however other companies were already developing such technologies. At best NASA sped up their development, they did not cause their development.
What about the lie of progress itself – the idea that things are getting better every day in every way?
Sure we have better technology but are we better people? Do we lead better lives? Has our society progressed or degressed in the past 50 years?
I don’t know anyone who claimed that people are getting better.
As to whether we are living better lives. Most definitely.
A wise Latina SCOTUS justice nominated by our historic first Islamic apostate president expressed a Lamarckian view of evolution in justification of which she claimed her specific virtue of having risen to an intellectual level above white men (white men, not in the particular, but in the collective).
I have mainly heard the claim made by leftists to advance their agenda or in their condescending remarks about the past. Hence we learn from the left of the “dark ages” of Christendom, which really were not all that dark, or the imperialism of the west, which really was not that imperialistic or unique to the west. At the same time they peddle whatever leftist agenda they are selling as the very thing that will usher in a utopia – education, social reform, communism, socialism, etc.
Part of the larger problem is that western society and culture hardly address the higher story questions of life anymore. The post-modern world is the product of nihilism and existentialism so the larger questions are considered meaningless and instead we focus on gratifying our lower story desires. We look to science to save us but by save we really mean to make us live longer, with less pain, and with more bodily gratification. The meaning of life has become lost and all our culture seems to worry about is fashion, celebrity, and sex.
Instead of evolving, post modern man has devolved. We are no longer the men we were. We have become beasts who only think of the lower urges.
Do we really live better lives? I am sure glad for the advancements in modern medicine but is that what makes our lives better. Are suffering and trials always to be avoided? Do they not develop character? If so, then to avoid them is to leave character unbuilt. Technology has given us more information but less knowledge and wisdom. A good example is the problem with television. We have 1000s of channels and literally nothing on worth watching. As a kid I had 3 channels on a good day but the programming seemed to be a lot better.
Do we really live better lives? Are we as active or prepared as the Victorians who preceded our century? Are we men and women with empires in our souls or are we soulless shells engaged in petty affairs? Has not educational standards declined to the point of farce? Our children have trouble learning English properly, let alone Latin and Greek. Emotionalism passes for reason and logic is and unheard of field of study. We make up the facts as we go to suit a narrative we conceive yet one day it will all come crashing down. How long can we live in a reality built on lies? The world is really a dark place with many enemies who will not leave us along in our delirium.
You know what is a civility we have lost? How bout DOING THE RIGHT THING.. because its the right thing to do? Lately the trend is calling people who stand by the law or truth or report corruption,, a sissy, a tattletale, they lose face and respect for not kowtowing to a loss of values. They are chided and harrassed and underminded with an extreme support by a larger group of society. they teach their children to lie, steal and cheat is ok , as long as you don’t get caught. Kids are the sponges of our soceity’s future and this is the value system being incorporated that bribes, cheating and deception is more of a value to our soceity than doing the right thing.. soon.. we will die off and our future generations will no longer recognize truth, integreity and justice on the right side of the law unless they are paid to SAY SO.
Life in the ALL AMERICAN city , PARK FOREST IL has failed me.
You left off another obvious lie VDH ie that Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President of the USA. The fact our elected officials do nothing about this issue says a lot about what direction our country is heading.
Obama has presented all of the legal evidence that he is required to present.
What a small man who obfuscates his origins to protect undisclosed personal interests while occupying the House of the People on Pennsylvania Ave. (no reason has been given for the sealing of records decade after decade that any normal American, in public life or not, would never think of concealing: grades, the names sponsors providing recommendations, or the name of the hospital and delivering physician).
Even in the bonfire of big lies we live with, the issue of Obama’s eligibility is too hot to handle, I guess. Dr. Hanson, to his credit, ably handles some pretty hot potatoes he plucked out of the fire here. But he figures you’re either “unhinged” or “infantile” to take on the inveterate liar Obama’s credibility when it comes to his citizenship, etc. Such language is uncharacteristic of VDH and other respected, clear, sober thinkers, who go ballistic when some of us refuse to let this potato drop.
Why? They’re scared, not of being embarrassed should a bona fide document show he’s kosher. No, no. They’re afraid that the life, education, and career documentation sealed by his executive order as POTUS to keep it from the concerned eyes of COTUS (the Citizens Of The United States), will if opened show the very opposite, that he’s no damn good, nohow, no way, and if that happens, all hell will break loose.
Maybe, But if that’s what Obama’s records show, it’s a small price to pay.
Even in the bonfire of big lies we live with, in this age of untruth the issue of Obama’s eligibility is too hot to handle, I guess. Dr. Hanson, to his credit, ably handles some pretty hot potatoes he’s plucked out of the fire here. But he figures you’re “unhinged” if you take on the inveterate liar Obama’s credibility when it comes to his citizenship, etc. Such language is uncharacteristic of VDH and other respected, clear, sober thinkers, who go ballistic when some of us refuse to let this potato drop.
