I wonder how many of the left who are accusing the pro-life movement of contributing to the death of Dr. George Tiller because of their [the pro-life movement's] rhetoric are willing to accept any blame for the role that leftist "anti-racist" and "anti-xenophobic" rhetoric played in contributing to the assassination of Pim Fortuyn.
That is all.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Saturday, May 09, 2009
What Measure is a Non-Queer?
Via Alas, we get this defense of transgender people deceiving sexual partners about their status from "Polymorphous perversity" here and here.
What bothers me about these posts is not the legal argument, which seems to be reasonable and fairly well thought out, but the overall sense that such deception is not particularly morally wrong.
Specifically, PP says:
On the general principle that causing avoidable emotional distress to others is wrong, one could easily recognize a moral imperative to disclose some information to potential partners who might be upset by it. All the moreso in situations where the potential partner will be unwittingly involved in unethical behavior (as with a cheating spouse) or exposed to tangible risks (as with a sexually transmitted infection). While others might disagree, I am hesitant to recognize a strong imperative of this sort on the basis of membership in any socially marginalized group.
Translation: Transgendered people are victims, so that makes deceit for the purpose of eliciting sex OK.
The suggestion that transgender people who fail to disclose their gender history to sexual partners are themselves perpetrators of sexual violence owes more to horror of transgender people themselves, and of perceived "homosexual" acts, than to legal interpretation.
Translation: If you prefer sex with "cis-gendered" people (i.e. normal people, whose "gender identity" matches their physical sex) than with transgendered, or if you object to engaging in homosexual acts, you are simply a bigot and your preferences should not matter, and such deceit is okay, because it is in the service of overcoming bigotry.
Ampersand of Alas, showing his usual high level of concern about the rights of normal people, "highly recommends" this post.
Which just goes to show that the radical queer left (i.e. those who basically wish to tear down all sexual and gender norms) ultimately has little or no concern for the rights, sensibilities, and desires of anyone who is not part of their community and who does not share their views.
That is all.
What bothers me about these posts is not the legal argument, which seems to be reasonable and fairly well thought out, but the overall sense that such deception is not particularly morally wrong.
Specifically, PP says:
On the general principle that causing avoidable emotional distress to others is wrong, one could easily recognize a moral imperative to disclose some information to potential partners who might be upset by it. All the moreso in situations where the potential partner will be unwittingly involved in unethical behavior (as with a cheating spouse) or exposed to tangible risks (as with a sexually transmitted infection). While others might disagree, I am hesitant to recognize a strong imperative of this sort on the basis of membership in any socially marginalized group.
Translation: Transgendered people are victims, so that makes deceit for the purpose of eliciting sex OK.
The suggestion that transgender people who fail to disclose their gender history to sexual partners are themselves perpetrators of sexual violence owes more to horror of transgender people themselves, and of perceived "homosexual" acts, than to legal interpretation.
Translation: If you prefer sex with "cis-gendered" people (i.e. normal people, whose "gender identity" matches their physical sex) than with transgendered, or if you object to engaging in homosexual acts, you are simply a bigot and your preferences should not matter, and such deceit is okay, because it is in the service of overcoming bigotry.
Ampersand of Alas, showing his usual high level of concern about the rights of normal people, "highly recommends" this post.
Which just goes to show that the radical queer left (i.e. those who basically wish to tear down all sexual and gender norms) ultimately has little or no concern for the rights, sensibilities, and desires of anyone who is not part of their community and who does not share their views.
That is all.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
The Problem with Same-Sex "Marriage"
The problem really comes down to the fundamental issue fo what marriage is.
When you allow for same-sex "marriage" you are left with only two options:
(1) Have (at least) two different kinds of marriage, one for opposite-sex couples and one for same-sex couples. This is part of the reason why some people were pushing the marriage-look-alike alternative "civil unions." The problem is that our current ethos of equality will never allow this, as it is "separate" and therefore not "equal."
(2) Redefine marriage for everyone by turning it into a gender-neutral institution. The whole concept of marriage as it exists in our culture is based on the complementarity of the sexes. Such terms as "bride" "groom" "husband" and "wife" are explicitly based on heterosexual unions and do not really fit into same-sex unions. The only way to truly make the unions equal is to basically redefine the terms we use and the way that we think of heterosexual marriage in order to conform it to the same-gender model. Of course, this is what a lot of people want; traditional marriage is "sexist" or "heterosexist" to them, and terms such as "bride" and "groom" are "heteronormative," which is apparently supposed to be a bad thing.
That is ultimately what this story is about; the inexorable result of same-sex marriage is to define normal marriage down so as to make it equivalent to the ame-gender variety, and to take all of the particulars that make marriage what it is and to eliminate them. And they scoff at the idea that same-sex marriage will weaken marriage: "how," they ask, "will letting more people get married weaken marriage?" The answer, of course, is that it will weaken marriage by removing the particulars that make marriage marriage.
If I were to insist that Rush Limbaugh's (or Randall Terry's) ideas were to be labelled "feminist" or that Jesse Helms be placed in the camp of the "anti-racists," the leftists would have a field day. Obviously in that case they can see why increasing their nominal number weakens, and not strengthens, them. But in the end they do not care about marriage, or see it as a mere legal contract no different than, say a business partnership, so the idea that the same principle applies is completely foreign to them.
That is all.
When you allow for same-sex "marriage" you are left with only two options:
(1) Have (at least) two different kinds of marriage, one for opposite-sex couples and one for same-sex couples. This is part of the reason why some people were pushing the marriage-look-alike alternative "civil unions." The problem is that our current ethos of equality will never allow this, as it is "separate" and therefore not "equal."
(2) Redefine marriage for everyone by turning it into a gender-neutral institution. The whole concept of marriage as it exists in our culture is based on the complementarity of the sexes. Such terms as "bride" "groom" "husband" and "wife" are explicitly based on heterosexual unions and do not really fit into same-sex unions. The only way to truly make the unions equal is to basically redefine the terms we use and the way that we think of heterosexual marriage in order to conform it to the same-gender model. Of course, this is what a lot of people want; traditional marriage is "sexist" or "heterosexist" to them, and terms such as "bride" and "groom" are "heteronormative," which is apparently supposed to be a bad thing.
That is ultimately what this story is about; the inexorable result of same-sex marriage is to define normal marriage down so as to make it equivalent to the ame-gender variety, and to take all of the particulars that make marriage what it is and to eliminate them. And they scoff at the idea that same-sex marriage will weaken marriage: "how," they ask, "will letting more people get married weaken marriage?" The answer, of course, is that it will weaken marriage by removing the particulars that make marriage marriage.
If I were to insist that Rush Limbaugh's (or Randall Terry's) ideas were to be labelled "feminist" or that Jesse Helms be placed in the camp of the "anti-racists," the leftists would have a field day. Obviously in that case they can see why increasing their nominal number weakens, and not strengthens, them. But in the end they do not care about marriage, or see it as a mere legal contract no different than, say a business partnership, so the idea that the same principle applies is completely foreign to them.
That is all.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Sorry About Lack of Posting
I've been working to re-build the Constitution Party of Maine, to find a new job before my current job expires (I'm being laid off later this year) and to get my apartment cleaned up a little. I'll try to post more when I am not so busy.
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Please Don't Ask Questions Which Could Invalidate Me
More from Andrew:
One of Andrew's readers asks:
when you talk about "social incentives for stable relationships" and ask questions like, "Do you think that straight men would be more or less socially responsible without the institution of civil marriage?" it sounds like an affront to the way of life I have freely chosen.
Too bad. These are legitimate questions and should be asked by sociologists, whether or not you don't like them being asked.
That is all.
One of Andrew's readers asks:
when you talk about "social incentives for stable relationships" and ask questions like, "Do you think that straight men would be more or less socially responsible without the institution of civil marriage?" it sounds like an affront to the way of life I have freely chosen.
Too bad. These are legitimate questions and should be asked by sociologists, whether or not you don't like them being asked.
That is all.
Blair Should Leave the Catholic Church, or Should Shut the Hell Up
Via Andrew Sullivan, I find this little gem about Tony Blair:
Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.
Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.
