If I accept you as you are,
I will make you worse;
however if I treat you as though you are what you are capable of becoming,
I help you become that.
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
Guest Quotation of the Day
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."Sisters Spreading the Word
James Madison (HT Andrew Napolitano)
You know, it's odd what things stick out in an interview; the first thing I noticed here was that the sisters chose male given names. I was not aware of this practice and did a Google search. I found this interesting note on Confirmation names (if anyone is curious, I chose 'Andrew'; my mother chose apostle names for my little brothers). Apparently a young lady wanted to choose a male given name for her confirmation; her fuddy-duddy faith teacher pooh-poohed the notion of taking other gender names. Here's a priest blogger's response:
The teacher is wrong. Your sister can choose whatever saint’s name she desires. If you need some analogy of names and opposite sex saints, mention the many male religious who have “Mary” as one of their names in religion. Mention the many women religious whose names in religion were often “Mary” and then a male saint’s name. Off the top of my head, I knew a Sr. Mary Peter Alcantara. In the TV comedy “Bless Me Father” there was the ominous Mother Stephen. Lots of women had male names in religion.
Conservatives Win Power in Norway and Australia
It is heartening to see the conservative/libertarian coalitions winning elsewhere around the globe. Erna Solberg is yet another example (beyond Lady Thatcher and Chancellor Merkel) how strong, intelligent women with the right political message can rise to national leadership. At one time, Hillary Clinton admired Barry Goldwater. Some time later, she turned left when she should have stayed right... It's never too late to discover libertarianism...
Hillary Clinton Blows A Chance To Turn Tables on Obama
There was the infamous 2002 speech that Obama gave opposing Iraq intervention (without access to national intelligence or being accountable for a vote before he became US Senator in 2005) which he used as a defining contrast against his opponents for the nomination, including Clinton, all of whom voted to authorize Bush (Clinton insisted simply to provide Bush backing in UN dealings, etc.) Now, of course, since Clinton was Secretary of State during the initial duration of the Syrian civil war, it's probably impossible for her to distance herself from Obama's foreign policy and no doubt she wants and needs Obama's support for her likely 2016 run for the President. But wouldn't it have been poetic justice if she distanced herself from Obama's unpopular Syrian policy? Alas, it was not to be...
I saw one financial newsletter writer predict a Clinton victory in 2016; why? Because he figures that the Democrats will continue to run as Santa Claus; it will take an economic day of reckoning for this Ponzi scheme house of cards of entitlements before Americans will tolerate the kinds of austerity we need, e.g., pay for essential services like police and education vs. some public sector retiree making more than many actively working public servants. I don't think so. I think we'll still have, at best, a sputtering economy in 2016, and Clinton will hold the same set of policies which have failed to make a difference these last 5 years.
NO SALE--Obama's Speech on Syria Fails to Convince
The Washington Times column heading says it all: "Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, favors missile strike to deliver message in Syria". I missed the first couple of minutes (if that) but what I heard was the same-old same-old. Forget the vast number of fatalities (running from 83-110K): it's the 355 or more from an August 21 attack that results in a unilateral military response from the US. (I will say that the circumstantial evidence is strongly suggestive of government action, but I've seen some reports of Syrian military confusion after the attack and allegations of Saudi-provided chemical weapons to rebels, whom have had their own share of alleged atrocities. Recall that Al Qaeda's attacks against Sunni Iraqi targets were a turning point during the US occupation.) Obama attempts to make a preposterous example that unless the US retaliates for weapons not used against our own people, we will be responsible for rogue nations like Iran or North Korea pursuing the same. I will once again point out that the US did not attack Iraq when Hussein used similar weapons against the Kurds or during the war against Iran. We do not have any mandate, say, from the UN, authorizing such a mandate. I am losing patience with this demagogue insisting this is not another Iraq or Afghanistan, no boots on the ground, etc.--as if I trust this man's judgment on doing anything. Perhaps Obama can eat just one potato chip, but we have Bastiat's caution about the things unseen, the things we didn't anticipate. Recall the Bush Administration never went into Iraq and Afghanistan thinking they would be trapped there nation-building for years. Obama may THINK the repercussions of his military strikes will be contained, but it's not his intentions I'm worried about, but unknown spillover effects...
