Analytics

Thursday, February 20, 2025

Post #7138 M: The Whiskey Rebellion Coverup; McClanahan on Happy Worst Presidents Day; Stossel: Dodging High Taxes

 Quote of the Day

Great spirits have always 
encountered violent opposition 
from mediocre minds 
Albert Einstein  

The Whiskey Rebellion Coverup

McClanahan on Happy Worst Presidents Day

Stossel: Dodging High Taxes

Choose Life

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Steve Kelley via Townhall


Musical Interlude; 1960 Top 100 Hits

 Dion & The Belmonts "Where or When"


Wednesday, February 19, 2025

Post #7137 M: McClanahan on 18th Century Fake News; Pope Francis vs. Trump/Vance on Migrants; The STRANGEST COUNTRY in the World

 Quote of the Day

He who holds hopes for the human condition is a fool.
Albert Camus  

McClanahan on 18th Century Fake News

 

 Pope Francis vs. Trump/Vance on Migrants

  

The STRANGEST COUNTRY in the World

Choose Life

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Margolis & Cox via Townhall

Musical Interlude: 1960 Top 100 Hits

Roy \Orbison, "Only the Lonely"

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Post #7136 Rant of the Day: Rotating My Daily Blog Feeds

I have a certain formula for my daily miscellany (M) posts; I usually have 3 video clips on political or economic issues, a daily quote, a political cartoon (if I don't have an animation), a "choose life" clip featuring marriage or family, and finally a music video on some theme (currently a year's top 100 Billboard hits). Of the core top 3 video clips, I use a variety of sources, usually but not always YouTube; a lot depends on available embedding tools for content like tweets or charts. In some cases there are only audio clips, say, an old McClanahan or Cato Institute podcast episode not available on YouTube, which may require adapting audio player code.

The top 3 segments usually include a mix, not unlike my Twitter/X feed. I'll often regular feeds, such as the focus of this deed; historian Brion McClanahan usually publishes 3 videos a week, but there are dozen of older videos I didn't embed earlier in his podcast, a lot of them more history than commentary. Economist Peter St. Onge presents a daily short commentary, which I recently stopped clipping. I used to feature libertarian/historian Tom Woods' daily podcast, usually covering libertarian topics. Stossel usually publishes a short video weekly and a biweekly interview. Political humor is a regular segment; Reason often produces Remy's musical parodies or other humor clips; there are other source, like SNL, Bill Maher, the Babylon Bee, or the Onion. There are animation sources FEE and FreedomToons. I used to clip the Tuttle Twins episodes but they converted to a paywall model. If I don't have an animation feature, I'll usually include some featured political cartoon, typically from Townhall. As for other segments, I often  feature libertarian legal clips from the institute for Justice, Pacific Legal Foundation, etc. I often include GML's Dumb Bleep of the Week, a monthly SOHO debate, interviews and other segments from Reason, Mises Institute, Cato Institute, Acton Institute, Independent Institute, etc. I'll also post available material from favored economists DiLorenzo and Boudreaux Free to Choose and selective content from Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano and other sources. Occasionally I may embed passages like an Amash Facebook comment, tweets, etc.  Finally, I may feature certain news or tribute clips  and/or briefly feature some comments. I, of course, am not restricted to these rules, but I think you will find many, if not most of my daily posts fall within these parameters.

