The Truth Is Out There

Bill Whittle's latest video is out. Like "Open Blogger" notes at Ace of Spades:

Have you ever had an incomplete thought rattling around your mind? You can almost put it into words but it remains elusively amorphous? Bill Whittle has the uncanny ability to take that pile of mental toothpicks and glue them into an Eiffel Tower of reason.

The video starts out a little on the feisty side, with an unflattering characterization of Pacifica Radio. But it gets good at about 4 minutes, and he brings the whole thing together by the end of the piece. Wow.

I keep a button tuned to Pacifica Radio, just to check up on what is going on with the Far Left from time to time. Every once in a while, they have something that sounds reasonable on the station. But they also run some really challenging programming, like interviews of representatives of such victim groups as the "National Man-Boy Love Association" or the "Bondage and Discipline Community" (the latter persecuted more through ridicule and misunderstanding than through legal action. Their feelings are hurt.) I wrote down some of the details of programming I caught before and during May Day last year. Whew.

Dennis Prager has observed that (at least in the United States) people who accept the concept of faith in the realm of religion are more likely to look for realism in other areas of life. Those who reject religion in which God is the final authority on morality often accept the irrational easily in many other aspects of life, including politics. Pacifica Radio is a case in point. I don't think your typical Baptist radio station would be likely to run a program claiming that if you get Lyme disease, you should be grateful that Kudzu vine has taken over the South, because it took over so that it could cure you (how is not clear). The belief that we should listen to the "wisdom of plants" rather than turn to Western Medicine (because it is based too much on reason) is "one of many truths" on Pacifica Radio, where they make fun of Baptists.

So, is there anything you could do to help keep people like those who run Pacifica Radio from taking over the country? In 2010, Bill Whittle wrote an interesting piece called The Iceberg which may give you some ideas.

Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character

Agree with him or not, this piece by Dennis Prager is a good example of writing with clarity (I sometimes think his writing would be better with more examples, but I thought this piece was well-written for a short summary). Read the whole thing. As usual with Prager, I didn't find a single "weasel word" in the piece.  Kicker at the end.

If you'd rather watch a video, he did short one with the same theme earlier. I hope that most people would fall somewhere between the extremes in how much government they think is good:   no government (true anarchy with its risks of destruction) and really big government (national or international egalitarian government with its risks of totalitarianism).  But about the only people agitating for anarchy today are faux anarchists who want to see Western Civilization fall so they can build a new, utopian system.  Progressive policies which lead toward really big government, on the other hand, remain popular.  The ten moral downsides which Prager identifies are:

1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another.

The greatest description of American civilization was written in the 19th century by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the differences distinguishing Americans from Europeans that he most marveled at was how much Americans — through myriad associations — took care of one another.

2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme.

As a result, virtually every welfare state in Europe, along with many American states, like California, is going broke.

3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic.

4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work.

5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing.

And the rhetoric of liberalism — labeling each new entitlement a “right” — reinforces this sense of entitlement.

6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption.

Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And, unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation’s currency, and they cannot arrest you.

7. The welfare state corrupts family life.

8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults.

9. As a result of the Left’s sympathetic views of pacifism, and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend them.

10. The leftist weltanschauung sees society’s and the world’s great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil.

This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.

Police extorting political support in Wisconsin

Iowahawk:

Wisconsin state employee union woos Wisconsin small business support with threats of severed horse heads

Well, he is a satirist. But union supporters HAVE been "doubling down" on intimidation of local businesses as a crucial election approaches. Among other nasty practices. The videos are interesting. But this is more worrisome - Ann Althouse:

I can’t get my head around the concept of police involvement in boycotting businesses. That reads like pure corruption. I can’t believe it’s being done openly. Can someone explain to me how you can even argue that it is acceptable for police to extort political support from citizens?

Interesting to consider the circumstances under which extortion is effective.

Is California next? The legendary Democrat WILLIE BROWN, who managed California politics for years, is worried about pension costs?

The Disturbing World of the Arizona Shooter

The initial campaign to connect in people's minds the Arizona shootings with "violent eliminationist rhetoric" from the Right continues in the modified form of a campaign to "tone down" violent rhetoric in politics and the media.  We are now witnessing a more subtle and devious way to connect idea of violent rhetoric from the Right with the Arizona shootings. And it deflects attention from the issues which should be under discussion as a result of this terrible tragedy.

This red herring is especially disingenuous after the shooter's friends have said that he was "on the left" politically in high school then apparently stopped watching the news, didn't listen to the radio and stopped taking sides in the normal political process.  But he was obsessed with the 2007 "new-age" anarchist internet movie "Zeitgeist".  Produced BEFORE Sarah Palin and the Tea Party were in the national news.  The shooter was also reported to have said in 2007 that Representative Giffords was a "phony" because she did not answer to his satisfaction his irrational question about government and grammar. He may have also developed a certain obsession with her.  None of his acquaintances seem to connect him IN ANY WAY with "right wing" politics. RS McCain links Dan Collins, a father whose child developed a rare form of childhood-onset schizophrenia, concerning the thought processes of schizophrenics.