Is it because they’re scared, not of being embarrassed should a bona fide document show he’s kosher? Or afraid that the life, education, and career documentation sealed by his executive order as POTUS to keep it from the concerned eyes of COTUS (the Citizens Of The United States) will, if opened, show just the very opposite, that he’s no damn good, nohow, no way, and if that happens, all hell will break loose?
Either way, whatever Obama’s records show, it would be a small price to pay.
Even in the bonfire of big lies we live with, in this age of untruth the issue of Obama’s eligibility is too hot to handle, I guess. Dr. Hanson, to his credit, ably handles some pretty hot potatoes plucked out of the fire here. But he figures you’re “unhinged” if you take on the inveterate liar Obama regarding his citizenship, etc. Such language is uncharacteristic of VDH and other well-respected, clear, sober thinkers who somehow go ballistic when some of us refuse to let this hot potato drop.
Are they’re scared of egg on their faces if a bona fide document shows Obama’s kosher? Or afraid the record of his life, education, and career, sealed by his executive order as POTUS to keep hidden from the concerned eyes of COTUS (the Citizens Of The United States), will if opened show the very opposite, that he’s no damn good, nohow, no way, and then all hell will break loose?
Whatever Obama’s papers show, it’s a small price to pay either way.
And it’s not just the Birth Certificate, that’s just an easy tag to ridicule the argument with. It’s about all his records, college, birth, business, donations, etc. For instance, we still haven’t seen the records of donations to his website that were illegal (the controls were taken off, reported to them, and were still off days later when they were checked…in fact, they never put them on, as near as anyone can tell…but those records are sealed, or nobody has bothered to check them), what he did on the Harvard Law Review (one has suggested he never wrote anything, which is odd, don’t you think, when you consider that being published is a requirement?) and how he got on there, how he got to be a “professor” (I put it in quotes because it now seems he was given an office and a class, but was NOT a professor, nor was he an expert by any means), who paid for his college education and how did he get in…the list is endless, the obfuscations are never ending, and the whole thing stinks to high heaven. But, thanks to ridicule by conservatives like you, the whole issue seems to be ignorable. Great job being a useful idiot.
Oh, and that thing about the BC he submitted? Why does it have the name of a hospital that didn’t exist when he was born? What it looks like is the one they used in later years, after the hospital had been renamed, the form had changed, and some numbers were changed (or forged originally) to make it look like he was there already. Easiest explanation, most logical, but nobody seems to want to buy it, and everyone wants to ridicule it. Funny thing, though….seems one expert pulled his sister’s name off of it…she was born a few years later, in Hawaii, if I remember correctly…hmmmm. But don’t question anything, just take their evidence for fact. We know they never lie, right?
Even in the bonfire of big lies we live with, in this age of untruth the issue of Obama’s eligibility is too hot to handle, I guess. Dr. Hanson, to his credit, ably handles some pretty hot potatoes plucked out of the fire here. But he figures you’re “unhinged” if you take on the inveterate liar Obama regarding his citizenship, etc. Such language is uncharacteristic of VDH and other well-respected, clear, sober thinkers, who somehow go ballistic when some of us refuse to let this hot potato drop.
Are they’re scared of egg on their faces if a bona fide document shows Obama’s kosher? Or afraid the records of his life, education, and career, sealed by his executive order as POTUS to keep them from the concerned eyes of COTUS (the Citizens Of The United States), will if opened show the very opposite, that he’s no damn good, nohow, no way, and then all hell will break loose?
Whatever Obama’s papers may show, the aftermath will be a small price to pay, either way.
Even in the bonfire of big lies we live with, in this age of untruth the issue of Obama’s eligibility is too hot to handle, I guess. Dr. Hanson, to his credit, ably handles some pretty hot potatoes plucked out of the fire here. But he figures you’re “unhinged” if you take on the inveterate liar Obama regarding his citizenship, etc. Such language is uncharacteristic of VDH and other well-respected, clear, sober thinkers, who somehow go ballistic when some of us refuse to let this hot potato drop.
Are they’re scared of egg on their faces if a bona fide document shows Obama’s kosher? Or afraid the records of his life, education, and career, sealed by his executive order as POTUS to keep them from the concerned eyes of COTUS (the Citizens Of The United States), will if opened show the very opposite, that he’s no damn good, nohow, no way, and then all hell will break loose?
Whatever Obama’s papers may show, what happens in the aftermath will be a small price to pay, either way.
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/an-age-of-untruth/#comment-47340
You call it “The Age of Untruth”, but I call it “The Age of Idiocy”.
Never have so may been so confused, ignorant and uncaring about the future of their country and culture.
“Idiocy” is by far the most descriptive term.
Heinlein predicted a period he called “The Crazy Years”. That seems an appropriate tag.
The Crazy Years are ending, to be followed by
A period of civil disturbance, and then the
establishment of the first mature human society.
If we are luckier than we deserve; If not, then
Nehemiah Scudder, last President of the US, will
rise to power during the civil disturbance; ‘Last’
because, once the Lord’s Anointed has attained power,
it is Sacrilege to try and remove him from power,
and Sacrilege is punishable by burning at the stake.
