One of the greatest gifts you can give to anyone is
the gift of attention.
Jim Rohn
Upcoming Publication Schedule
This is a temporary note that will likely be edited out on a future date. Over the coming weeks, I expect that the frequency and/or nature and extent of my daily posts may change. I probably won't spend as much time on Facebook and some posts may be abbreviated and/or prescheduled (e.g., on any travel dates).
The Gray Lady Tries to Help Obama and Clinton on the Benghazi Tragedy: Thumbs DOWN!
The Gray Lady released the report of an "investigation" which, in simple terms, looks to buttress the long-discredited attempt to blame the attack on a controversial Youtube video and tries to dismiss the Al Qaeda link to the attack. I have not read the full report yet but read enough from the email notification blurb on the report to know I wouldn't like it. It's not a prejudgment, but this isn't the first time the Gray Lady has come out with a questionable story: remember the attempt to link McCain with a lobbyist in an affair during the early months of 2008? Let's be clear: what's the likelihood if there was a "smoking gun" to exonerate the Administration's mismanagement of the circumstances of the tragedy, they would have waited for the Gray Lady to make their case?
The facts are irrefutable: Benghazi was unstable enough at the time for the British to withdraw diplomatic personnel; the weapons used in the attack were military, not the stones, etc., one might expect from protesters; there were repeated denied requests for more security. The very fact that the attack occurred on 9/11 is strong circumstantial evidence of an Al Qaeda/alliance link; I don't recall anyone arguing it was Al Qaeda directly so any hair-splitting over Al Qaeda or any of a number of allied fundamentalist radical groups doesn't really help the Administration's case. As for the film, there's scant evidence on social media before or on the day of attack of mention of the scapegoated Youtube video. (For Congressman King's response to the Times' story, see here.)
Facebook Corner
On a Stossel thread putting capitalism over charity:
I'm a little confused to why Stossel is trashing private-sector initiatives which seek to address the consequences of government failures. Recall classical liberals like Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer specifically dealt with moral responsibilities. Unlike "government charity" monopolies, they have to compete for donor dollars and volunteers. Obviously we need to control for fraud in a free market, including charity. I would tweak what John wrote: "Capitalists, not government domestic programs, do the most to help the poor."
Where does the money go in a capitalist economy? Why are there so many poor right now? If money were water and someone dammed up the river and made you labour for just enough to barely keep you alive, I think you'd feel differently. Or would you lionize the water hoarder? You have dehumanized the poor and chosen to turn your backs. Jesus would be so proud of your rationalizations. You watch shows like this and pray as if that actually make a real difference.
Because we have a President whom doesn't understand business or the economy. If we got the government the hell out of the economy, the economy would boom.
Capitalists are great until they transfer jobs overseas and still want tax breaks at my expense.
Another economic illiterate progressive troll. If you want to attract job growth, you need to streamline regulation and taxes. Companies invest overseas for all sorts of reasons, including accessing local markets. For the government to demand a cut on income generated overseas is immoral: the government provides no services for that money. But the back office does benefit from external growth. You cannot compete where low-skill jobs are commodities. Jobs aren't a public resource; they don't belong to you or some bureaucrat; they are created to meet business objectives; higher pay is correlated to higher productivity, meaning among other things improved technology. You need seed corn to improve productivity: investment. The current clueless Administration is unable to do what is needed because of its Statist ideology.
(Jeffrey Tucker). I wonder how many took the plunge into the ideas of liberty as a direct result from their online activities? How did you come to understand liberty?
I have been more of a fusion libertarian-conservative. I stumbled across a book by Woods on how the Catholic Church built Western Civilization. An essay on economic fascism by DiLorenzo on Rockwell's website. The Cafe Hayek blog. Bastiat's "The Law" online. Online-available books by Mises and Rothbard at the Mises Institute. Higgs and Friedman on the Depression. Read's "I, Pencil" and other resources at the Library of Economics and Liberty. A lot of my reading was driven by the 2008 economic tsunami and the megalomaniac Statist excesses of the 111th Congress.
(Cato Institute). "There’s one counterintuitive way to help bring much-needed focus to U.S. trade policy: stop worrying about fast track."
Anytime a populist puts a stipulation onto negotiating a trade agreement, the one certainty is that we are no longer talking "free trade".