 Pima college has release a disturbing video in which the shooter talks about what he is thinking as he walks around campus. It makes Collins' heartbreaking observations come to life. Drew M. says this  about the video:

This appeared last night and the reaction from folks on Twitter and email was that it's a tough watch.

The guy is genuinely disturbed. We knew that but to hear and see it so clearly is pretty shocking.

I would love to sit with Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman and the like to watch this. Then when it's over, I'd like them to explain to me how they think this broken and damaged man was in any way influenced by the 'tone' of our political discourse. . . .

Also read his quote from a commentator in the New York Times about the misuse of this tragedy to further a political agenda.  (The Times has backed off its original story line, probably due to the rapid response of competitive voices and real journalists).

Getting back to the Zeitgeist thing:  The Zeitgeist movie's producers, like many new-age types, paid attention to conspiracy ideas from across the political spectrum.  But the style of their movie was typical of activist art from the Left, and the movie won an award at a lefty film festival.  No wonder, since it attacked Christianity, suggested that the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11 and warned against "banking interests" and secret plots to start wars.

On the other hand, it also stated that the income tax is unconstitutional.  I haven't yet fully figured out why "truther" anarchist filmmakers who hate Fox News often get along very well with big-government leftists at rallies and activist film festivals. I would expect anarchists and big-government leftists to be ideologically incompatible. But then again, sometimes lefty anarchists espouse some big-government ideas -- which sort of makes them atypical anarchists.

Somehow, I am not confident that Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman and the like will now condemn violent rhetoric and images in left-wing activist "art"   like they condemned violent rhetoric and images from the Right. Art must reflect freedom of expression (unless it is critical of one of the Left's more fashionable "communities" of the moment).  These commentators cannot be consistent and retain their affinity with today's progressives. And they already have a designated villain.

Auld Lang Syne

Elizabeth Scalia on her remembrances of the Kennedy years and Auld Lang Syne.  She also links a piece on food shortages here in the Central Valley, one of the great food-producing regions of the world.  It is relevant to some of our personal challenges, and those of our friends.  Peggy Noonan talked with several people about their impressions of the song we sing every year:

"Auld Lang Syne" — the phrase can be translated as "long, long ago," or "old long since," but I like "old times past"—is a song that asks a question, a tender little question that has to do with the nature of being alive, of being a person on a journey in the world. It not only asks, it gives an answer. . . .

But "the interesting, more serious message in the song is that the past is important, we mustn't forget it, the old has something for us."

So does the present, as the last stanza makes clear. The song is not only about those who were in your life, but those who are in your life. . . .

A lot of food for thought on New Years Eve day. Hope everyone is looking forward to a wonderful New Year.

The Chilean Mine Rescue, Chris Matthews, Two Presidents

While the world celebrated, Chris Matthews took this story as an opportunity to become completely unmoored from reality, declaring to the head of the AFL-CIO that if the miners had been tea-partiers, they would have been dead in two days.

Ann Althouse:

What that shows is that Matthews — in stereotypical liberal fashion — has forgotten the way private individuals cooperate and help each other. The government and only the government must be the source of all beneficence. If you don't want the government to solve all your problems, you must think you and everyone else can be 100% self-reliant.

A couple of simple questions for Mr. Matthews:

If Tea Partiers are so consumed by an “every man for himself” philosophy, why are their gatherings typically so well-organized and why do they leave, say, the National Mall spotless?

If unions, on the other hand, are so dedicated to cooperation and respect for others, why did so many of their buses leave before the OneNation rally was over, leaving some speakers to speak to a few stragglers? And why did they trash the National Mall?  

Unions are just as subject to corruption and decline as business and government are. When unions are protected in their declined state by government, decline is likely to get worse.

The President of Chile called for international help from the best and the brightest, promising to keep bureaucracy from interfering. As a result, the rescue came much sooner that the December estimate.  In contrast, during the Gulf Oil Spill, President Obama rejected most international help for months.  He refused to suspend the Jones Act, which kept the Dutch and others from helping directly. Apparently, in the President's mind, the interests of unions outweighed the interests of fishermen and  others whose jobs were threatened by the oil spill. The Jones Act specifies that foreign entities working with our government (including in disasters) must be unionized. It has been suspended by other presidents in the past in emergencies. (Oh, and EPA regulations requiring near-perfection in equipment for removing oil from water also prevented much oil from being removed from the gulf by the Dutch).  Many people were disappointed with the President's response. Chile's politics and culture seem to be in an ascendant phase, in comparison.

Who feels threatened by the Ground Zero Mosque Issue?

Nancy Pelosi wants investigations into who is funding those who want the Cordoba House moved further away from Ground Zero.  Wretchard:

Pelosi’s remarks provide an insight into a world in which nothing happens unless it is bought and paid for. Since these are the rules the denizens of that universe have lived by, they cannot conceive of a world that does not run on pure corruption. . . .