I am not exactly certain how statements that homosexual behavior is wrong can be taken "metaphorically." It is not that there are no parts of the Bible that are metaphorical (Daniel and Revelation obviously have a great deal of metaphor in them). It's not that there are not parts that some people take literally and others metaphorically (the Creation story). It's that there is no reasonable way to take the parts of the Bible that speak against homosexual behavior and interpret them as a metaphor for something else.
What Blair means, of course, is that he wants religious figures to ignore those parts of the Bible as not relevant because they are not convenient to our modern society.
Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”
Translation: actually believing what your religion says is something that only old fuddy-duddies do.
In the interview Mr Blair... implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step with the public.
So what? The Pope is a Catholic, not a Humanist. It's not his job to be "in stpe with the public."
[Blair said]: "I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were."
How many religions actually teach that the public gets to vote on God's rules? What difference does it make what Catholics want to be true?
[Blair] said: “When people quote the passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality, I say to them — if you read the whole of the Old Testament and took everything that was there in a literal way, as being what God and religion is about, you’d have some pretty tough policies across the whole of the piece.”
This is the only thing he said that is actually halfway decent, as it actually brings up the question of whether or not the Bible should be the authority, as opposed to sidestep the question of the Bible as much as possible and exploring the two sides of the issue in entirely humanistic terms.
The problem is that there are passages in the New Testament disapproving of homosexuality as well. The idea that no such passages exist generally come from people who assume that the four gospels are the entirety of the New Testament.
He continued: “What people often forget about, for example, Jesus or, indeed, the Prophet Muhammad, is that their whole raison d’être was to change the way that people thought traditionally.”
No, not exactly. At least not in Jesus' case, whose whole raison d’être (in terms of his reason for being on Earth as a human) was to die for our sins. I suppose you could argue this in Muhammad's case, as his mission was explicitly to convert people to a particular religion (i.e. change the way they think). (Put another way, Jesus' mission centered around Himself as the way to salvation whereas Muhammad's person was less essentially to Islamic theology).
In any case, though, their missions involved changing the way people thought in order to conform their thoughts to God's. Blair wants people to change the way they think so as to make their thoughts more pleasing to other men. The fact that you want to change the way people think does not make you correct.
Conventional wisdom was not necessarily wise, [Blair] said. “It can be wrong and it can be just a form of conservatism that hides behind a consensus. If you look back in time, through the suffragette movement, the fight against slavery, it’s amazing how the same arguments in favour of prejudice crop up again and again and again.”
Translation: Blair's real religion is liberalism, i.e. non-discrimination uber alles, as Lawrence Auster would put it.
Two things come out of this for me:
(1) Blair joined the Catholic Church two years ago and now thinks that he can lecture the Pope on what Catholicism should be, as a Catholic. This, for some reason, seems to be a very Blair-y thing to do. It seems to me that if he didn't like the Church's teachings, he should not have joined. At the very least, to join such an institution and then only two years later try to change it because it doesn't fit your trendy beliefs is rather arrogant.
(2) Blair a while back supported antidiscrimination legislation that forced the Church to close the doors of its adoption agencies in the UK in order to perform adoptions within its moral teachings. Often the liberal line on homosexual issues is that "you can believe what you want, but your beliefs should not be the basis of law." It is becoming increasingly clear that this is not the real agenda, however. The real agenda is to use every tool at their disposal to steamroll over anyone who does not affirm heartily the moral equaliy of homosexuality and heterosexuality. They will attempt to use societal disapproval to try to silence the holdout churches, and eventually to silence them through law. I think that the real humanist agenda of the left is on display here, and should serve as a warning for everyone who thinks that the left will ever be tolerant of disagreement with its fundamental non-discriminatory dogmas.
That is all.
Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.
Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.
I am not exactly certain how statements that homosexual behavior is wrong can be taken "metaphorically." It is not that there are no parts of the Bible that are metaphorical (Daniel and Revelation obviously have a great deal of metaphor in them). It's not that there are not parts that some people take literally and others metaphorically (the Creation story). It's that there is no reasonable way to take the parts of the Bible that speak against homosexual behavior and interpret them as a metaphor for something else.
What Blair means, of course, is that he wants religious figures to ignore those parts of the Bible as not relevant because they are not convenient to our modern society.
Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”
Translation: actually believing what your religion says is something that only old fuddy-duddies do.
In the interview Mr Blair... implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step with the public.
So what? The Pope is a Catholic, not a Humanist. It's not his job to be "in stpe with the public."
[Blair said]: "I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were."
How many religions actually teach that the public gets to vote on God's rules? What difference does it make what Catholics want to be true?
[Blair] said: “When people quote the passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality, I say to them — if you read the whole of the Old Testament and took everything that was there in a literal way, as being what God and religion is about, you’d have some pretty tough policies across the whole of the piece.”
This is the only thing he said that is actually halfway decent, as it actually brings up the question of whether or not the Bible should be the authority, as opposed to sidestep the question of the Bible as much as possible and exploring the two sides of the issue in entirely humanistic terms.
The problem is that there are passages in the New Testament disapproving of homosexuality as well. The idea that no such passages exist generally come from people who assume that the four gospels are the entirety of the New Testament.
He continued: “What people often forget about, for example, Jesus or, indeed, the Prophet Muhammad, is that their whole raison d’être was to change the way that people thought traditionally.”
No, not exactly. At least not in Jesus' case, whose whole raison d’être (in terms of his reason for being on Earth as a human) was to die for our sins. I suppose you could argue this in Muhammad's case, as his mission was explicitly to convert people to a particular religion (i.e. change the way they think). (Put another way, Jesus' mission centered around Himself as the way to salvation whereas Muhammad's person was less essentially to Islamic theology).
In any case, though, their missions involved changing the way people thought in order to conform their thoughts to God's. Blair wants people to change the way they think so as to make their thoughts more pleasing to other men. The fact that you want to change the way people think does not make you correct.
Conventional wisdom was not necessarily wise, [Blair] said. “It can be wrong and it can be just a form of conservatism that hides behind a consensus. If you look back in time, through the suffragette movement, the fight against slavery, it’s amazing how the same arguments in favour of prejudice crop up again and again and again.”
Translation: Blair's real religion is liberalism, i.e. non-discrimination uber alles, as Lawrence Auster would put it.
Two things come out of this for me:
(1) Blair joined the Catholic Church two years ago and now thinks that he can lecture the Pope on what Catholicism should be, as a Catholic. This, for some reason, seems to be a very Blair-y thing to do. It seems to me that if he didn't like the Church's teachings, he should not have joined. At the very least, to join such an institution and then only two years later try to change it because it doesn't fit your trendy beliefs is rather arrogant.
(2) Blair a while back supported antidiscrimination legislation that forced the Church to close the doors of its adoption agencies in the UK in order to perform adoptions within its moral teachings. Often the liberal line on homosexual issues is that "you can believe what you want, but your beliefs should not be the basis of law." It is becoming increasingly clear that this is not the real agenda, however. The real agenda is to use every tool at their disposal to steamroll over anyone who does not affirm heartily the moral equaliy of homosexuality and heterosexuality. They will attempt to use societal disapproval to try to silence the holdout churches, and eventually to silence them through law. I think that the real humanist agenda of the left is on display here, and should serve as a warning for everyone who thinks that the left will ever be tolerant of disagreement with its fundamental non-discriminatory dogmas.
That is all.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Gadsby: Champion of Youth
Start at this link to find a most intriguing work.
Why is Gadsby so intriguing? It is told if you click and look fastidiously. I will not say, but try to look at the book and find by your own work what is so intriguing first, only upon doing this should you look out for the solution from a body that is not you.
That is all.
Why is Gadsby so intriguing? It is told if you click and look fastidiously. I will not say, but try to look at the book and find by your own work what is so intriguing first, only upon doing this should you look out for the solution from a body that is not you.
That is all.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
America's Half-Blood Prince Review
I always enjoy Steve Sailer’s movie reviews in The American Conservative. Although some find his “reductionist” method of analyzing movies to be rather dull, I find it fascinating to deal with the topic of why things happen in movies the way that they do, and how an actor or director’s experiences and background affect the message they send. Certainly, a boring, confusing, or otherwise annoying movie can be made much more interesting in my opinion by describing why some of the annoying conventions exist, rather than simply looking at them as blemishes on the movie. In addition, this often allows Sailer to bring out facts about human nature and to connect everything to everything else, allowing for some beautiful explicatory analogies.