I am so sick and tired of hearing simplistic analyses (Bill O'Reilly comes to mind) ascribing pedestrian political motives; if some Republicans do the right thing (oppose intervention) for the wrong reason, I don't care. I have opposed unauthorized interventions (drones, etc.) in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere; I would do so if Romney was in the White House. But Gallup has a nice summary of why Americans oppose Syrian intervention overwhelmingly and it has nothing to do with political posturing:
Americans who oppose U.S. military action in Syria are most likely to explain their position by saying that the events in Syria are none of the United States' business, that the U.S. does not need to be involved in another war, or that the action is not well thought out, won't work, or would lead to negative consequences for the U.SOne final point: I particularly despise The One for these recent soundbites:
My credibility’s not on the line, the international community’s credibility is on the line...“First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.No, the UN did not set a red line: you did, Obama. The UN did not box itself in with reckless, imprudent rhetoric; you did. The fact that you wrote a check you couldn't cash is yet another example of failed leadership. This defensiveness and denial of reality are unworthy of an American President. At least George W. Bush tried to win Security Council approval and won Congressional approval. We have a $17T debt and cannot be the world's policeman; we have to pick and choose when and where to deploy scarce resources.
Another point: I've been listening to too much disingenuous political spin on Sunday talk soup, and Obama Administration talking heads pointed out Obama "ended" our involvement in Iraq. This is knowing rubbish for 2 reasons: (1) Obama carried out a withdrawal schedule set by George W. Bush--he didn't shorten it; and (2) Obama was actually negotiating to extend our presence there, and negotiations fell through. (I think it had to do with Americans being subjected to Iraqi laws.) Obama taking credit for ending the Iraq occupation is like a babysitter claiming to be the child's parent; he simply happened to be President when our agreement ended.
Yet Another Clueless Time Columnist
Jacob Davidson tries to manufacture a debate over the recent irrational DC city council decision that specifically targets new Walmart stores in planning or construction for a so-called "living wage". (I was wondering why I hadn't heard but it apparently only reached Mayor Gray's desk earlier this month, and I think he's got 10 days; many sources imply that he's leaning towards a veto, which should be sustained.)
Davidson argues: "Economists are split...[Sonn of the National Employment Law Project says] "The weight of economic research over the past edecade has found no appreciable evidence of job losses or hour reductions after minimum-wage increases."
Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek has published extensively on the topic (see this link for Don's appraisal of the standard Card-Krueger research typically assumed by progressives, but Davidson doesn't cite). Don't forget: most economists are not conservatives or libertarians. The issue is not conceptual, but certain empirical studies. In a recent post, Don gives an example of an excise tax and points out in a competitive market, managers may eat some costs, at least in the short run (say, for example, if tomato costs for burgers and salads suddenly spiked) because they will lose sales if they pass along the full increase, but in the long run this is not sustainable. For example, labor-saving technology may become more viable as payback is quicker.(Don't blame Don for these examples/discussion.)
There are some weasel arguments made, e.g., there are so few workers actually making minimum wage, the business won't feel it. (Sort of like Obama saying his proposed military strikes into Syria don't really count as a war.) I think Don does a great job explaining the issue, but conceptually every economist accepts the law of supply and demand; you raise the cost of labor, there's less demand for it. There are statistical/ methodological issues in dealing, say, with small numbers of low-skilled workers. We don't have ways of knowing how many hours/workers would be available without statutory wage floors, but economists in general agree price-fixing is bad public policy. I think Boudreaux and/or other economists point out that many economists have a philosophical empathy with wanting to do something about income inequality and so compromise their principles for ideological, not fundamental, reasons. Davidson does a poor job of fleshing out this hidden agenda.
Private Property and So-Called Selfishness
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn Foden and Townhall |
Lionel Richie, "Truly"