The important thing to remember is that Pelosi’s call for an investigation into those opposed to building of the mosque are geared towards preventing any further discussion on the subject, not expanding it. Since the administration and its allies control vast prosecutorial resources and powers of publicity, an investigation of the Ground Zero mosque’s backers and those opposed will certainly focus on the opposition. The backers will be given a free ride.

Read the whole thing. Watch the videos.

And read this intelligent piece by The Anchoress about conditions under which a mosque would not have seemed so threatening, and follow the links for other viewpoints:

The crater in Lower Manhattan has become a permanent aching void, but nature abhors a vacuum and so from its empty depths something must arise. In a near-decade that “something” could have taken the form of a park, or a memorial, or a glistening new tower, and the construction of a mosque two blocks thence would have been nothing more than a reinforcement of the notion of American Exceptionalism and what Madeline Albright called The Indispensable Nation, and the narrative would have been a stirring one:

“. . . brought to her knees, Can-Do America has rebuilt and moved on; a proposed mosque two blocks from the new construction only emphasizes her broad shoulders, her self-assurance, her commitment to liberty; it demonstrates to the world the strength that America draws from her own character and constitution, and from knowing who she is . . .

All of that would have been a psychological victory over the spectre of terrorism; it would loom large in the minds of the world and a mosque built in its shadows would only be a mosque, unremarkable in a nation dedicated to freedom of religion.


But. . . .

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a victim of abuse, was driven from the Netherlands for speaking about abuse of women in the name of Ialam. Here, she writes on the clash of civilizationa.

Thomas Sowell at 80

A national resource. Entire "Uncommon Knowledge" interview at the link. Part 3, on loss of personal responsibility in America and degradation of Harlem since he lived there in the 1940s.

Peter Robinson says Sowell is popular among college students today. One fan puts up quotes and links to Sowell's columns on Twitter. Sowell's closing advice to college kids,

It doesn't matter how smart you are unless you stop and think.

Sowell also believes that people were "bigger" during Brokaw's Greatest Generation

Were the people more real when America was less rich? Hope we don't throw away what they built.

Obama's Popularity dropping in the Arab world, too?

President Obama faces, among other problems, difficulties among former supporters. the current instability in Iran and the controversy over the proposed mega-mosque at Ground Zero.   Wretchard now writes about the falling poll numbers for Obama in the Arab world.

When respondents were asked to name the world leader they admired most, Obama’s standing was less than 1%. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was cited most often (20%), followed by last year’s top pick, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (13%), and Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad (12%).

The hope that appeasement would be rewarded by respect has earned the President a kick in the nose. Perceived strength generates its own legitimacy in rough places; Arabs who have traditionally feared Persia now believe it has a right to build nuclear weapons. They have watched Iran push the President’s flaccid arm down to the table and drawn their own conclusions. The policy of apologizing for America has not won friends or influenced people; it has not even delegitimized Iranian expansionism. It has produced the contrary result.

Wretchard also describes the desperate search for magic words to bring back the domestic approval seen during of Obama's campaign and inauguration, in the face of our current perilous circumstances.

Jon Stewart Show: The Racism Card is Maxed Out

"A shot of common sense from the unlikeliest of sources: "

TigerHawk:

This is very good, although probably NSFW in our modern high liability workplace, where all the various "cards" remain in full force and effect.

Mosque at Ground Zero?

Does opposition to a mosque at Ground Zero mean you're a xenophobic, Islamophobic American hater-of-the-other?

Not necessarily. One prominent Muslim scholar claims that the plans for the Ground Zero Mosque are evidence of a nefarious plot by the Jews to discredit Islam!!! Read the whole piece. A teaser:

When the pope comes to London next month, he is going to be greeted by substantial numbers of protests organized by people calling for his arrest and accusing him of the wildest hatreds. Yet we do not hear that critics of the pope are bigoted, “Christianophobic.” Nor even if they were should it cause any alarm.  But Islam is different.

Why? It goes back to the “phobia” business. Arachnophobia is an irrational fear of spiders and claustrophobia is an irrational fear of small places. They are irrational because most small spiders and most small spaces do not kill you. There are, however, very sensible reasons to be fearful of many forms of Islam.  Commuters in London and Madrid know why. As do Dutch filmmakers. And so do the numerous Muslim-born writers, artists, and musicians who spend their lives in hiding for fear of murder from their erstwhile co-religionists for “crimes” like “apostasy” and literary criticism.

But the cowardice in identifying this and cringing stupidity of what passes for intellectuals and commentators in America, like the U.K., today is staggering. . .

For Muslims, the answer to radical Islam may well be some nice official version of Islam that hasn’t yet been discovered. But for free and open societies, the answer to radical Islam is not Islam. It is free and open societies. It doesn’t matter what Muslims believe, anymore than anybody else. But it matters how they behave. . . .

Your Tax Dollars at Work: The Ground Zero Imam is being sent by the U.S. State Department on a good-will trip through the Middle East.   What could go wrong?

Meanwhile, the church which was crushed when the towers fell has not been re-built due to bureaucratic obstacles. This demonstrates a double standard as officials rush to approve the building of the 13-story mosque in time for it to open on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Note: part of one of the planes hit the building where the mosque is proposed.