Another of Mr. Sailer’s talents is his mastery of the written deadpan snark. He will often shoot off a phrase in his blog that, when reading it, you can just hear the “aside” tone being used as he puts down some ridiculous pretension.
All of these things can be found in his recently published work, America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story of Race and Inheritance”. In this book, he writes what is essentially an extended “Sailer-style” review of Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
.
What Sailer lays out in AHBP (as it is now commonly abbreviated), is the thesis that Barack Obama, far from being a uniting postracial figure like Tiger Woods, has actually spent much of his life worrying about being “authentically black.” Moreover, he seems to aspire to all of the traits that have made it difficult for many black politicians to rise to prominence outside of the black community, namely, a desire to take from whitey and give to the black community, a resentment of the white community, and a failure to seriously consider that any of the problems of the black community are self-inflicted.
What makes this book a good read is that it continuously references back to its original thesis, and it keeps on topic with the terse efficiency that teachers ask for most written essays. Reading AHBP, one does not get lost in a lot of irrelevant tangents, and the biographical backbone moves forward in time relentlessly, allowing one to see Obama as he develops.
Surprisingly to those who do not know Sailer, and unsurprisingly to those who do, Sailer shows little animosity toward Obama, despite a great deal of skepticism about his claims. Saile even acknowledges the possibility that Obama has mellowed over the years, although he also points out Obama’s tendency to shy away from being too explicit about his philosophy and its obvious implication: that Obama is not being entirely forthright with his Presidential campaign rhetoric. Moreover, Sailer does not blame Obama’s issues on his race itself, rather, as much as anything they are the products of his white, racially self-loathing hippy mother.
Sailer also manages to bring in a lot of issues about which he has previously discussed in his blog, in much the same way that person writing his final paper for a class will refer back to various individual lessons from the class. This effect beautifully demonstrates the relevance of various social facts with which his readers are familiar. These include: African “big man” syndrome, the effects of welfare, white “anti-racist” pretensions, the social implications of interracial relationships, and much, much more.
Finally, here are two quotes, one demonstrating Sailer’s his ability to use analogies, and the other his deadpan sarcasm.
“In contrast to John McCain, who is at his best shooting the breeze off the top of his head with the reporters privileged enough to travel on his campaign bus, but whose formal speeches are strained affairs, Obama’s strong suit is delivering carefully rewritten and rehearsed orations. Obama is Daniel Day‐Lewis, making one monumental film every few years, to McCain‘s Regis Philbin, winging it on TV daily for decades.”
“Of course, ever since he left community organizing in the slums of Chicago for Harvard Law School, Obama’s solution to his failing to solve racial challenges he has set himself has been to get himself promoted.”
This book is excellent. Everyone should buy a copy.
That is all.
Another of Mr. Sailer’s talents is his mastery of the written deadpan snark. He will often shoot off a phrase in his blog that, when reading it, you can just hear the “aside” tone being used as he puts down some ridiculous pretension.
All of these things can be found in his recently published work, America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story of Race and Inheritance”. In this book, he writes what is essentially an extended “Sailer-style” review of Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
.What Sailer lays out in AHBP (as it is now commonly abbreviated), is the thesis that Barack Obama, far from being a uniting postracial figure like Tiger Woods, has actually spent much of his life worrying about being “authentically black.” Moreover, he seems to aspire to all of the traits that have made it difficult for many black politicians to rise to prominence outside of the black community, namely, a desire to take from whitey and give to the black community, a resentment of the white community, and a failure to seriously consider that any of the problems of the black community are self-inflicted.
What makes this book a good read is that it continuously references back to its original thesis, and it keeps on topic with the terse efficiency that teachers ask for most written essays. Reading AHBP, one does not get lost in a lot of irrelevant tangents, and the biographical backbone moves forward in time relentlessly, allowing one to see Obama as he develops.
Surprisingly to those who do not know Sailer, and unsurprisingly to those who do, Sailer shows little animosity toward Obama, despite a great deal of skepticism about his claims. Saile even acknowledges the possibility that Obama has mellowed over the years, although he also points out Obama’s tendency to shy away from being too explicit about his philosophy and its obvious implication: that Obama is not being entirely forthright with his Presidential campaign rhetoric. Moreover, Sailer does not blame Obama’s issues on his race itself, rather, as much as anything they are the products of his white, racially self-loathing hippy mother.
Sailer also manages to bring in a lot of issues about which he has previously discussed in his blog, in much the same way that person writing his final paper for a class will refer back to various individual lessons from the class. This effect beautifully demonstrates the relevance of various social facts with which his readers are familiar. These include: African “big man” syndrome, the effects of welfare, white “anti-racist” pretensions, the social implications of interracial relationships, and much, much more.
Finally, here are two quotes, one demonstrating Sailer’s his ability to use analogies, and the other his deadpan sarcasm.
“In contrast to John McCain, who is at his best shooting the breeze off the top of his head with the reporters privileged enough to travel on his campaign bus, but whose formal speeches are strained affairs, Obama’s strong suit is delivering carefully rewritten and rehearsed orations. Obama is Daniel Day‐Lewis, making one monumental film every few years, to McCain‘s Regis Philbin, winging it on TV daily for decades.”
“Of course, ever since he left community organizing in the slums of Chicago for Harvard Law School, Obama’s solution to his failing to solve racial challenges he has set himself has been to get himself promoted.”
This book is excellent. Everyone should buy a copy.
That is all.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Three Chances to Help Improve Ballot Access!
Oklahoma, West Virginia, and North Carolina all have groups which are attempting to improve ballot access laws in those states. If you can donate, it would be appreciated. If you live in any of these states, please contact your legislators and ask them to support these bills. If you know anyone in those states you might try to call them and ask if they will call their legislators and encourage them to support these measures. Please spread the word.
From Ballot Access News:
(HB 1072 in Oklahoma)
As has been noted previously, the Oklahoma House recently passed HB 1072, which eases ballot access for previously unqualified parties in midterm years, but does not help them in presidential years. OBAR (Oklahoma Ballot Access Reform) has been paying a professional lobbyist $2,500 per month to advance and to improve this bill. The lobbyist has been paid through the end of March 2009. He is working on getting the bill amended in the Senate, so that it makes more significant improvements. Unfortunately, OBAR has exhausted its funds, and cannot pay for April work. Any contributions to OBAR will not be wasted, and will be used for his April work. Other organizations that assist ballot access, such as COFOE and Free & Equal, are likely to help. But if you wish to help, please send a check to OBAR, PO Box 14042, Tulsa Ok 74159-1042. Even small amounts are worthwhile and very much needed. UPDATE: COFOE has just voted to donate $500 for the April lobbyist bill.
If you are interested in donating to this effort, go here and print out the second page. You'll need to donate by mail by check.
(SB 731 in North Carolina)
On March 19, North Carolina Senator Jim Jacumin (R-Connelly Springs) introduced SB 731. It lowers the petition for a previously unqualified party from 2% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 10,000 signatures. It lowers the statewide independent petition from 2% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 5,000 signatures. It lowers the district independent petitions from 4% of the number of registered voters, to 3%. The Constitution Party of North Carolina deserves the credit for getting this bill introduced.
If you are interested in donating, then this is the website to go to.
(HB 2981 in West Virginia )
On March 18, a subcommittee of the West Virginia House Judiciary Committee passed HB 2981, the ballot access improvement bill. The bill is likely to get a hearing in the full Judiciary Committee next week or the week after. The bill moves the non-presidential petition deadline from May to August (so that it matches the presidential petition deadline), and lowers the number of signatures from 2% of the last vote cast, to 1%. West Virginia’s petitions were 1% before 1999, but the 1999 session of the legislature increased it to 2%.
If you are interested in donating, the Libertarian Party of West Virginia is working hard with Delegate Barbara Fleischauer to get the bill passed, and is accepting donations.
That is all.