The closet thing Chrissie Mattspews or Kieth the Uberdork knows about Race is the Soap Box Derby.
Could be right. But many of those things should be our “ideals”. Think of the alternative. Are we to raise a generation telling them to go backwards? hardly. Especially the green thing. We must pursue green, friendlies, renewable, non-foreign oil as possible goals as quickly as we can. Buy doing that we will save alot of pain to our planet, fuel for future generations and American lives and national self-respect. The middle east will not be financially happy, but that’s the way it goes…..so should we. Lets convert all our trucks to natural gas now !! Thanks for the article.
Yes! We tell them to go back to when character counted, to when men and women faced reality with grit, to when civility was not an excuse to be a moral coward, to when people depended upon themselves and their neighbor – not the government. We tell them to go back and pick up the values the 20th jettisoned in the quest for a utopia that does not and will not exist. We tell them to go back and choose the ancient paths that human experience and divine revelation mark as the true paths. We tell them to flee the utopian schemes of false intellectuals who sell snake oil and urge the people to abandon the traditions and principles of generations. Yes! We tell them to go back and remember because it is the only way to truly move forward.
When alternative sources of energy become economical, they will be adopted. Using govt to try and force their adoption before that time is a waste of money and resources.
The Left has been very successful in its semantic warfare since the 1960′s. The word ‘diversity’ is a great coup by the Left, rivalling the word-question ‘homophobia’. The tactical brilliance of ‘diversity’ is the fact that it is empty of all meaning. My favorite bumper sticker reads “Hell: Where diversity is guaranteed.” Thank God for the creation of Rush Limbaugh, and his imitators, to serve as critics of Leftist semantic warfare. The Left is so good at semantic warfare because none of them believe a thing.
I wish the liberal democrats would just use some of that great wind energy and blow away. Then maybe we can get some sanity back in Washington, if that’s still even possible.
Another great lie Obama told was that he was going to bring in a new era of “bipartisanship.” What a joke. He has done more to alienate Republicans than any other president I know.
And whatever happened to Obama saying, “I will go line by line through the federal budget and get rid of earmarks?” So many lies, so little time.
November, people, throw every single democrat out of office. Now THAT will show Mr. Obama what comes of lieing to the American public.
We’ve been surrounded by by and immersed in the lies for over three generations. We decry the info war used against us while using all of the epistemology of that same propaganda in order to defend our beliefs and ideologies… We use the same underlying ontology to fight those lies, beliefs and ideologies provided to us by that same propaganda. We’re like fish, breathing water, who try to tell one another that we’re flying through the air.
In case ya hadn’t noticed, we’re not exactly flying like eagles, here.
As mentioned at Classical Values a couple of weeks ago, we ‘ignore –and thus concede– the real issues.’
If freedom means that we must gain the reins of power in order to impose our will, our beliefs, upon others, then continue on your course. However, what you must understand is that by taking that path you’ll only find slavery and self-destruction.
Both parties, and both major ideologies in America conflate freedom with power. When a proper definition of freedom is offered, both sides call it anarchy.
You are fish, swimming in water, who believe that you are eagles. You are slaves who believe that you are masters.
Amazing, Boner, how little you really understand about the people you are addressing.
What would Mr. Bonesteel have us do?
His blip reads like a pot induced, hippie maundering from the sixties, read in a gathering of unemployed, uninhibited, uncommitted, unthinking, unisex twerps.
“Ain’t the world awful!”
Yes, yes, it is awful- how do you plan to fix it?
Is it possible that Bonesteel is offering us his brand of atheistic libertarianism? Does he not understand that his freedom to swing his arm must end where my nose begins? There are Bad Guys out there; lots of them. So power must be used to enforce the Social Contract, whatever it may specify. No one is free to harm others. No one should be free to fail to help others. If transgressions are ignored, the Contract is meaningless.
While some libertarians are anarchists, not all are.
As to your contention that we need govt to force people to take care of others?
What socialist rag did you get that out of?
Civility is over rated. Did it work with Hitler? Change Stalin’s mind? Stop a snake from biting? Civility works with reasonable people that are willing to listen and possibly change their minds. When you deal with a irrational person don’t waste time or energy with civility.
All PC speech would be better described as double speak. Murder is murder and adding “hate crime” to the equation doesn’t do much for me. I hate Muslim Jihads, you don’t like it I don’t care! Don’t get in my face about it either, You won’t like the result, and it won’t be because your feelings are hurt.
When you let people get away with telling lies there is no longer room for compromise or further discourse. They lied you didn’t call them on it ,you lose.
True — but, just make sure you understand the truth… Otherwise, you are just a tool.
My favorite for over 30 years now is “becoming less dependent on foreign oil.” But I should add I also think our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a farce of colossal dimension and is never discussed.
Where does 200 million barrels of crude show up on our national budget ?
It shows up as an asset. Which it is.