Is Obama Obsolete?

Fouad Ajami:  

Mr. Obama could protest that his swift and sudden fall from grace is no fault of his. He had been a blank slate, and the devotees had projected onto him their hopes and dreams. His victory had not been the triumph of policies he had enunciated in great detail. He had never run anything in his entire life. He had a scant public record, but oddly this worked to his advantage. If he was going to begin the world anew, it was better that he knew little about the machinery of government.

He pronounced on the American condition with stark, unalloyed confidence. He had little if any regard for precedents. He could be forgiven the thought that America's faith in economic freedom had given way and that he had the popular writ to move the nation toward a super-regulated command economy. An "economic emergency" was upon us, and this would be the New New Deal.

There was no hesitation in the monumental changes Mr. Obama had in mind. The logic was Jacobin, the authority deriving from a perceived mandate to recast time-honored practices. . .

Read the whole thing.

On the lighter side: The "Professional Left" goes after Obama's Press Secretary for  giving them a small taste of what he routinely dishes out to conservatives.  Keith Olberman pontificates from his reality-based universe.   Jaw-droppingly wrong.   But very funny.   Nate Silver, who formerly blogged at nasty, hard-left, Soros-funded Daily Kos, is also linked on HotAir, above. Roundup of "Professional Left" reactions.

 Gibbs retreats. Well, sort of. Will he have to go back to trashing only conservatives?  Stay tuned to the White House.

Conservative? Then you must hate "the other".

Dennis Prager:

A Washington Post columnist writes a serious column about what could be a parody of conservative positions. If you want to see yourself in the liberal mirror, read on.

Yglesias:

This year, us-vs.-them controversies are proliferating,

And it's all because of the economy. Especially the hatred and zenophobia. Because according to the dominant ideologies of today's left, money and power trump most other moral issues.  Most of the Left is also very concerned about their notions of equality and "diversity".    VDH has a few alternative ideas about the reasons for the present conflicts in our society and politics.

Yes, one walk across the Yale or Stanford campus circa 1975, and one could see pretty clearly what sort of culture that bunch would create when it came of age and was handed power. If that is reductionism, so be it.

And Yglesias is truly worried about "America's commitment to religious freedom"? Please.

Actually, he's sort of on the same page with Glenn Beck with regard to the right of Muslims to build a mosque at Ground Zero.*  But there is a very strong current within today's Left which is bent on destroying the influence of traditional religions, except for the one which is an actual, physical threat to it.

Because, when you don’t confront real evil, you hate those who do.

The greatest challenge for the Israeli position isn’t in the media. It’s on the typical college campus. Because there, the truth doesn’t matter. . .

Yes, this unwillingness to show judgment, for judging simply means discerning between two ways, will cause destruction.

To not discern, to lack judgment, is not a mark of intelligence. In fact, a lack pf perception is as handicapped as being actually blind.

* Update: I don't listen to Glenn Beck often, but now he is on early-morining radio, and I heard him say that he had changed his mind, based on the increasing evidence of ties to terrorist groups among the backers of Cordoba House.  How the Gutfield gay bar could get around zoning restrictions.    The Democratic governor of New York is offering State help if the backers will move the mosque further from Ground Zero.

Update 2: Paul Mirengoff does a miniFisk on the Yglesias piece.

The Power of Narrative: History of World War II

Via Instapundit, Tigerhawk links Wretchard: “It is a measure of the power of narrative that we publicly grieve more for the deaths of our enemies than those of our allies in a war that is now fading quickly from human memory.”

As the New York Times remembers Hiroshima, try this quiz. Name the two greatest losses of civilian life in the Pacific war. Hint. In both cases the civilian casualties were greater than Hiroshima’s. In one case the event took place on American soil.


Casualties
Hiroshima 70,000–80,000
Battle of Manila 100,000
Nanjing 300,000

Check out the Belmont Club comment thread, too.

Those killed at Hiroshima, and later Nagasaki, were killed in spite of their
being non-combatants.

Most of those killed in Manila and the vast majority of the slain in Nanjing
were killed because they were non-combatants. Wherever the Japanese went, the slaughter started after resistance ceased.

When the Americans carried the day, the killing stopped as soon as the victory was won.


We've nothing to apologize for.

And for a powerful example of how to counter the "narrative", go back to the link at the top of this post and watch the Bill Whittle vs. Jon Stewart video linked by Glenn Reynolds.

A feisty view here.

The value of returning to original source documents when studying history.

Judge Walker's Ruling: Egging On Conflict, Re-affirming Power

What a nightmarish can of worms Judge Walker has opened with his haughty, earth-shaking decision on Proposition 8. It is clear that the Left will never settle for the Rush Limbaugh-Elton John Compromise.

Wretchard:

Although the debate over Proposition 8 is going to be argued in terms of the legal doctrine of equal protection, in the light of recent developments in Arizona, Missouri and Texas, it is inevitably going to seen as another tussle between the Feds and the States, between the Center and the Periphery, and unlikely as it may seem in the case of California, between Red and Blue. What is interesting about these disputes is that they seem to be multiplying and increasing in frequency rather than diminishing. Conflicts normally either disincentive the parties from further argument or egg them on. In this case, the eggs have it. The question is: why?