From Ballot Access News:
(HB 1072 in Oklahoma)
As has been noted previously, the Oklahoma House recently passed HB 1072, which eases ballot access for previously unqualified parties in midterm years, but does not help them in presidential years. OBAR (Oklahoma Ballot Access Reform) has been paying a professional lobbyist $2,500 per month to advance and to improve this bill. The lobbyist has been paid through the end of March 2009. He is working on getting the bill amended in the Senate, so that it makes more significant improvements. Unfortunately, OBAR has exhausted its funds, and cannot pay for April work. Any contributions to OBAR will not be wasted, and will be used for his April work. Other organizations that assist ballot access, such as COFOE and Free & Equal, are likely to help. But if you wish to help, please send a check to OBAR, PO Box 14042, Tulsa Ok 74159-1042. Even small amounts are worthwhile and very much needed. UPDATE: COFOE has just voted to donate $500 for the April lobbyist bill.
If you are interested in donating to this effort, go here and print out the second page. You'll need to donate by mail by check.
(SB 731 in North Carolina)
On March 19, North Carolina Senator Jim Jacumin (R-Connelly Springs) introduced SB 731. It lowers the petition for a previously unqualified party from 2% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 10,000 signatures. It lowers the statewide independent petition from 2% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 5,000 signatures. It lowers the district independent petitions from 4% of the number of registered voters, to 3%. The Constitution Party of North Carolina deserves the credit for getting this bill introduced.
If you are interested in donating, then this is the website to go to.
(HB 2981 in West Virginia )
On March 18, a subcommittee of the West Virginia House Judiciary Committee passed HB 2981, the ballot access improvement bill. The bill is likely to get a hearing in the full Judiciary Committee next week or the week after. The bill moves the non-presidential petition deadline from May to August (so that it matches the presidential petition deadline), and lowers the number of signatures from 2% of the last vote cast, to 1%. West Virginia’s petitions were 1% before 1999, but the 1999 session of the legislature increased it to 2%.
If you are interested in donating, the Libertarian Party of West Virginia is working hard with Delegate Barbara Fleischauer to get the bill passed, and is accepting donations.
That is all.
Monday, March 16, 2009
H.B. 2981 for Easier Ballot Access in West Virginia
Delegate Barbara Fleischauer has proposed H.B. 2981 in West Virginia, a bill that will halve the requirements for a third-party/independent candidate to receive ballot access in that state.
I have been in contact with the West Virginia Libertarian Party, and they are working closely with Fleischauer to get it passed. If you want to support the bill, please donate (generously) to them (there's a donation button on their home page).
It would appear that the Constitution Party of West Virginia is also be lobbying for the bill, as Jeff Becker, who is their contact person, is pushing hard for it (see the first comment on the Ballot Access News article linked at the top of the post). Ths is not surprising, considering how much energy they put into the WV ballot access drive in 2007-2008.
However, I am not certain whether donations to the CPWV will help the lobbying effort or not. I'll tell you more when I know more.
That is all.
I have been in contact with the West Virginia Libertarian Party, and they are working closely with Fleischauer to get it passed. If you want to support the bill, please donate (generously) to them (there's a donation button on their home page).
It would appear that the Constitution Party of West Virginia is also be lobbying for the bill, as Jeff Becker, who is their contact person, is pushing hard for it (see the first comment on the Ballot Access News article linked at the top of the post). Ths is not surprising, considering how much energy they put into the WV ballot access drive in 2007-2008.
However, I am not certain whether donations to the CPWV will help the lobbying effort or not. I'll tell you more when I know more.
That is all.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Same-Sex Marriage is not Conservative
A recent bit of nonsense from Andrew Sullivan:
If you decouple the notion of "family" from fundamentalist religion, same-sex marriage is revealed as the socially conservative reform it actually is. Wouldn't it be amazing if China got there first?
TranslationL: If you decouple the notion of "family" from conservative, traditional norms, then you can see that modernizing and liberalizing the definition is actually conservative!
I suppose that there are two ways to see this. First, Sullivan thinks that marriage is a traditional, or conservative, institution. Therefore, to expand the institution is to expand conservatism, however much expanding the institution may actually dilute its traditional meaning and thus damage rather than actually expand the institution itself.
Second, Andrew could be basically saying that anythign short of promiscuous bathhouse sex is conservative.
Either way, he is "defining liberalism down," attempting to make liberal ideas appear conservative and shifting the Overton window farther left.
He is not a good conservative.
That is all.
If you decouple the notion of "family" from fundamentalist religion, same-sex marriage is revealed as the socially conservative reform it actually is. Wouldn't it be amazing if China got there first?
TranslationL: If you decouple the notion of "family" from conservative, traditional norms, then you can see that modernizing and liberalizing the definition is actually conservative!
I suppose that there are two ways to see this. First, Sullivan thinks that marriage is a traditional, or conservative, institution. Therefore, to expand the institution is to expand conservatism, however much expanding the institution may actually dilute its traditional meaning and thus damage rather than actually expand the institution itself.
Second, Andrew could be basically saying that anythign short of promiscuous bathhouse sex is conservative.
Either way, he is "defining liberalism down," attempting to make liberal ideas appear conservative and shifting the Overton window farther left.
He is not a good conservative.
That is all.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Neuroscience, Andrew Sullivan and the "Christianists"
I don't think that advances in neuroscience are as threatening to the idea of the human soul as the materialists think they are. After all, even if there is a material aspect to our consciousness, it does not negate the possiblity of an additional amaterial dimension (I think that an analogy to the Trinity can be made here). In fact, I would argue that tactual subjective consciousness requires a material dimension.
Why? Because to have actual consciousness requires identity. And if consciousness is a purely material process, it is simply fungible information, without an identity.
It's like the old question, when Captain Kirk teleports, is he being transported, or is he killed and replaced with an exact copy? When "transhumanists" talk about downloading a person's consciousness into machines, are they really moving his consciousness, or are they killing him and creating a copy? If they can copy his consciousness into a computer without erasing it from his head, then how is "downloading" his consciousness any different from copying it and then killing him.
Take this a step further, and the question becomes, what keeps us us when all of our bodies' materials are constantly being removed and replaced? How can we have continuous consciousness, as opposed to having instantaneous consciosness that is constantly being destroyed and replaced by an exact copy? There has to be some source of identity that keeps us us, unless you are going to argue that consciousness and the self are purely an illusion (which is what some argue).
In any case, it seems to me that consciousness can have an amaterial (even a supernatural) element and still express itself materially and have its amaterial experience affected by the material world (after all, how is infiltrating one's brain with a psychiatric drug different in principle from experiencing material phenomena such as touch and sight? If the existence of senses that see the material world does not logically require one to be a materialist, why should the fact that we can alter our perceptions more directly through chemical stimulation of neurons?)
That being said, Andrew Sullivan's piece on "Neuroscience And The Christianists" seems to quote approvingly the idea that we are nothing but matter, with no attempt whatsoever to qualify that.
The obvious implication is that to believe in a soul is "Christianist" rather than Christian.
Althogether, one starts to wonder what exactly does the non-"Christianist" Christianity in which Andrew Sullivan wishes for Christians to believe consist of?
That is all.
Why? Because to have actual consciousness requires identity. And if consciousness is a purely material process, it is simply fungible information, without an identity.
It's like the old question, when Captain Kirk teleports, is he being transported, or is he killed and replaced with an exact copy? When "transhumanists" talk about downloading a person's consciousness into machines, are they really moving his consciousness, or are they killing him and creating a copy? If they can copy his consciousness into a computer without erasing it from his head, then how is "downloading" his consciousness any different from copying it and then killing him.
Take this a step further, and the question becomes, what keeps us us when all of our bodies' materials are constantly being removed and replaced? How can we have continuous consciousness, as opposed to having instantaneous consciosness that is constantly being destroyed and replaced by an exact copy? There has to be some source of identity that keeps us us, unless you are going to argue that consciousness and the self are purely an illusion (which is what some argue).
In any case, it seems to me that consciousness can have an amaterial (even a supernatural) element and still express itself materially and have its amaterial experience affected by the material world (after all, how is infiltrating one's brain with a psychiatric drug different in principle from experiencing material phenomena such as touch and sight? If the existence of senses that see the material world does not logically require one to be a materialist, why should the fact that we can alter our perceptions more directly through chemical stimulation of neurons?)
That being said, Andrew Sullivan's piece on "Neuroscience And The Christianists" seems to quote approvingly the idea that we are nothing but matter, with no attempt whatsoever to qualify that.