Obama and his minions may have unwittingly changed the nature of political debate in this country for good. On most politically divisive issues, Bush II never convincingly made his case to the American people. He lacked the will to rebut false charges and was easily portrayed as a liar by the Left.
Then along comes Obama who from the get-go lied with ease about everything and anything. He was extolled by the media as a pillar of virtue and morality, “like God” or something. Unreal. The Leftist bible must begin with: “In the beginning was the word ‘lie’”, because that’s all their messiah does.
Perhaps the the final evolution of this process will be to elect a president who vigorously speaks truth to lies. He/she could start with the five points mentioned above and shove the truth down the throat of the media, the same way Obama does his untruths. Take a hint from VDH and don’t hold back.
On another point, I disagree with calling the Left’s behavior “idiocy”. That word implies the functional inability to assess verity. While that may be spot on for the younger brain-dead Lefties, it’s not true of their leaders. Obama/Reid/Pelosi et al are lying through their teeth. They know they are lying, it’s intentional, and they don’t care that their lies are beyond the pale even by normal standards for politician liars. Idiocy is too benign a word for them.
As usual VDH is supreme at describing the problem without offering the solutions. Perhaps he has no solutions and thus takes the easy road again, and again and again……. Please VDH you can do better.
Sorry but I don’t think you quite grasp VDH’s special contribution. His being able to clearly and masterfully articulate the nature of our “ills” while simultaneously identifying the root causes is NOT “taking the easy way out.” He’s a professor of ancient history and not running for political office. Furthermore from what I can glean from his writing style, not predisposed to push a “ten-point game plan” for fixing what ails this country. People who read and absorb his rather timeless message already know what they need to do and what must be done in a broader social context.
I think his value in this regard is in helping his readers understand the continuity of the human experience – that despite what we may believe about how unique our particular set of problems are in this era, they are nearly identical in nature and causation as they were in ancient times. We need thinkers and writers like VDH to remind us of this.
Solutions? Don’t you realize it is over! America is way past the point of no return. Obama is the PRODUCT of America’s political/cultural trajectory, not the cause. American government at all levels – but most certainly at the Federal level – is completely corrupt. It is not going to get better.
The Dems/left have openly rejected the Judeo-Christian ethos and American exceptionalism. The GOP uses and betrays the conservatives. For crying out loud, one of the most prominent senior GOP senators – Lindsay Graham – is sponsoring legislation to require all Americans have a national biometric ID card! Conservative Republicans love to rail against the UN and “one world government” yet support the US military intervening all over world and serving as the “world’s police.”
Facing the facts and human history, only one prediction can be reasonably made – America will not change course.
The first step in solving any problem, is properly defining the problem.
Have patience.
Well said Mark, well said indeed.
It sounds like you think VDH has all the answers and if he doesn’t he shouldn’t criticize or complain or even reflect.
Sometimes if you can accurately define the problem, that is the first step toward a solution.
If the problem is trolls polluting the message board, a solution is to not feed them with what they eat; replies.
I never complain when Progressives utter the sorts of things listed here as examples. I am as dedicated to the destruction of their philosophy – and to neutralizing their influence in society – as they are to mine.
To hell with tolerance. We are not talking about reasonable disagreements around the edges here, or in gray areas. We are talking about fundamental and fundamentally incompatible views about culture and political philosophy. There is no middle ground and I don’t ask them to be cool and detached and regard my values as neutral in implication for the effects on their own.
I plan to win. Let them do their worst.
You’re somewhat wrong about the green stuff.
1. Were we willing to pay for it we could start launching spaceborne solar next year which would be competitive with nuclear re ‘green’ payoff (total end to end energy budget.) We know how to do it. We have the technology, and we have the experience building big things in space.
2. A good amount of the ‘green’ initiative is passive; e.g. it’s common now to be able to buy roofing materials with colouring compounds specifically designed for IR reflection.
3. Even lightweight amounts of power generation are a net positive in that PV panels (e.g.) are being sold for Ag building construction where the idea is to have the PV panel supplying some of the daytime running of the roof ventilation system where powered systems are needed.
Little improvements and changes do add up. Incremental technology changes allow more profitability thus a few more jobs here and there are added over and above what would have been added without the tech change. But millions of “green” jobs overnight? Nobody expects this. But in a 25 year timespan there might be.
Criminy, no wonder you are a liberal.
We could launch a solar satellite next year if we wanted to?
Do you have any idea how long it takes to design and build such a thing? 20 years is more like it.
We have built big things in space.
True, but the current space station would be only a few percent the size of such an area. Building things that big requires new technologies, none of which now exist and experience we are still working on.
We have the technology
Not really, As I pointed out above, the skills to manage an array that size have not been developed, nor has the technology to keep the beam from the satellite on target.
The only place where PV makes sense is when it cost too much money to run a power line out there. It takes more energy to make a PV cell than you can expect to capture from it in it’s usefull life span. To say nothing of the energy required to make the mounting, and the energy required to clean it on a regular basis.