Later, in the comments, he provides some of his own thoughts:

Leaving the morality and religion out and only the politics in, JC in KZ probably has it right. Marriage, or whatever you want to call it, is part of something that sits underneath the civilizational rules.  It’s rooted in biology. In the statistical distribution of human genes.  It’s like VmWare running under a number of different operating systems.  It is argued that the practical problems of homosexuals can only be solved by getting the OS to take over the VmWare.  But that makes the solution far more complicated than it has to be or maybe even infeasible.

It is politically difficult to sell a solution stated in terms that are intuitively — I will not say rationally but intuitively — repellant to 90% of the population.  There are other ways to meet the practical needs of homosexuals without resorting to cramming it down the majority’s throats in this particular way.  But the Left will have this way and no other.


There’s a certain petulance to this insistence which goes far beyond the actual scope of the problem.  In fact, it’s not a debate about homosexual rights at all.  It is about who gets to officially define human nature more than anything else. Human nature must be made infinitely adaptable to the requirements of the planners. Otherwise there would “high beauties forever beyond their reach”.

I’ll wager that one day the Left will decide gays have no rights. And on that day they will have none.


I don’t think this is about “legislating morality” either way. It is about power. It is an unnecessary, gratuitous and pointless dispute in a world where it is easier to live and let live. And that meaninglessness is the reason it is so compelling to the left. What is power but the ability to insist on the pointless?

Wretchard's statement about future betrayal of gays by the Left is a little shocking.  But he has personal experience with perfidy by leftists.  And maybe "pointless" is an over-statement.  The conflict DOES provide lots of employment among the ruling class. As illustrated in Iowahawk's report on this
 wedgeapalooza.

Update: Random thoghts by Victor Davis Hanson on Angry America. He's our neighbor from up the road. He's a farmer and an academic. He knows about real life, ancient history and theoretical, idealized life. The kicker comes at the end.

Gay marriage - A simple issue? Really?

When I was in elementary school, there was exactly one child among two classes my age, 50 or more children, whose parents were divorced. Well, for a few months there was a second girl, who became my best friend, whose mother was divorced. She and her mother moved suddenly, and we never got a chance to say good-bye. There were no children in my class who were living with deliberately single mothers. Some things have changed since then.

Changes in technology (birth control) and law (no-fault divorce, etc.) decreased the importance of marriage in society. And theories from the Left have knocked marriage first one way and then the other. In my lifetime, marriage has been portrayed by the Left as a meaningless piece of paper, as slavery, as an expression of patriarchy and authoritarianism,  as an institution within which any woman who has sex is being raped, as an arrangement of temporary convenience, as in "starter marriages", and as many other things. Lots of people have felt lots of pain as a result of these various theories. NOW, marriage is suddenly a constitutional right. Until the Left comes up with another goal.

People are starting to talk about some of the legal problems which are posed by same-sex marriage. Like what do you do with the "presumption of paternity" in the case of a lesbian marriage? Or annulment based upon a non-consummated marriage? The law books must be full of wording that will need to be changed, all because of the insistence that the definition of ONE WORD be changed.   What about the Rush Limbaugh-Elton John Compromise?

Gay marriage seems to me to pose the danger of making marriage less attractive to heterosexual men, especially in "at-risk communities" where young men already think of "Sperm Donor"as an ideal family role.

For one thing, the NYT reported that about half of gay married men in Massachusetts do not consider sexual fidelity to be particularly important. Understandably. So, if gay and straight marriage are "totally the same", why shouldn't straight men expect that their wives will be cool with hubby having sex with other people? If your girlfriend doesn't like that idea, why get married and face conflict over your desire for other women? Is there any value to the idea of marriage as a "civilizing bridge between the sexes", requiring both partners to rein in their natural inclinations for the benefit of the partnership?  Should the word "marriage" be made so broad that such social responsibilities become less obvious?

And then there's the recent liberal theme that fathers are, at best, second-rate mothers. Never mind increased pathologies among youths in fatherless homes. Or "daddy-hunger" among young children. Signs of "daddy hunger" such as a child having to be "pried from the leg" of a male day care worker every day are interpreted not as signs of distress over the absence of a father, but as evidence that the child-care worker makes a fine father substitute. When a boy suggests that his two mothers can find a dad to move in with them, it's just "cute". Mentioning those phenomena in a concerned way will soon be "hate speech" directed at a protected minority.

The Left has characterized the idea that children do better if their fathers are involved in their lives as irrational bigotry. President Obama was apparently totally off-base when he tried to convince young black men to take more responsibility for their children.  Sometimes I wonder if the President's opposition to same-sex marriage might be partly due to his difficult experiences as a community organizer in Chicago, dealing with a culture dominated almost totally by women (with the men often entering gangs instead of staying with the mothers of their children).