The obvious implication is that to believe in a soul is "Christianist" rather than Christian.
Althogether, one starts to wonder what exactly does the non-"Christianist" Christianity in which Andrew Sullivan wishes for Christians to believe consist of?
That is all.
Why Oh Why?
Racist police are apparently also sexist, because they kill a lot more black men than black women.
Exactly why this is is a mystery, but I think it is safe to say that it has nothing to do with the fact that black men are far more likely to be dangerous in a police confrontation involving the use of deadly force than black women (this is true of men vs. women generally). Obviously, they are just racist-sexist jerks who hate black men.
That is all.
Exactly why this is is a mystery, but I think it is safe to say that it has nothing to do with the fact that black men are far more likely to be dangerous in a police confrontation involving the use of deadly force than black women (this is true of men vs. women generally). Obviously, they are just racist-sexist jerks who hate black men.
That is all.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Keynesian Fallacy
I have coined a new term: "The Keynesian Fallacy."
The Keynesian Fallacy is the belief that the foundation of an economy is the circulation of money.
What makes the economy better is increasing the circulation of money, also known as the velocity of money. Put another way, what improves the economy is for money to change hands as frequently as possible in economic transactions.
This is why dumb ideas such as the idea that make-work jobs (digging holes and filling them back in) will help the economy (even if some jobs proposed by Keynesian stimulus packages are not "make-work," they are usually justified on a basis that would apply equally to useful or to make-work jobs, so the idea behind why the jobs might help the economy is faulty). Or the idea that increased spending is what an economy where people are drowning in debt need.
Ultimately, in reality, what matters is what is produced, how it is used, and what is consumed. Money is simply a medium of exchange (which makes it a "store of value" as well). Most economic transations and phenomena can be best understood by first taking money out of the equation and asking what is happening to the resources behind the money. Alternately, after deducing what the economic consequence of an action would be without reference to money, the best course to explaining how it would play out in real life is to figure out how the monetary situation would represent the action and its consequences.
More on this later.
That is all.
The Keynesian Fallacy is the belief that the foundation of an economy is the circulation of money.
What makes the economy better is increasing the circulation of money, also known as the velocity of money. Put another way, what improves the economy is for money to change hands as frequently as possible in economic transactions.
This is why dumb ideas such as the idea that make-work jobs (digging holes and filling them back in) will help the economy (even if some jobs proposed by Keynesian stimulus packages are not "make-work," they are usually justified on a basis that would apply equally to useful or to make-work jobs, so the idea behind why the jobs might help the economy is faulty). Or the idea that increased spending is what an economy where people are drowning in debt need.
Ultimately, in reality, what matters is what is produced, how it is used, and what is consumed. Money is simply a medium of exchange (which makes it a "store of value" as well). Most economic transations and phenomena can be best understood by first taking money out of the equation and asking what is happening to the resources behind the money. Alternately, after deducing what the economic consequence of an action would be without reference to money, the best course to explaining how it would play out in real life is to figure out how the monetary situation would represent the action and its consequences.
That is all.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Are We Cowards on Matters of Race?
Attorney General Holder's recent speech, in whcih he asserted that we are "essentially a nation of cowards" on issues of race.
Specifically, he said:
Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.
You know what? He 's right. We are cowardly when it comes to discussions of race. But for some reason, I really, really doubt that he would like to have an actually uncowardly discussion. I have a feeling that a real discussion ofracial issues is the last thing that Mr. Holder would want.
That is all.
Specifically, he said:
Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.
You know what? He 's right. We are cowardly when it comes to discussions of race. But for some reason, I really, really doubt that he would like to have an actually uncowardly discussion. I have a feeling that a real discussion ofracial issues is the last thing that Mr. Holder would want.
That is all.
Monday, February 16, 2009
A Message to Obama
I recently used the White House contact form to send this message:
Dear President Obama:
I am deeply upset by the lack of an E-Verify provision in the economic stimulus bill. In times like these, when our unemployment rate is rising, we need to ensure that any jobs produced by the stimulus go to American workers.
I am also deeply upset by the way that Pelosi and Reid bypassed the conference committee and worked out the conerence bill in secret. You promised us a more transparent administration,than Bush's, and there was great talk of making the conference committee proceedings open to the public.
In the end, the Democratic Party leadership betrayed American workers in this bill by not passing the E-Verify provision, and the secrecy with which the Democratic Party leadership determined the final shape of the bill rivaled the deviousness of the Bush Administration.
Please, Obama, reconsider signing this bill, and demand that protections for American workers, including an E-Verify mandate, are added to the stimulus.
Failing that, please push to get E-Verify re-authorized and please push to expand its reach.
Thank you for your time.
Please, Glaivester readers, consider sending a similar message yourself.
That is all.
Dear President Obama:
I am deeply upset by the lack of an E-Verify provision in the economic stimulus bill. In times like these, when our unemployment rate is rising, we need to ensure that any jobs produced by the stimulus go to American workers.
I am also deeply upset by the way that Pelosi and Reid bypassed the conference committee and worked out the conerence bill in secret. You promised us a more transparent administration,than Bush's, and there was great talk of making the conference committee proceedings open to the public.
In the end, the Democratic Party leadership betrayed American workers in this bill by not passing the E-Verify provision, and the secrecy with which the Democratic Party leadership determined the final shape of the bill rivaled the deviousness of the Bush Administration.
Please, Obama, reconsider signing this bill, and demand that protections for American workers, including an E-Verify mandate, are added to the stimulus.
Failing that, please push to get E-Verify re-authorized and please push to expand its reach.
Thank you for your time.
Please, Glaivester readers, consider sending a similar message yourself.
That is all.
CRA Enforcement is Very Recent
Yes, the CRA appears to have pushed banks to make more loans to people who couldn't afford them. And it appears to have done so much more during the recent housing bubble (~2002 and after) than, say, before 1995.
Steve Sailer has the information.
That is all.
Steve Sailer has the information.
That is all.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Beware HR 4, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009!
Update: Do not write just yet, though. I have severe doubts that this bill will go anywhere. But keep an eye out.
Apparently, Bobby Rush has introduced firearms registration legislation into the House.
Keep an eye on this in case it goes anywhere. If it looks like it is going to, start writing your Congressman.
Oh, and join GunOwners of America, or at least sign up for their alerts.
That is all.
Apparently, Bobby Rush has introduced firearms registration legislation into the House.
Keep an eye on this in case it goes anywhere. If it looks like it is going to, start writing your Congressman.
Oh, and join GunOwners of America, or at least sign up for their alerts.
That is all.
Monday, February 09, 2009
TRAITORS
Senators Baucus, Nelson, Menendez, and Reid opposed the E-Verify amendment (SA 239) to the stimulus package, indicating that they want to use government money to give work to illegal aliens.
If these are your Senators, please call them and tell them how they have betrayed the trust of their constituents.
That is all.
If these are your Senators, please call them and tell them how they have betrayed the trust of their constituents.
That is all.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Support SA 239, the E-Verify Amendment
Please, any reader who is not a member of NumbersUSA, please visit the site, register, and immediately use the online fax system to send your Senators faxes that they need to make certain that any stimulus contains an E-Verify provision (requiring states and employers receiving stimulus money to use E-Verify, the electronic system for verifying employees' eligibility to work in the US).
You can customize the fax, so be sure to put in the title that they need to support Senate Amendment 239. In the body, make sure to tell them not to pass any bill that does not contain SA 239.
There is also contact information so that you can phone them, but phone lines are likely to be busy and answering service mailboxes are likely to be full.
That is all.
You can customize the fax, so be sure to put in the title that they need to support Senate Amendment 239. In the body, make sure to tell them not to pass any bill that does not contain SA 239.
There is also contact information so that you can phone them, but phone lines are likely to be busy and answering service mailboxes are likely to be full.
That is all.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thoughts on Families
I cannot help but think that this post and this post by Ta-Nehisi Coates can be interpreted as "I don't like to pass judgments on alternate family types because I do not want to pass judgment on my father."
The statement:
Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal. If it works, let it work.
is very nice, but it ignores the fact that not all family types work as well on average, and certain types that may work in individual cases are not ideal on a statistical basis and should not be what we aspire to.