“Civility” and “racism” are fecal stains on the oral orifices of liberals.
Some solutions to weaken the government (by focusing it) and strengthen the nation (by freeing it):
1)Vote Democrats out of office in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and so on, until they are no longer a viable party. When they are about gone, vote in Libertarians and conservative Republicans to fight against each other. “Liberals” and “progressives” have repeatedly demonstated that they should not be entrusted to set policy.
2)Amend the Constitution to allow for making Term Limits the law of the land for members of Congress and their staffs.
3)Get rid of the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) and implement the Fair Tax, or a VAT.
4)Pass a law temporarily forbidding anyone who receives a check directly from any level of government (federal, state or local) from voting for office-holders in that government, because it represents a conflict of interests.
5)Strengthen the training, equipping and family support of the armed forces, but reduce ongoing U.S. foreign commitments.
6)Pay off the national debt, even if we have to gradually phase out Social Security and Medicare, and eliminate whole federal Departments, to do it.
7)Repeal the current “ObamaCare” and reform health care insurance in the free-market manner described by John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods) in the WSJ, which is very close to HR 3400, sponsored by Tom Price (R-GA).
8)Restrict ALL forms of government support of any level (including college) of education to vouchers issued to the guardians of minors or to young-adult students, which can be used for education only.
Thomas Sowell’s new book “Intellectuals and Society” tells it as only he can.
Bottom line: you can’t sell it when the girl across the street gives it for free.
It’s over, and it’s been over a long time.
The Bushes and McCain and Howdy Doody McConnel, and all the suntan Country Club Republicans are more at fault than the freeloading Left, since they should have known better, but did nothing.
Mythbuster is right about restricting government from operating commercially. But he won’t do as a casting director. We don’t need a dimwit alaskan housewife or a dingbat who really supposes that momentary acquiescence to a religious formula guarantees eternal happiness as “the happy couple” with power to destroy the world.
And, folks, thats our problem- we don’t have anybody to run against the Damnedocrats. We want virtuous, talented and experienced. Name some names, please.
Bill cosby is probably too smart
to take on an impossible job. :)
You mean “Name some names that I approve of”.
Apparently, we’re all supposed to bow down to your brilliant insight and analysis without question.
Now, here’s a crazy thought, what if you are wrong about Palin?
I am proudly pro-Palin. Go ahead and beat on me if you want.
Cuts to Medicare can be “adjustments.” Reductions in Social Security can be “refinements.” “Downsizing” means getting rid of three carrier groups. “Forward looking” will be ending NASA as we knew it.
It’s practically an industry now, focus groups to come up with soft, coddling language to avoid calling a thing what it is.
So how odd: we live in an age of untruth in which millions privately shrug and nod at the daily lies of our elites.
I marvel at how all these liars can utter the BS they do in front of the cameras and still manage to look at themselves in the mirror.
We used to have morals. Now we have spin, and the spin machine is on overdrive for a constant stream of egregious behaviors (thus Charlie Rangel is still in Congress…)
On some biological level, all the dissimulation must be causing terrible personal strain to these people.
~not shrugging yet
crk: The first step to solving a problem is to define the problem. VDH has defined the problem quite well, and I notice you have not offered any criticisms of his definition, or any suggestions for solutions.
Simply put, the problems of having an honest representitive government scale directly with the power of said government over our day to day lives. The Conservative approach is to reduce this governmental power, as to simplify the problem. The Liberal approach is to expand governmental power, and apply magic pixie dust.
The real tragedy of the absolute truth of this article is that truth itself no longer has a place in our government or, for the most part, in American lives at all.
crk,
Only a fool or leftist can not see the solutions to these problems. Let’s look at them, shall we?
Can’t We All Just Get Along?-The left started this BS LONG ago and we have let them get away with it because we believed in what Voltaire said. Don’t you remember all the charming things they said about Ronald Reagan in the 60′s and 70′s? It sounds remarkably like what the left is saying about Sarah Palin today. The solution to it is pretty much the same solution one would take with a petulant, temper tantrum throwing five year old which is exactly how the left has been behaving for decades. We have tried to ignore their foaming at the mouth screeching, their banging their spoons on their high chair trays and their destructive behavior, we have tried to tell them to stop it but that only increases their screeching and banging of spoons. The only thing left is to give them such a spanking that they will piss their pants before attempting that kid of behavior again and tell them in no uncertain terms that they will never be allowed to sit at the “adults table” ever again.
Diversity? Not. This one is fairly easy. Get rid of all “affirmative action” and racial preference laws and contracts.
Wind and Solar and Millions of Green Jobs!-If “green energy” is so wonderful why is it that the leftist elitists who clamor for it do not use it nor want it in their back yards. If they are going to talk the talk then they can walk the walk and I guarantee you that if you make them walk the walk they will drop the “saving Gaia” BS in a hurry. Why? Because they will have no electricity, no gasoline, no heating oil, nothing made from petroleum products like their iPods, cell phones, computers, modern medical instruments, bongs, etc.. They will have nothing to eat except what they can get locally and even though they might think that is a good thing they will soon discover that their local area does not grow enough food for them to eat. The fact that they will not have coffee alone will send many screaming-the “carbon footprint” on coffee importation is huge, dontchaknow.