If fathers get no respect for any unique contribution as a parent, WHY NOT be the sperm donor for a lesbian couple instead of marrying? Or brag about your "baby mommas" raising your kids with their own mothers (since two women make the ideal parenting team).  This would be in line with some old British/American feminist and socialist positions which seem to be making a come-back now.  Though limiting the number of male children is not being pushed currently.

The feminist position on sex education remains:

What is important here is to separate sex from procreation

And hence, from parenthood. As liberal policies have done in the South Side of Chicago.

The push to encourage acceptance of gay and bisexual relationships as "normative" also seems to be having an effect in "at risk" populations. A friend who works at a Job Corps reported that a very high percentage of the students, upwards of 40%, self-identified as gay or bisexual, with a high percentage of those claiming to be bisexual. I am bracing for the liberal push for "bisexual marriage rights".

During the relatively short period in ancient Greece when male homosexual relationships were revered as "purer" than those with women, because there were no concerns of marriage or inheritance, bisexual behavior increased dramatically. And the independence and status of women were also reduced in Athens during this "golden age", with sequestration and veiling of upper-class wives. Prostitutes had more freedom than other women. But at that time, marriage and homosexual relationships were thought of separately.

 Who knows what bisexual "family relationships" will be promoted in the near future by the "marriage is a constitutional right" crowd? Whatever they are, they will not fit the ideal model demonstrated by large-scale studies, which show that the best environment for growing children is in a stable, low-conflict home with both biological parents. (As far as I know, most of the smaller comparative studies with same-sex parents compared those families to heterosexual families with divorced and re-married or co-habiting  parents, due to the small number of children raised from infancy in a same-sex household).

I was not particularly surprised that many young women in the Job Corps would claim to be bisexual, as more information is coming out recently concerning the "fluidity" of female sexual orientation. Plus all the stories about women in Hollywood and elsewhere who seem to change their sexual orientation, and pornography directed at men which feature lesbian sex.

 But my friend said that there was also a high percentage of young men who claimed to be bisexual. Interesting how the old hard-left theme that sexual orientation is just a matter of "social conditioning" is now making a comeback, after the Left spent years trying to convince us that sexual orientation is totally immutable. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle, with many women being more "flexible" in their sexual attractions. More information needed. Exciting, unsettling times ahead.

Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters and Arizona Sheriffs?

To repeat myself just a little, Wretchard has an interesting take on the sudden end to Charlie Rangel's special status, which for many years exempted him from "the rules".   In reference to the inability of our Ruling Class to notice danger signals around them, he writes:

No better symptom of the absence of alarms is the genuine astonishment of Charles Rangel that it is illegal to break the law.  Almost as a matter of course he concealed hundreds of thousands of dollars in income, used Congressional letterhead to solicit donations for private causes, took four rent controlled apartments for himself.  Innocently. He probably didn’t think he was doing anything wrong.   Things had been so sweet, so long that even after he was offered the chance to negotiate his way out of 13 separate violations of House rules and federal statutes he simply refused to believe it was happening. . . 

1.  Those whom the gods will destroy, they first make mad with power.

Charles Rangel’s problem is that the old world has picked this moment to suddenly die underneath him.   He won his last race with 89% of the vote, as big a margin as you can get outside of North Korea or Syria.  Now he faces 13 counts at the hands of colleagues who are his “friends,” but maybe not “friends” enough to lose their next election on his behalf.  It’s unfair in a way.  Nick Nyhart of the Huffington Post says that because the “whole system” is guilty, Charlie Rangel shouldn’t be singled out for punishment.  He wants the Republicans on trial too and hopes Rangel doesn’t have to face ethics charges.  “Rep. Rangel may be the one in the spotlight today, but it’s the whole system that’s guilty.”  He might be right at that.  But he should be careful what he wishes for. The road is like a river.  Once you step on to it, there’s no telling where it takes you. . . .

But what could Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters possibly have in common with Arizona sherrifs facing the dilemma of a federal government unwilling to enforce immigration laws?  I find this observation to be very astute.  Read the whole essay.  We're on the brink of some very serious breakdowns in the way we have been accustomed to the world working:

Although Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters* and Arizona sheriff Paul Babeau have nothing obvious in common, a single thread runs through their recent actions.  Each is unwilling to be reined in.  Rangel and Waters are thumbing their noses at the Congressional ethics committees attempting to investigate them for corruption.  In the instance of the sheriff, he is pushing back against what nearly 70% of the population regard as the irrational immigration policy of not enforcing it. The other side is pushing back too — at the law. “Undocumented and unafraid” was the slogan of 22 self-confessed illegal aliens who sat in five Senator’s offices in the Capitol. . .

“Civil disobedience”, once a term of honor used by those who fought tyranny, now means “I’m walking out with the TV from the store and you can’t stop me.” If Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel and the “undocumented and unafraid” bunch are willing to simply tear up the tickets in the face of law enforcement, and law enforcement, as typified by Sherrif Joe Arpaio are determined to issue the tickets anyway, what impends is not a simple “failure to communicate” but a warning that the legitimacy of the system is under attack. Fewer and fewer know the rules any more.   And the word that everything is there for the taking is leaking out.   News that a Mexican drug cartel has put a price on Sheriff Arpaio’s head isn’t really so surprising. . .