And there is some of that ol' anti-racism in this, as well. One subtext here is that this is considered a normal way to do things in much of the African-American community and so we need to show more tolerance rather than be caught up in our European notions of what a family ought to be. Which of course ignores the question of whether the European of African models work better (as a societal norm, not in every individual case) in terms of creating a stable family life that is conducive to maintaining the things we like about modern society.
None of which to say that Ta-Nehisi is not a good sincere individual. Indeed, he seems to be a loving and responsible father, which is a good thing in this day and age (always good, but I fear it is becoming increasingly rare).
But nonetheless, one wonders in many cases (and for many people, I don't single out Coates as a special case) people's opinions on the moral and societal issues of the day are driven by a need to justiy their behavior or the behavior of those around them.
That is all.
The statement:
Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal. If it works, let it work.
is very nice, but it ignores the fact that not all family types work as well on average, and certain types that may work in individual cases are not ideal on a statistical basis and should not be what we aspire to.
And there is some of that ol' anti-racism in this, as well. One subtext here is that this is considered a normal way to do things in much of the African-American community and so we need to show more tolerance rather than be caught up in our European notions of what a family ought to be. Which of course ignores the question of whether the European of African models work better (as a societal norm, not in every individual case) in terms of creating a stable family life that is conducive to maintaining the things we like about modern society.
None of which to say that Ta-Nehisi is not a good sincere individual. Indeed, he seems to be a loving and responsible father, which is a good thing in this day and age (always good, but I fear it is becoming increasingly rare).
But nonetheless, one wonders in many cases (and for many people, I don't single out Coates as a special case) people's opinions on the moral and societal issues of the day are driven by a need to justiy their behavior or the behavior of those around them.
That is all.
What's up with Google?
Update: Fixed.
Update: Google and Youtube are now also listed as harmful. Something has gone wrong, it's not deliberate.
It does not appear that this is effecting news or blog searches, just web searches.
I do a search and I get almost all the results coming back with "this site may harm your computer." I click on the result anyway, and I get sent to a Google page that tells me to d oantoehr search or pick another result, and has no option for "take me to the site anyway." I click on the link to a Google explanation of why it thinks the site is dangerous, and I keep getting error messages.
These aren't strange or sites; these are wikipedia and lewrockwell.com.
The only site that isn't listed as potentially harmful is YouTube. What, is Google trying to prevent people from looking at any non-Google-owned site?
Fine. I'll search through Yahoo!
That is all.
Update: Google and Youtube are now also listed as harmful. Something has gone wrong, it's not deliberate.
It does not appear that this is effecting news or blog searches, just web searches.
I do a search and I get almost all the results coming back with "this site may harm your computer." I click on the result anyway, and I get sent to a Google page that tells me to d oantoehr search or pick another result, and has no option for "take me to the site anyway." I click on the link to a Google explanation of why it thinks the site is dangerous, and I keep getting error messages.
These aren't strange or sites; these are wikipedia and lewrockwell.com.
The only site that isn't listed as potentially harmful is YouTube. What, is Google trying to prevent people from looking at any non-Google-owned site?
Fine. I'll search through Yahoo!
That is all.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
E-Verify Victory in Stimulus Package
Update: Sessions and Nelson are pushing for the Senate leadership to pass E-Verify provisions. Call your Senators now and urge them to add the language!
The House stimulus bill contains some very necessary provisions requiring any business receiving stimulus money to use the E-Verify system for verifyingthe eligibility to work of people applying for jobs (i.e. so that businesses getting stimulus money cannot use illegal alien labor).
It looks as if stimulus is going to pass no matter what we do, so let's at least call our Senators to make certain that provisions mandating the use of E-Verify are kept in the Senate bill.
And please consider registering at, and donating to, NumbersUSA.
That is all.
The House stimulus bill contains some very necessary provisions requiring any business receiving stimulus money to use the E-Verify system for verifyingthe eligibility to work of people applying for jobs (i.e. so that businesses getting stimulus money cannot use illegal alien labor).
It looks as if stimulus is going to pass no matter what we do, so let's at least call our Senators to make certain that provisions mandating the use of E-Verify are kept in the Senate bill.
And please consider registering at, and donating to, NumbersUSA.
That is all.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
To my Oklahoma Readers (If I Have Any)
Bills have been introduced to make ballot access easier in both the House and the Senate.
Please contact your (state) Representative and ask him or her to support Charles Key's HB 1072 and your Senator and tell them to support Randy Brogdon's SB359.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
Please contact your (state) Representative and ask him or her to support Charles Key's HB 1072 and your Senator and tell them to support Randy Brogdon's SB359.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
Strange Alliances
Update: Dondero has published a piece on Oklahoma ballot access reform!
Thank you, Mr. Dondero!
Previously I have been a little annoyed with Eric Dondero over his support of John McCain and have been a little less than respectful in the way I have referred to him.
There is a good chance that in the next few days he will publicize an issue that is important to me (ballot access reform in Oklahoma), so I just wanted to say thank you in advance to him.
That is all.
Thank you, Mr. Dondero!
Previously I have been a little annoyed with Eric Dondero over his support of John McCain and have been a little less than respectful in the way I have referred to him.
There is a good chance that in the next few days he will publicize an issue that is important to me (ballot access reform in Oklahoma), so I just wanted to say thank you in advance to him.
That is all.
Dog Whistle Works Both Ways
This recent Sailer column got me thinking.
There has been a lot of talk lately about "dog whistle politics" where denotatively race-neutral terms such as "welfare queen" or "tough on crime" are supposedly connotative "dog whistles" whose desired effect is to play on white racism.
Supposedly, someone who claims to be "tough on crime" really is really saying "lock those uppity blacks up!" Someone who says he wants to reduce taxes and talks about getting people off of welfare is really saying "don't pay those lazy blacks!" etc. The implication is that only the racists understand the subtext, as a dog can hear a inaudible (to human ears) dog whistle.
Of course, not mentioned is the fact that the dog whistle works both ways.
Considering how much higher black crime rates are than white crime rates, isn't is possible htat the anti-racist (I'm not saying "black," because I am not convinced that most blacks are unhappy with tough on crime policies, as they disproportionately live in neighborhoods where they will be victimized) who is against being "tough on crime" is really saying, in coded langauge, "blacks should be able to commit crime because our society is racist!" Or that the person advocating against reduced welfare benefits and for higher taxes is really saying "we want to take other peoples' money!"
Funny how no one complaining about dog whistles ever thinks of that.
That is all.
There has been a lot of talk lately about "dog whistle politics" where denotatively race-neutral terms such as "welfare queen" or "tough on crime" are supposedly connotative "dog whistles" whose desired effect is to play on white racism.
Supposedly, someone who claims to be "tough on crime" really is really saying "lock those uppity blacks up!" Someone who says he wants to reduce taxes and talks about getting people off of welfare is really saying "don't pay those lazy blacks!" etc. The implication is that only the racists understand the subtext, as a dog can hear a inaudible (to human ears) dog whistle.
Of course, not mentioned is the fact that the dog whistle works both ways.
Considering how much higher black crime rates are than white crime rates, isn't is possible htat the anti-racist (I'm not saying "black," because I am not convinced that most blacks are unhappy with tough on crime policies, as they disproportionately live in neighborhoods where they will be victimized) who is against being "tough on crime" is really saying, in coded langauge, "blacks should be able to commit crime because our society is racist!" Or that the person advocating against reduced welfare benefits and for higher taxes is really saying "we want to take other peoples' money!"
Funny how no one complaining about dog whistles ever thinks of that.
That is all.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
"And I forgot the next verse Oh well, I guess it pays to rehearse"
Ai yi yi.
Roberts, what were you thinking? Did you need cue cards?
And Obama, why the Hell didn't you rehearse this with Roberts beforehand?
Source of the title of this post.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Roberts, what were you thinking? Did you need cue cards?
And Obama, why the Hell didn't you rehearse this with Roberts beforehand?
Source of the title of this post.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Interesting Article
[I started this back in November and never bothered to finish it until now].
WARNING: LANGUAGE
While looking up a link on the gay mariage debate at Lawrence Auster's site, I found a link to a very interesting article, that, in my opinion, reveals the big problem with the same-sex "marriage" debate.
Written by the (apparently female) Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, "No on 8 wasn't no on hate" accuses same-sex marriage supporters of "homophobia" because their ideas about marriage are apparently too hetero-ish.