(Drudge Report). DNC Sends Email Warning Democrats of Obama Impeachment Possibility
This is predictable nonsense: they have to do something to excite a disenchanted base. Even if the GOP flips the Senate next year, the Democrats will have more than enough support to block conviction in the Senate. Plus, Obama has the best impeachment insurance--President Joe Biden. Obama would have to do something that makes the Senate Dems throw him under the bus--removing the first black American President would alienate their most reliable constituency--it ain't gonna happen.
(Reason Magazine). Unhelpful science?
Morally reprehensible: parasitic lawyers suing scientists because they don't like a study's conclusions? It's bad enough government intervenes in the economy: now they're trying to intervene in science? What's next--the climate change industrial complex suing skeptic critiques? Whatever happened to academic freedom?
So the evidence in the report is based on the delivering Dr. saying they didn't use "excessive" force? Right. I love it when the perpetrators are allowed to make the definitions of their actions. "No! I wasn't robbing that bank, I was taking out a 0% loan!"
Do you know how to read? The burden of proof is on the plaintiff's attorney to establish alleged excess use of force. The standard of defense is reasonable doubt. Said article documents injuries can happen without use of force; I have not read the article, but presumably it went through peer review. As a former academic reviewer, I'm sure that reviewers would be skeptical of self-report claims. I'm not saying this happened, but it's possible the condition developed prior to birth, presumably there were independent observers of the birth process, etc.
The parasitic lawyer is just frustrated that he failed to prove the doctor was responsible for injuring the child. He thought he had a slam dunk: "everybody knows" that "deep-pocketed" doctors cause defects, that defects can't have natural origins, etc. All the article would show is that it is possible for the condition to be natural.
This is from the journal article: "Six hours forty-five minutes after beginning Pitocin administration, the patient was fully dilated and began pushing. The head crowned 45 minutes later and the attending physician was called for delivery. The mother gave a single push with the next contraction, which delivered the entire infant. There was no shoulder dystocia; the head, shoulders, and body of the baby delivered simultaneously with the 1 push. There was no delay between the delivery of the head and the body, and there was no physician traction during the delivery. No fundal pressure had been used. These observations were noted in the medical record at the time by the delivering physician (E.S.) and the delivery room nurses. The mother herself confirmed that complete delivery of the baby occurred almost immediately after the doctor sat down and before the doctor even had a chance to put on her gloves. It was the mother’s observation that the only role the doctor played was to catch the baby before it went off the table."
(LFC). Slate has a column out (surprise!) about how libertarians are selfish, racist, cruel conspiracy nuts. If you'd like to prove the author wrong, the link is here: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/28/why_i_fled_libertarianism_and_became_a_liberal/
The first law of writing is to know your audience, so this guy is obviously writing to tell his target audience what they want to hear: that the Tea Party and libertarians are selfish, conspiracy kooks, racists, tools of the ungrateful elite; that social liberals care about real people.
I came to my own migration from the opposite direction: I grew up as an Air Force brat, I got my bachelor's degree from a progressive Catholic university (in fact, I worked in the campus' social work program library), and earned 3 graduate degrees at 2 other Texas universities. In fact, I once stood for Ted Kennedy in a Texas precinct caucus. I worked 5 years as a junior professor in progressive groupthink academia, never feeling free to discuss my emerging conservative views, not based on ideology but my growing exposure to business and economics.
My original intent in going to a Catholic college was a potential vocation to the priesthood. I never lost sight of my religious ideals, but I lost faith in government as the means to those ends. We see the federal government's growth not in common goods/services but individual benefits. I also knew that the private sector provided solutions for related problems before the New Deal and Great Society (family support for aging parents, charities and fraternal societies, physician deep discounts and/or bartering, etc.).
Rick Santelli's clarion call for the Tea Party movement as the Democrats used their super-majority after the 2008 selection to run up the score on a progressive wishlist basically woke me up to the fact we can't tweak ourselves back to prosperity. Government empire building was part of the problem, not the solution.
Lyngar's ad hominem attacks are regrettable; even if some people in the liberty movement match the description provided, the Democrats have more than their fair share of crazies, racists, etc. (I know because I once served as a volunteer during a Democratic Presidential campaign.)
My evolution to a type of fusion libertarian-conservative is an ongoing process; for example, I migrated from a more neo-con perspective less from the polemical talking points of Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan and more from the government's maladministration of nation building and the realization that government waste is not restricted to the domestic side of the ledger.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Tim Campbell via Illinois Policy Institute |
Judy Garland, "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas"