Pinal County (Ariz.)_ Sheriff Paul Babeu said, “What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU.”  President Obama who ran on being post-everything has partnered with everyone. The result is that no one knows whose side he is on; and that engenders a feeling of betrayal in everyone who thought he was on ‘their’ side.

The problem is that when public policy and its enforcement mechanisms blink on and off like a broken intersection stop sign nobody knows if the signal is meant to be obeyed or not. Eventually people who stare at the light decide ‘not’. . . . .

2.  The wheels of God grind slowly, but they grind very fine:

The designers of the American political system set it up to tolerate local dysfunction — the Federal system established limits on power and created firewalls against the spread of the consequences of their abuse.  But those limits were inconvenient to the boundlessly ambitious.  Since World War 2 the narrative has been of increasingly putting the central government in charge of everything. The Super New Dealers are here. That centralized the risk as well. Once the firewalls on imbecility have been dismantled the inevitable consequence, as in the case of the global financial system, is that limits to their dysfunctional effects are removed as well.

Then you have a cascading effect. One reason why systems often don’t fail gradually is because small changes, each seemingly inconsequential in itself, can come together and enable each other. The blaze just jumps when it exceeds a certain temperature. Just as people often think they have more money than they have, the system had less ‘give’ than its masters believed. Now the challenge on the left will be, not as they believed, to ensure their permanent majority, but to simply ensure that the bills are paid and that their routine instructions are followed.   It’s an ancient process, one already known to the Greeks. Hubris, which was defined as “ruin, folly, delusion” is often followed by Nemesis. That wasn’t hard to guess thousands of years ago. But for some moderns, who would have thought it?

3.  When it gets dark enough, you can see the stars.

Are things dark enough now that we can see the stars, or will things get worse first?

"Rep. Maxine Waters is vowing to fight charges that she violated House ethics rules. But Waters may face an uphill battle. . .

. . . Frank inserted language in the TARP that enabled OneUnited to draw $12 million in aid. Frank did this even though OneUnited had what the Post calls a "mixed" record of lending to minority communities. That's a charitable characterization. According to the Globe, the handful of mortgages the bank had written in recent years were mainly to wealthy clients in chic locations, including the South End and Martha's Vineyard, despite the bank's stated mission to support Boston's urban communities. . .

In addition, OneUnited had run afoul of regulators for buying its executives a Porsche. Other perks included a $6.4 million beachfront mansion in Santa Monica the bank says it used to conduct business. . . .

OneUnited has missed all but one of six scheduled payments to the Treasury Department. . .

More on Our Ruling Class

Further to the Codevilla essay, Wretchard discusses Caroline Glick's article on the foreign policy implications of The Essay Read Round the World. Plus thoughts on Niall Ferguson's positions, presented in Australia: Ferguson describes how rapidly empires can fall.

The Bourbon monarchy in France passed from triumph to terror with astonishing rapidity. The sun set on the British Empire almost as suddenly. The Suez crisis in 1956 proved that Britain could not act in defiance of the US in the Middle East, setting the seal on the end of empire.

But those things happen only to the denizens of history.   People who live in the today usually think they are different. So despite evidence of dramatic change, people who have spent their whole lives among the policy certainties of the postwar period find it difficult to accept they may have to build a world of their own from first principles. Ferguson asks his audience: “what would you do in a world without America? Has the question even crossed your mind?” . . .

Australia’s post-war foreign policy has been, in essence, to be a committed ally of the US. But what if the sudden waning of American power that I fear brings to an abrupt end the era of US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region? Are we ready for such a dramatic change in the global balance of power? Judging by what I have heard here since I arrived last Friday, the answer is no. Australians are simply not thinking about such things.

But if the Australians are not thinking about it, the Chinese are certainly preparing for it. . . .

Don't know if I am ready for China to be "policeman to the world".

More:

If the love of money is the root of all evil, the lack of it is the cause of the fall of empires. Ferguson gave some examples:

Think of Spain in the 17th century: already by 1543 nearly two-thirds of ordinary revenue was going on interest on the juros, the loans by which the Habsburg monarchy financed itself.

Or think of France in the 18th century: between 1751 and 1788, the eve of Revolution, interest and amortisation payments rose from just over a quarter of tax revenue to 62 per cent.

Finally, consider Britain in the 20th century. Its real problems came after 1945, when a substantial proportion of its now immense debt burden was in foreign hands. Of the pound stg. 21 billion national debt at the end of the war, about pound stg. 3.4bn was owed to foreign creditors, equivalent to about a third of gross domestic product.

Alarm bells should therefore be ringing very loudly indeed in Washington, as the US contemplates a deficit for 2010 of more than $US1.47 trillion ($1.64 trillion), about 10 per cent of GDP, for the second year running.