i think it's clear from context  that I do not always  agree with clips. This is obvious when I embed debates. For example, I've excerpted some pro-choice libertarians even though I'm among the third of pro-life lbertarians. I had differences with Bush, McCain and Romney, even though I supported their candidacies. I did not want to flesh out my criticisms because I didn't want partisan Dems quoting me. I've posted about it before, but I'm mentioning again because it is germane to discussion. I had started following Woods, including on Facebook, after I had purchased copies of his books on a contrarian US history, the Catholic Church's role in Western Civilization, and the Church and the free market. [Woods is a convert, and i was born Catholic.] Also, Woods is heavily involved with the Mises Institute, and Ron Paul, Woods' political hero, is also affiliated with the Mises Institute. So one day, Woods posted something like, "Happy Birthday, Dr. Paul..(a physician, not a professor).I'm thankful you're the real thing, not a phony like Mitt Romney." I objected to the unnecessary cheapshot. Woods personally responded, doubling down on his incivility. He then rermed me a Romney loyalist interloper and sicced his followers on me. I warned him that his misconduct might lead me to stop following his podcast. He thereupon spun his podcast as his gift for the good of humanity, lost on the likes of ungrateful people like me. So I discontinued using him as a source, including the blog. Sometime later (months, if not years), I reconsidered Woods as a source, not rejoining his Facebook group, but I think he had moved  to another platform in the interval. So I continued to use his feed for a while, until he got obsessed by pandemic policies. Believe me, I had my own criticisms, worrying if someone walking on the street without a mask would get arrested. people driving on interstates or arrests of people on mass transit. But he was ranting using charts on COVID stats defying readers to identify which state had stricter COVID policies. He  was particularly strident on children with COVID. (I have a nephew and his spouse who caught it from their kids.) "Preliminary evidence suggests children are just as likely as adults to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 but are less likely to be symptomatic or develop severe symptoms." So I pushed back  on his relevant email with one of his mini-rants. i never expected a response, but Mr. Congeniality was pissed and wrote back something like "Who the f*ck are you? I get my information from like famous scholars from Harvard and Stanford. You are a nobody." I, unlike Woods, have published empirical research and won my district UIL high school science competition both years I participated. I pushed back; he responded by calling me names and dropped my email subscription, which saved me the effort. I once again dropped his feed. I think I've embedded  one episode since then--an episode he did; Tom DiLorenzo, one of my favorite economists, and surprise: the current president of Mises Institute. I haven't looked at his YouTube channel in years and reviewed his show topics. I can't rule it out but it's like my treatment of Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano content; I would have have to be selective. for example, Ron Paul often goes in conspiracy theory mode. I don't mind occasional disagreements. Usually I have a certain degree of tolerance, even to people insulting me to my face 

Peter St. Onge somehow made it into my general feed one day into my general YouTube page several months back. His economics PhD is from George Mason with Mercatus Center, an occasional feed, and one of my favorite economists, Don Boudreaux. He's also been associated with Mises Institute and Hoover Institute. His generally conservative economics and political commentary fit in well with my blog and he was probably my most regular feed with maybe 2-3 minute weekday videos--so what happened? At some point, probably during last fall's election campaign  Peter started clearly tilting towards Trump..I have been Never Trump since before his 2015 campaign. It isn't so much he didn't share my political preference last fall. It was more of his more partisan tone and his economics seeming to rationalize Trump's mercantilistic economics and anti-immigration politics. Then a couple of weeks back it was one video after another where I had to comment my differences, and it got to the point where it felt I had a de facto Trumpkin feed and St.Onge had become a court economist and historian, even commentating against birthright citizenship, which really wasn't germane to economics in any obvious way. So I ended using him as a source. Like in the case of Woods, I won't rule out future segments, but I don't see regularly clipped segments in the future. The chance of me publishing Woods' pandemic views or St. Onge's Trumpkin views is near zero. Maybe their involvement in relevant debates would be different. I am used to scholarly give and take, but I have some general views, e.g., in favor of vaccines, and other than an occasional alternate perspective, my blog will not be defined by my feeds.

 Finally, probably my longest current blog feed has been historian Brion McClanahan. I don't recall how i first encountered Brion. The first likely explanation he's affiliated with Woods' adult education portal https://libertyclassroom.com/ via earntruehistory.com, which you hear him promote as I occasionally embed earlier previously unclipped episodes, before he phased in his own education portal.. I know Brion has been an occasional guest on Woods' flagship podcast, and i was impressed by his encyclopedic, detailed articulate/authoritative discussion, including original sources of Founders' documents. A second possibility is through DiLorenzo's compelling critical look at Lincoln's Presidency. i had brought up like most American kids hero-worshipping the martyred Lincoln who had freed all the slaves. I  didn't just take his word about it; I read Lincoln's first inaugural address and was shocked.; Lincoln talked about constitutionally he knew there was nothing to do about slavery but he would not accept losing southern tariff collection. It doesn't take a lot to see why Lincoln invaded the South; it wasn't based on a Southern invasion of the union. In fact, after early Confederate victories in the outskirts of DC , we didn't see the Confederates even move into the capital like the British did in the War of 1812. So in that time I did a lot of Internet searches, learning what I didn't know when Dad got stationed at an AFB in South Carolina and we went to Ft. Sumter while I was in junior high. I'm sure I became aware of Southern history that McClanahan specializes in and his work with Abbeville Institute, another occasional feed.