If we take a look at the failed No on 8 campaign, we can see the usual "we're just like you" charade, and it seems to me that this whole gay marriage effort already cedes the battlefield to the homophobes. Accept us on your terms, without making any structural changes except for a copyedit in marriage documents, that's how this argument goes.
Translation: the goal here is not homosexual inclusion into the current institution of marriage. It is not about that sort of equality, about just being able to be like straight couples. No, the goal is not to be able to participate in the same structures as heterosexuals, or to help end discrimination against homosexuals who want their behavior to fit the norms associated with marriage; to behave as heterosexuals would but with members of the same sex. Uh-uh. The goal, rather, is to adapt the institution of marriage so that it will fit in with homosexual norms and behavior.
After ranting on for a time about how wrong it is for gays not to be dyed-in-the-wool leftists on all issues, she sarcastically pens:
No, we are not men lingering in toilets or alleys for a taste of cock, we are not women teasing with whips or turning tricks on the corner, we are not furious gender deviants or ferocious sexual perverts, we're just like you -- we tuck the children in at night and we wage war inside the home where no one else can see.
And guess what? I know it sounds awfully strange, but somehow this argument doesn't exactly challenge structural homophobia.
Translation: public sex should be considered a fundamental right, and it is homophobic to suggest that any sort of sexual restraint should be encouraged.
Are we going to continue protesting on the terms of the right-wingers, with signs like "God Supports Gay Marriage?" Could anything be worse?
Translation: belief in God is a tyrannical thing that must be fought against.
If you read the comments, it soon becomes clear that the goal for many of these people posting on the site is not to expand marriage to include gays, but to denigrate marriage totally as an oppressive institution.
Now granted, one could argue that these folks who feel this way generally do nto appear to be for gay marriage, and therefore their goals cannot be used as examples of the potential problems with expanding marriage to same-sex couples.
But the issue comes down to the fact that these opinions are of a piece with the idea that heterosexual marriage is inherently discriminatory. The expansion of marriage to same-sex couples will be followed by demands that marital norms be watered down to conform to gay norms, with increasing acceptability of open marriages, polyamorous marriages, etc.
The goal here is not mere legal equality. The goal is the complete deconstruction of society by those who are marginalized by it, and who, not seeing anything beyond themselves, wish to therefore destroy whatever they are unable to participate in, like a blind person who wishes to gouge out everyone's eyes so that he is on the same level with them.
The point is, same-sex marriage is being promoted with the idea that gays are just like everyone else. I do not think that this is true, nor do I think that the pretty little image we are supposed to have of John and Jack, the loving couple just like eeryone else on the street, is what we will be in for.
That is all.
WARNING: LANGUAGE
While looking up a link on the gay mariage debate at Lawrence Auster's site, I found a link to a very interesting article, that, in my opinion, reveals the big problem with the same-sex "marriage" debate.
Written by the (apparently female) Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, "No on 8 wasn't no on hate" accuses same-sex marriage supporters of "homophobia" because their ideas about marriage are apparently too hetero-ish.
If we take a look at the failed No on 8 campaign, we can see the usual "we're just like you" charade, and it seems to me that this whole gay marriage effort already cedes the battlefield to the homophobes. Accept us on your terms, without making any structural changes except for a copyedit in marriage documents, that's how this argument goes.
Translation: the goal here is not homosexual inclusion into the current institution of marriage. It is not about that sort of equality, about just being able to be like straight couples. No, the goal is not to be able to participate in the same structures as heterosexuals, or to help end discrimination against homosexuals who want their behavior to fit the norms associated with marriage; to behave as heterosexuals would but with members of the same sex. Uh-uh. The goal, rather, is to adapt the institution of marriage so that it will fit in with homosexual norms and behavior.
After ranting on for a time about how wrong it is for gays not to be dyed-in-the-wool leftists on all issues, she sarcastically pens:
No, we are not men lingering in toilets or alleys for a taste of cock, we are not women teasing with whips or turning tricks on the corner, we are not furious gender deviants or ferocious sexual perverts, we're just like you -- we tuck the children in at night and we wage war inside the home where no one else can see.
And guess what? I know it sounds awfully strange, but somehow this argument doesn't exactly challenge structural homophobia.
Translation: public sex should be considered a fundamental right, and it is homophobic to suggest that any sort of sexual restraint should be encouraged.
Are we going to continue protesting on the terms of the right-wingers, with signs like "God Supports Gay Marriage?" Could anything be worse?
Translation: belief in God is a tyrannical thing that must be fought against.
If you read the comments, it soon becomes clear that the goal for many of these people posting on the site is not to expand marriage to include gays, but to denigrate marriage totally as an oppressive institution.
Now granted, one could argue that these folks who feel this way generally do nto appear to be for gay marriage, and therefore their goals cannot be used as examples of the potential problems with expanding marriage to same-sex couples.
But the issue comes down to the fact that these opinions are of a piece with the idea that heterosexual marriage is inherently discriminatory. The expansion of marriage to same-sex couples will be followed by demands that marital norms be watered down to conform to gay norms, with increasing acceptability of open marriages, polyamorous marriages, etc.
The goal here is not mere legal equality. The goal is the complete deconstruction of society by those who are marginalized by it, and who, not seeing anything beyond themselves, wish to therefore destroy whatever they are unable to participate in, like a blind person who wishes to gouge out everyone's eyes so that he is on the same level with them.
The point is, same-sex marriage is being promoted with the idea that gays are just like everyone else. I do not think that this is true, nor do I think that the pretty little image we are supposed to have of John and Jack, the loving couple just like eeryone else on the street, is what we will be in for.
That is all.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Conservatism and Same-Sex Marriage
Andrew Sullivan:
Joe Carter recently argued that it was inconceivable that conservatives could support such a thing, or that a conservative case can be made for it. If that is true, then the British Tories are no longer conservative: [link in the original quote - G.]
What is interesting here is how Andrew Sullivan is implicitly taking the position that conservatism is about "which team you support" rather than principles. The connotation of his statement is that whatever British Tories support must be conservative, and so if they support same-sex marriage, it is ridiculous to consider the notion unconservative. That there is no truly conservative party in the U.K. (and increasingly we in the U.S. are in that situation) does not seem to him to even be a possibility worth taking seriously.
That is all.
Joe Carter recently argued that it was inconceivable that conservatives could support such a thing, or that a conservative case can be made for it. If that is true, then the British Tories are no longer conservative: [link in the original quote - G.]
What is interesting here is how Andrew Sullivan is implicitly taking the position that conservatism is about "which team you support" rather than principles. The connotation of his statement is that whatever British Tories support must be conservative, and so if they support same-sex marriage, it is ridiculous to consider the notion unconservative. That there is no truly conservative party in the U.K. (and increasingly we in the U.S. are in that situation) does not seem to him to even be a possibility worth taking seriously.
That is all.
Monday, December 22, 2008
A Request
Please consider giving your local Salvation army a large check.
If you have a local food bank that is taking food donations, try to buy some bulk something (make sure it is something they can take, which usually means something that doesn't ned refrigeration or special storage) to give to them. Bulk rice, pasta, etc. seem like good choices to me.
This is not just a season for giving, it is a year where need will be more acute than normal.
Good luck and God bless, I probably won't have another post until 2009 (i.e. for two weeks)...
That is all.
If you have a local food bank that is taking food donations, try to buy some bulk something (make sure it is something they can take, which usually means something that doesn't ned refrigeration or special storage) to give to them. Bulk rice, pasta, etc. seem like good choices to me.
This is not just a season for giving, it is a year where need will be more acute than normal.
Good luck and God bless, I probably won't have another post until 2009 (i.e. for two weeks)...
That is all.
Write-in Totals in Maine
Sorry, it slipped my mind to post this earlier:
Bob Barr: 251
Chuck Baldwin: 177
Jonathan Allen: 3
More at Ballot Access News.
That is all.
Bob Barr: 251
Chuck Baldwin: 177
Jonathan Allen: 3
More at Ballot Access News.
That is all.
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas, but I think I'll miss this one this year...
The story of a new Christmas classic.
That is all.
The story of a new Christmas classic.
That is all.
Feelings toward South Africa
Fine. The land belongs to black South Africans. Let them have it.