But alarm bells aren’t ringing in Washington. The entire alarm system has been disabled, disconnected, perhaps scrapped. Anyone who wants to turn it back on will have to root through the dumpster to see if any usable parts can still be retrieved. No better symptom of the absence of alarms is the genuine astonishment of Charles Rangel that it is illegal to break the law. Almost as a matter of course he concealed hundreds of thousands of dollars in income, used Congressional letterhead to solicit donations for private causes, took four rent controlled apartments for himself. Innocently. He probably didn’t think he was doing anything wrong. . . .

Everyday evidence of the existence of a Ruling Class:

The Academic-Industrial Complex: University presidents on corporate boards, etc.

Social Privilege and the career of Elena Kagan. Written by a lefty.

Why kids are not taught the Declaration of Independence

There is now considerable hostility to teaching the Declaration of Independence in schools. We are losing our history. There are historical precedents for the ideological struggles over the nature of our government which are occurring today.

Scott Johnson:

Reading the scholarly work of Woodrow Wilson is an educational experience. It is shocking to read the expressions of his disaffection for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. As R.J. Pestritto has demonstrated, the intellectual roots of modern liberalism lie in an assault on the ideas of natural rights and limited government. . . .  

. . .  Obama perfectly reflected Wilson's views in his 2001 comments on the civil rights movement and the Supreme Court. In the course of the famous radio interview Obama gave to WBEZ in Chicago, Obama observed that the Warren Court had not broken "free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." To achieve "redistributive change," the limitations of the Constitution would have to be overcome by the Court or by Congress.


Franklin Roosevelt touted welfare state liberalism in the "second Bill of Rights" . . .


Implicitly arguing that the teaching of the Declaration had become obsolete, Roosevelt asserted: "In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. . . .


Abraham Lincoln's argument with Stephen Douglas also came down to a disagreement over the Declaration of Independence. . .


The economic "rights" asserted by Roosevelt in his second Bill of Rights differ and conflict with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are claims on the liberty of others. If I have a right to medical care, you must have a corresponding duty to supply it. If I have a right to a decent home, you must have a duty to provide it.


The argument for the welfare state belongs in the same family as "the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden." That's Lincoln again.


Lincoln memorably derided the underlying principle as "the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it."

Read the whole thing. Johnson also links further reading both pro and con concerning modern liberalism, or "progressivism", starting with George Will's excellent article on William Voegeli's new book.

Bill Whittle on helping the Declaration of Independence live again

Related:

The Timeless Magna Carta

Turning the liberalism of JFK on its head

Independence Day Oration by Frederick Douglass

Why American Liberty worked: Strong Women and Local Government

The Postmodern Cultural Elite

In a piece which echoes s few of the ideas here, VDH identifies what he thinks are characteristics of the "New Aristocracy" of our day:

This ad hoc meditation on cultural elitism was all prompted last week by listening to a poor white tree-trimmer lecture me on the various merits of his three different chain saws, while I was talking on the cell phone with a nasal-voiced, snotty Washington reporter — out here south of Fresno — but, in minutes, to be on the way to work at the antipode at Stanford. . .

The five characteristics he identified:

1) Truth

One requisite to being a cultural elite, unfortunately, is a certain allegiance to untruth, to saying one thing and doing another. . .

In short, money, privilege, and status create in the cultural elite both a fear of mixing it up with others that might jeopardize position and placement, and yet guilt for that very sense of entitlement and exemption. All that, in turn, only heightens the shrill and sanctimonious rhetorical demands on less blessed others to prove their morality.

Barack Obama was a genius in recognizing all this, and at a very early age no less. The subtext of Dreams from My Father, and indeed Obama’s life from 18 to 45, was to allay elite fears, guilt, and suspicions. . . .

2) Nature

The cultural elite class tends to romanticize nature, since it has little contact with it. Energy Secretary Steven Chu cheaply announces that California farms will dry up and blow away, with no clue how the tomatoes in his salad or the lamb chops on his plate are grown, cleaned, shipped — and land in his mouth. . . .

3) Muscularity

An elite is often characterized as staying fit entirely by the workout, the gym, the jog — never by chain sawing, digging, climbing, or hammering. Yet here too arises contradiction. The elite, being largely progressive, champion the muscular classes to the degree they can stay distant from them. . .

4) Gender

. . . Why can’t any of our actors talk like a Humphrey Bogart, Glenn Ford, Lee Marvin, Henry Fonda, James Stewart, Bill Holden, or Gregory Peck? I’m not asking for Jack Palance or Fess Parker, just a normal male mainstream voice. I know there are Al Pacinos and Robert De Niros, but they too seem to fade before the new wave of DiCaprios. Elites talk (and probably sound) like the freedmen in Petronius’s Satyricon

5) Logic There is little logic among the cultural elite, maybe because there is little omnipresent fear of job losses or the absence of money, and so arises a rather comfortable margin to indulge in nonsense. The idea that taxes cause scarcity, and subsidy abundance is a foreign concept. The notion that entitlements create dependency is considered Neanderthal. . . In other words, take a deep breath and imagine the opposite of everything you know by experience to be true, and you have mostly the worldview of the sheltered cultural elite, who navigate in rather protected channels and not in the open seas of the real world.