Stimulus Everywhere-Another one that is fairly easy to do. Return the role of federal government to that outlined in the constitution. That means no more earmarks, no more funding of foolish leftist programs and agendas like the “War on Poverty”, no more grants for “womyns studies”, etc.. Of course the left will howl about that because they are addicted to the government teat. If they want money they can go hit up people like James Cameron for it, he has plenty.
Illegal What? Another simple one. We should adopt the same immigration policies that countries like Mexico have. Very simply put if you don’t belong there yet persist in staying they will let you stay-in prison.
Excellent as always, VDH.
What I want to see is a huge backlash against it being OK to BASH any group that happens to have a majority of “WHITE” people. Why do we let them get away with this?
Republicans hate immigrants because they are racist against all non-white people, the same reason they hate Obama. They can’t stand that a black man is in charge now. And the reason there was outrage against Bush is because he was a war criminal that should be given a fair trial at the Hague, and summarily convicted and put in a cell for the rest of his life, preferably a gulag like the ones he put non-Christian political dissenters in.
Thoughtcrime!!
Someone call the Ministry of Love.
GEEZ that was good!
Political folks certainly are dramatic; we can take that a a given. The Jefferson-Adams campaign (between two Founders, no less) was cast in apocalyptic terms. Then we morph to recent lefties foaming at the mouth that we have a President who is actually is going to wage a couple pre-emptive wars, and now we have righties apoplectic that a lefty black President is proceeding about as one would have expected.
Knowing how all this hot air has been expended in the past and the Republic has not fallen gives me hope. But wait!! This time it’s really serious, it really is the end-time days.
Hmmm, every so often a Hitler slouches along, and one should try to strike earlier, rather than later, but the problem is that the loud voices of both the left and the right go into crisis mode, the goose distress call, ALL the time. VDH chooses to paint all these cliches as “untruths” and untruthful in a way that is particularly sinister, of course. Whereas a more prescient “truth” is that diversity includes American righties and the diversity folks have to accept that. Of course the righties see the world in terms of black and white, good and evil, even more than the lefties do, but that is part of their diversity.”
The bottom line is that human beings hate boredom more than they hate oppression, until they really feel oppression. VDH, in this part of the country it is time to put our seeds in the ground; the birds still sing, the grass is growing; these idiots do not realize that the end is near. A lot of people here believe that you write profound stuff. Sorry, I see boilerplate righty grumbling. You do not have historical balance; rather you know some history and use it to promote ONE of the two current political agendas. Therefore I learn less than I would like; I want balanced historical perspective, whereas you are paying a couple bills by gratifying the PJM people. If that’s the best you can do, then it is what it is; but I’d like more.
Dwight, a couple of questions by way of clarification. (I can’t take your condemnations seriously until I understand you.)
You wrote: “Hmmm, every so often a Hitler slouches along, and one should try to strike earlier, rather than later, but the problem is that the loud voices of both the left and the right go into crisis mode, the goose distress call, ALL the time.”
Can you clarify the ‘problem’ you are trying to describe and explain how you would propose to resolve it (and/or how previous attempts to do so may have failed? Also what do you mean by ‘try’, ‘strike’ and ‘Hitler comes along…’
You further wrote: “VDH chooses to paint all these cliches as “untruths” and untruthful in a way that is particularly sinister, of course.”
You seem to dismiss VDH’s arguments by referring to the semantic and ideological deceptiveness of the political discourse of the Left as ‘cliches’. Do you mean by this that they are not ‘lies’, but rather that it is a right-wing cliche to refer to them as lies? Or do you mean they are cliches of the left that no-one (on the Left) takes seriously and that therefore VDH is correct in calling them lies?
Also “…a more prescient “truth” is that diversity includes American righties and the diversity folks have to accept that.” Are you claiming that the left does not embrace diversity?
And “Of course the righties see the world in terms of black and white, good and evil…” Is this a right/left problem or a human problem? When Howard Dean said “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for…” was he not taking a black/white position? By skipping this reality (as in not a ‘cliche’ but an actual statement made by the good Dr. Dean) are you not manifesting the very deceptiveness (i.e. applying one standard to your side and another to the other) that VDH is exposing here? In other words, did you even read Prof. Hanson’s article before attacking it?
I could (and will, if you like) go on, but this will do for a start. A response would be nice as I’m hungry for some real thought from the Left, rather than just artful invective. Both sides could go a lot further in attaining their ideals (which surprisingly overlap in a lot of places) if we joined hands rather than frittering our energies in knee-jerk opposition to each other. But how can you expect the right to meet you halfway when you tack so far to the Left right out of the gate?