McClanahan has fallen into the same issue I have reduced my coverage of GML mostly to their signature Dumb Bleep of the Week and Peter St. Onge: this soft spot on Trump. I probably wrote a half dozen essays on GML's support of Trump's impeachments. McClanahan's Trumpkin support is more subtle. He has a general critique of modern imperial Presidents. but the recent episode of bad Presidents on Presidents Day makes the point: he makes the notable inclusions of Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR and others to a lesser degree LBJ, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, and in passing Obama and Biden. Trump is notably excluded. I don't know how McClanahan sidesteps Trump's unprecedented "Shock and Awe" flood of illegal executive actions. I'll give another example in one of his older episodes during the first Trump term I recently clipped. He mentioned a 2017 incident where Trump leaked a highly classified piece of intelligence because he wanted to impress a couple of Russian diplomats. Now I think this got conflated with the Dem obsession with Russiagate and McClanahan basically rationalizes dismisses the incident. This sharply contrasts my impression of McClanahan doing his due diligence. the issue is that Trump didn't leak American sources but partner intelligence shared under strict confidentiality and now Trump exposed the source of intelligence. That undermined information sharing operations, anfd our intelligence agencies had ro mop up after Trump's screwup.

Another recent disagreement prompted my writing comments, only maybe 3 to date over 1080 episodes. the first is when he confused the 1824 and the 1828 elections, which he later acknowledged. Then I wrote an unacknowledged correction on McClanahan's incompetent acceptance of Trump's cover story for justifying extortion of Zelensky to investigate Biden. others like the GML guys (Thurston and Thompson) bought into the idea that Biden had Shokin fired.for starting an investigation of Burisma, a natural gas company owned by a corrupt Ukraine oligarch, which offered Hunter Biden a lucrative board seat. I've written detailed posts sourced from the Internet. First, Shokin was a corrupt Ukraine chief prosecutor (look up the stories over his notorious "diamonds" prosecutors shaking down targets for bribes against prosecution). Shokin in fact protected the Burisma oligarch from a British money laundering investigation. Local anti-corruption groups agitated over Shokin, and he was dismissed by parliament for cracking down against protestors, not because of a 4-month-old ultimatum from Biden. (Bonehead Biden took credit for it, of course.)  The US was unhappy with Shokin months before Biden's ultimatum, especially after the British case was dismissed.  The Obama Administration was also upset over Hunter Biden's board seat particularly over appearance of a quid pro quo. It wasn't just the US putting US aid at risk; IMF had a far larger exposure than the US and joined the EU, US and UK in demanding Shokin's dismissal. Shokin's slow-walking of corruption cases also led for his deputy to resign in protest. And finally, Ukraine noted that Burisma allegations had nothing to do with the Bidens.. 

Finally, McClanahan annoyed me over birthright citizenship, which is US law, despite xenophobic Trumpism. Now to be honest, McClanahan doesn't like the Fourteenth Amendment in what he regards is the wildcard expansion of the general government and meddling in state sovereignty. he thinks it was illegally ratified. But on the birthright clause, the fact is that it was not initiated with the amendment but inherited from English common law, and an 1844 NY case specifically addressed the issue of Irish visitors and the citizenship status of their US born child. This case was specifically discussed in 14th Amendment hearings. McClanahan had to know that if he did due diligence on the issue. The reason for the citizenship clause was to close the exception in common law regarding slaves. [Don't get me started on the xenophobic arguments over "subject to the jurisdiction"; this is basically in reference to diplomatic immunity. None of these hypocrites argued that the murderer of Laken Riley couldn't be prosecuted.]

I haven't made a decision against McClanahan's feed yet, but I would like him to treat Trump more consistently as he evaluates other failed Presidents.