When a politician rises, using a particular group as a whipping boy, ie “the Jews,” evidently, we need to be suspicious. Was that the clue about Hitler’s underlying, pathological ruthlessness? Fortunately the USA political process has not produced such a person. Recent history might indicate that our check to a potential Hitler is the fact that once a President is elected, terrific efforts immediately begin to undercut him in any way possible, (admittedly undercutting my critique of said process.) Maybe I should apologize to the frantic folks who spend their whole lives crying “wolf” because they have so effectively kept a Hitler away from the door. I just happen to be a person who doubts that the wolf is there, after a lifetime of hearing little and big boys cry the word all the time.
To your second point: because something is a cliche, does not make it a lie. Hope that helps.
As for diversity, no, the left does not accept diversity to the point of accepting the right, which obviously IS part of the larger diversity of the country, even if a significant part of the right eschews the idea of diversity. I, on the other hand, accept, more or less, the right and the left as players in our political culture. They are our yin and yang, which permits us to achieve whatever balance we still have.
I’m not sure that either one has the answer to our having lost so much of our manufacturing base. But, hey, let’s look at the cheery side; that GM just paid back its loan from us. Oops, not relevant, because there is not enough anti-Obama spin to it.
I have had periods of rightiness and leftiness in my background and sometimes I see people’s agendas pretty quickly. Since my view of our political system has come to be the yin-yang, countervailing forces model, where one party responds ( usually with a very blunt instrument) to the excesses and mistakes of the other… with, of course, its own excesses and mistakes. What sustains them is the belief that the other side is so WRONG, that if they could just be stopped, things would get better, and that seems to work out in a half-assed way.
Neither party by the way, has a credible plan for shrinking government, and Tea-Partiers are coming across to me as essentially discontented dreamers. THEY, have just learned what the Constitution says about the limits of the Federal Government at the end of the Eighteenth Century, and they may indeed, be honestly shocked at how far from it we have come. Alas, that is really part of their cluelessness. Have they been paying attention for the last 235 years? We got to where we are now, because WE voted the way we did, hundreds of times. Ah, there’s a kind of “half-assed majesty” to it all, wouldn’t you say?
Thanks for the thoughtful and interesting reply. In general I agree that the ‘pendulum’ of American politics has worked well at keeping extremists out of power, at least for long. I also agree that it is often unwieldy and that for good and for ill, the situation we find ourselves in is due to this pushing and pulling that goes on over time. No system is perfect. We get caught up in opposing each other, and loose sight of our common interests. But remember the fable: a wolf eventually DID come along…
As for ‘whipping boys’. Do you agree that the Left today operates principally by demonzing the right? Not just in political circles, but tightly coupled with the media, academia etc. in order to gain political power.. (Note: I don’t just mean disagreement – as you point out, both sides disagree quite strongly on many core values, but when conservatives diagreed with liberals, it tended to be on matters of substance, “i.e. we need to take out Sadaam Hussein because he is an imminent threat…”, whereas when liberals disagree with conservatives it tends to be because of the moral character of conservatives, i.e. you are invading iraq because you are “evil, greedy, lying imperialist warmongers…”
In my view the language you use when addressing political opponents is very important, and very telling. Demonizing someone strips away their humanity. It turns them into an evil, un-redeemable ‘thing’. And the implication is that this ‘thing’ is eating away at the soul of society and threatening to destroy it. The further implication is that this ‘thing’ must be neutralized for society to persist. It is (as you point out) precisely the method Hitler used. It is categorically different than disagreeing on substance. In the context of Obama, it seems to me that the whole “teabager” (a term which the President himself has used) narrative is an attempt to do just that. By painting opposition to Obama’s efforts as reactionary, racist and fascist, the left is (in my view, deliberately) trying to fan the flames of hostility in public discourse. To bypass reason altogether and appeal to people’s basest instincts. Furthermore Obama has shown a willingness to ram his policies through in the face of massive opposition (see healthcare). Of course this will trigger anger and resistance. But Obama seems impervious to all argumentation, he did it anyways. Is it so unreasonable then for the right to detect, in his words and deeds, wisps of authoritarianism? Is it delusional to perceive in the left’s methodology something that is profoundly anti-democratic, in a way that cannot be said of the right? There is a big difference between claiming that someone is so wrong that he must be opposed, and claiming that someone is so evil (i.e. Bush/Cheney) that they must be destroyed (VDH has provided many examples of this kind of extreme invective during the previous administration.) So it seems to me that a reasonable person could draw the reasonable conclusion that the left’s political machine has indeed been using the ‘whipping boy’ method of political ascendance is surely as Hitler did. It is more subtle, more ‘nuanced’, more carefully deployed… It draws on an objectively false (at least in my view) race, gender, class, sexuality, environmental and anti-imperial narrative to paint anyone who does not conform to approved thought patterns as dangerous reactionaries and uses veiled threats (see Bill Clinton & his Oklahoma City commemoration in the NYT) to intimidate them. Is this a cliché? If so is there any truth to it? If not, what am I missing?