Post #7135 M: A legal look at Trump's executive sprint; AI tries to be a REAL ARTIST, gets bullied; McClanahan on Trump, Hamilton, and Foreign Influence

Quote of the Day

Decide on what you think is right, and stick to it.
George Eliot  

A legal look at Trump's executive sprint

AI tries to be a REAL ARTIST, gets bullied

McClanahan on Trump, Hamilton, and Foreign Influence

I really didn't expect have to correct McClanahan on an old episode. He referenced a bonehead incident by Trump where he revealed highly classified information to Russian officials basically because of his ego The issue involves this was shared by a vulnerable source (and by the way Russia and the US supported different parties in Syria). McClanahan is stupidly trying to rationalize Trump's mistake; other people had to repair the damage caused by Trump. Was it impeachable? Probably not. We shouldn't have been involved in Syria But he damaged our allies and threatened intelligence gathering

Choose Life

Musical Interlude: 1960 tio 100 Hits

Brian Hyland - Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini

Monday, February 17, 2025

Post #7134 M: Dumb BLEEP of the Week; When Wrestling Meets Austrian Economics; Unpacking the Document that Spells Out Trump's Tariff Strategy

 Quote of the Day

Let there be spaces in your togetherness.
Kahlil Gibran  

Dumb BLEEP of the Week

No, the opening rant by Nate and Chuck on fellow libertarians (probably including me) reminds me of why I dropped GML from my daily podcasts. They have this bizarre love/hate relationship with Trump, but with enough love for Nate admitting he decided to vote for Trump. I probably wrote a half dozen essays against their anti-impeachment rants relevant to Trump . I got annoyed enough by the nature and extent  of their differences from my libertarian stands that I couldn't take their daily feed Why stay with the mostly dumb episodes? Basically because of the discussion of leftist moments, like reparations in this episodes. i could write for pages on why I disagree with their rants, but I'll limit myself to a few comments here, but it's possible I can feel another anti-GML rant coming on and possibly also canceling their feed in the future. First, I don't need a lecture on fiscal conservatism. even in my social liberal salad days, I was a fiscal conservative. the issues aren't about the idea of downsizing government and reining in spending, but the dubious legality and constitutionality in Trump's abuse of power. There are civil service protections--and a lot of firings have been motivated by Trump's own political reprisals over J6 and personal prosecutions. Those are wildly corrupt and unethical. There are Trump's illegal  mass firings of inspectors generals, the "real" government watchdogs over waste and other official wrongdoings. There is the unvetted/approved presence of Musk which inherently undermines the separation of powers and congressional oversight authority by Constitution. Congress holds the power of the purse and passes laws. You can't end the Department of Education without congressional approval.  I agree that the Department of Education is unconstitutional, but you can't argue congress has oversight of it but has no say in its purge. Most of the budget--entitlements--is mandatory spending. Musk implying the US is distributing significant SSA dollars to dead people has me skeptical. I know when my dad died in a military hospital, they were already in the process of notifying social security; it was discussed less than an hour after death with my newly widowed mother dealing with his loss. it was a nuanced situation because she had survivor benefits.

When Wrestling Meets Austrian Economics

Unpacking the Document that Spells Out Trump's Tariff Strategy

Choose Life

Political Cartoon


Courtesy of Chip Bok via Townhall


Musical Interlude: 1960 Top 100 Hits

Brenda Lee, "Sweet Nothin's"

Sunday, February 16, 2025

Post #7133 Social Media Digest

 Facebook

X/Twitter

Post #7132 M: McClanahan on Righteous Cause or Lost Cause? ; GERONTOCRACY; VICTORY: Creepy Predictive Policing Program Shut Down

 Quote of the Day

Your mind will answer most questions 
if you learn to relax and wait for the answer.
William S. Burroughs  

McClanahan on Righteous Cause or Lost Cause?

GERONTOCRACY

VICTORY: Creepy Predictive Policing Program Shut Down

Choose Life

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via Townhall


Musical Interlude: 1960 top 100 Hits

CONNIE FRANCIS - My Heart Has A Mind Of It's Own