Re your last paragraph. Another interesting comment. I agree with you that the right has dropped the ball in terms of balancing the national political narrative. I also agree that it will be difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Nevertheless my interpretation of history is that (to quote Dennis Prager) “the bigger the government, the smaller the individual”. I believe there are ways of addressing national interests AND shrinking the size and cost of government. It may sound like pie in the sky to you, but we are humans. We are designed to solve complex problems in the short and medium terms, and adjust our (always imperfect) solutions in the long term. It is this faith in the ability of intelligent, empowered citizens that I find most inspiring about the Tea Party movement, and this quasi-religious faith in Big Government to take care of us that I find most alarming about the left.
As to illegal aliens, I have a modest proposal (no, it doesn’t involve eating babies . . .). Let’s grant amnesty to all Mexicans. However, let’s do it by simply taking over all of Mexico. If so many of them want to be Americans, then let’s take all the Mexican states and make them American states. Send in the Marines, change their corrupt national government to a corrupt state and local government, and start building a modern infrastructure that can help the former-Mexicans create their own viable economy.
Then keep moving our border south until we don’t have any more illegal aliens coming in looking for a better life. Take the better life to them.
My wife, who was born in Mexico, has been saying for years that the US should just buy Mexico.
DONTREADONME writes: This country will turn itself around when the reasonable left AND right unite to confront this common enemy, including Goldman Sach’s chief bottom bitch, Obama himself.
I write: Hold your breath on this and tell us the outcome……….if you`re still alive.
The corporations are buying congress out, and have been for decades.Why are our legislators coming out of congress multimillionaires?
National senators should be restricted to accept ‘run for office’ money from their home states. State senators should be restricted to their home districts and all representatives should be restricted to their home districts..
I would accept that only if the senators and representatives only voted on legislation that only affected their state, or district.
To quote the late Hugh W. Nibley,
“The declining years of ancient civilization were beset by a feverish preoccupation with rhetoric which suggests nothing so much as a hopeless alcoholic’s devotion to the bottle. Everywhere the ancients give us to understand that rhetoric is their poison, that it is ruining their capacity to work and think, that it disgusts and wearies them, and that they cannot let it alone, because it pays too well and, having destroyed everything else, it is all they have left of remembered grandeur.”
With our modern technology, we’re repeating the foolishness of the ancients, but with even greater and widespread effect.
See: http://www.ispartnewsite.farmsresearch.com/publications/books/?bookid=76&chapid=952
Essential vdh
Shrugs and nods and business as usual is no longer going to allow Americans, smart or ignorant to survive. Getting to the heart of the matter means recognition that America is being taken over by the enemy within and no shots are being fired. The high water mark of Humanity on earth is being dismantled by a bunch of anti American idiots. Who is the idiot if they are allowed to succeed.
Our Insuperable Situation
By Robert Winkler Burke
Of inthatdayteachings.com
Copyright 4/22/10
Big government is big insanity,
We see, but they see not,
They mainstream barbarism,
We see wisdom forgot.
They see we are the problem,
In place they have pogroms,
Quite violent them against us,
We ants against their damns.
Pardon our eyes seeing elbows,
Get ready innocent against their blows,
We plainly see their world is insane,
Snuffing out seers is their game.
Big religion,
Is no help,
They blind sheep,
Without whelp.
The blinders wink,
With their all-seeing Eye,
What they don’t see,
Exists not, don’t ask why.
Low-level Christian broadcast leaders,
Shill inanities from vaunted video pulpits,
Seers see their puerile shenanigans,
Self-absorbed, demigod, narcissist Muppets.
Our insuperable situation,
Leaders: blind as a bat,
Who won’t have the sight of seers,
Whom they smash flat.
Very nice. WHO~ is this WE who tolerate and even praise these patent lies? WHO accept/praise the abrogation of the Constitution, the DOCUMENTED BASIS of USA, available for review even to “elected representatives” in Legislature, Judiciary and Executive, their acolytes and dependent hangers – on. WHO provides the braying aggression and threats against those who know and resist the lies and manipulation for what they are: an unlawful takeover of Law (Constitution) and Economy,as did the Soviets in their time in their place. This recent activity the triumphant culmination of the policies and management from “representatives”, the “Democratic” Party of the USA the flag – bearer, the drum and bugle corps (corpse ?) for a long time, focussed since the election(Chicago) 1960 under our very noses and with “our” compliance. WHO IS the WE WHO SUPPORT – ENCOURAGE – BENEFIT ? And WHO is the WE who pay for the benefits of those who support / encourage / profit from this take – over ? Is there a royal WE in there somewhere?
Does Ejfjallajokull really mean, “So much for my Prius.” in Icelandic?
The lie of ‘Tough cuts’ and ‘fiscally responsible’ is magnified when a $100mm budget reduction is placed in context of the government’s finances by this student’s 1m38sec. video clip.
http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/
Bush was a liar. Thats why the voters flipped out and elected Barack Obama in a vulgar display of voter power.
Can somebody explain to me what is all that about? the five lies?