The farming ability apparently belongs to the white South Africans. Let them have it. And let them eat whatever they can get from it.
If the people who now own the land can't farm it profitably - well, screw them.
Let them come begging the former farmers for their expertise. No aid from us, no loans from us, nothing.
That is all.
The farming ability apparently belongs to the white South Africans. Let them have it. And let them eat whatever they can get from it.
If the people who now own the land can't farm it profitably - well, screw them.
Let them come begging the former farmers for their expertise. No aid from us, no loans from us, nothing.
That is all.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Sorry About Lack of Posting
I've been away for Thanksgiving week and I've been sick for the week after.
That is all.
That is all.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Rare Personal Blog Post
Tuesday I will turn 30.
The day before, I will be having a colonoscopy.
My brother ( in his mid-40s) was diagnosed with colon cancer earlier this year, and subjected to surgery and chemotherapy (which seem to have worked). As a result, I am on the list of people who need to have colonoscopies earlier than is usually recommended.
Obvious, I am less than enthusiastic about Monday.
That is all.
The day before, I will be having a colonoscopy.
My brother ( in his mid-40s) was diagnosed with colon cancer earlier this year, and subjected to surgery and chemotherapy (which seem to have worked). As a result, I am on the list of people who need to have colonoscopies earlier than is usually recommended.
Obvious, I am less than enthusiastic about Monday.
That is all.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Baldwin/Castle Vote 2008
Here is the current percentages by state for Baldwin/Castle, not yet counting write-in votes. (Note: "No Access" means candidate was not qualified even as a write-in).
Data from The Denver Post.
That is all.
Data from The Denver Post.
That is all.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Ballot Reforms that Maine Needs to Pass
Having encountered Maine's third party ballot access process, I have come to the conclusion that it needs reform. I have come up with 3 major reforms (I may add more later) that need to be undertaken. Maine legislators are just now thinking about what issues to bring to the table, so it is a good time to try to get new initiatives past.
Please read the following blogpost, and, if you agree and you live in Maine, contact your two legislators* (or, if a non-incumbent was elected, your legislators-elect), and ask them to sponsor or vote for the following:
(1) If someone is going to run as a ballot-qualified (i.e. not a write-in) independent in Maine (this includes running in a non-qualified party), they must not have ben enrolled in a qualified party since March 1 of that year. This requirement needs to be removed for those who are running as Presidential electors, as they are essentially just stand-ins for the nominee.
(2) Using stickers to identify a write-in is only allowed in primary elections. It should also be allowed in general elections. If this is a technical problem, a solution should be found.
(3) When the person circulating a petition does not witness a person siging it, only the unwitnessed signatures should be stricken, not the entire petition.
(4) Finally, there ought to be only one deadline for applying for candidacy, and that is hte later, Secretary of State deadline. There should not be an earlier deadline to get the votes approved by the town clerks. Instead, there should be a requirement that town clerks certify all signatures brought to them one week or more prior to the Secretary of State deadline, and they should be allowed to use their discretion after that time.
If you would like to add anything to the list, please tell me so in the comments and I wil consider adding it.
That is all.
* One in the Maine House and one in the Maine Senate.
Please read the following blogpost, and, if you agree and you live in Maine, contact your two legislators* (or, if a non-incumbent was elected, your legislators-elect), and ask them to sponsor or vote for the following:
(1) If someone is going to run as a ballot-qualified (i.e. not a write-in) independent in Maine (this includes running in a non-qualified party), they must not have ben enrolled in a qualified party since March 1 of that year. This requirement needs to be removed for those who are running as Presidential electors, as they are essentially just stand-ins for the nominee.
(2) Using stickers to identify a write-in is only allowed in primary elections. It should also be allowed in general elections. If this is a technical problem, a solution should be found.
(3) When the person circulating a petition does not witness a person siging it, only the unwitnessed signatures should be stricken, not the entire petition.
(4) Finally, there ought to be only one deadline for applying for candidacy, and that is hte later, Secretary of State deadline. There should not be an earlier deadline to get the votes approved by the town clerks. Instead, there should be a requirement that town clerks certify all signatures brought to them one week or more prior to the Secretary of State deadline, and they should be allowed to use their discretion after that time.
If you would like to add anything to the list, please tell me so in the comments and I wil consider adding it.
That is all.
* One in the Maine House and one in the Maine Senate.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Rahm ISRAEL Emanuel
The White House Chief of Staff is going to be Rahm ISRAEL Emanuel.
I wonder if anyone is going to emphasize his middle name the way they emphasized Obama's...
Hmm...
Note: I'm not actually suggesting anything about Rahm Emanuel. I'm making fun of some people's need to emphasize Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
That is all.
I wonder if anyone is going to emphasize his middle name the way they emphasized Obama's...
Hmm...
Note: I'm not actually suggesting anything about Rahm Emanuel. I'm making fun of some people's need to emphasize Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
That is all.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
McCain Probably Really Won
Update: In case you didn't get it, this post is a joke.
As we all know, the so-called election results are always more favorable to Democrats than the real results. I'm sure that any time now we'll find out that McCain really won and that the people counting the ballots just overestimated young person turnout.
That is all.
As we all know, the so-called election results are always more favorable to Democrats than the real results. I'm sure that any time now we'll find out that McCain really won and that the people counting the ballots just overestimated young person turnout.
That is all.
Maine "Results" a Lie
Looking at the Maine "results", one can clearly tell that non-votes and write-ins are not being counted as part of the total, which is blatantly dishonest. The percentages for the on-ballot candidates in each race add up to 100%, which would not be possible if any of the ballots are left unmarked or as write-ins. I'm not asking that the write-in vote be tabulated, just that all ballots that were not marked for a candidate be counted in the totals, whether as "other" or by being left out but with the total votes taken as a percentage of all ballots, not as a percentage of non-write-in marked ballots.
That is all.
That is all.
Poking Fun at Dondero
In case Eric Dondero deletes it from his blog, here is my comment regarding his despair over Obama's victory:
Cheer up Dondero. There is a silver lining to the McCain loss.
Palin may be so depressed over this that you finally have a chance at nailing her, which is, in the end, all what you based your endorsement of McCain on.
That is all.
Cheer up Dondero. There is a silver lining to the McCain loss.
Palin may be so depressed over this that you finally have a chance at nailing her, which is, in the end, all what you based your endorsement of McCain on.
That is all.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Another Debate
Baldwin, Barr, and Nader.
Details on any coverage of this debate will be provided as they come in.
That is all.
Details on any coverage of this debate will be provided as they come in.
That is all.
NAACP Gets One Right, and Wins Case
Gets Pennsylvania to require paper ballots if more than half of voting machines at a precinct are broken.
While I'm not a person who believes that high voter turnout is a necessity (or indeed always a good thing) I don't see the need to make it unnecessarily difficult, which is what machine voting can be if too many machines break down.
That is all.
While I'm not a person who believes that high voter turnout is a necessity (or indeed always a good thing) I don't see the need to make it unnecessarily difficult, which is what machine voting can be if too many machines break down.
That is all.
An Interesting Experiment
After hearing of the skinhead plot to kill Obama, I can't help but think what an interesting experiment it would have been for Obama to have gone into hiding for a day or two and had it broadcast (falsely) on the news that he had been killed.
I would like to see how the various talking heads would have reacted to that news.
Of course, that would not be a practical experiment, because it would have likely led to a lot of civil unrest. But I would love to see the reactions of the intelligentsia.
That is all.
I would like to see how the various talking heads would have reacted to that news.
Of course, that would not be a practical experiment, because it would have likely led to a lot of civil unrest. But I would love to see the reactions of the intelligentsia.
That is all.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Glaivester's First Rule of Economics
Never follow the money. Follow the resources. Always when talking about money, ask yourself "what does this actually represent in terms of the distribution of resources?"
Avoid at all costs looking at a moneyed economy as having any irreducible emergent properties that do not exist in a barter economy. That is to say, any emergent properties in a moneyed economy should follow from a logical application of the principles of a barter economy.
That is all.
Avoid at all costs looking at a moneyed economy as having any irreducible emergent properties that do not exist in a barter economy. That is to say, any emergent properties in a moneyed economy should follow from a logical application of the principles of a barter economy.
That is all.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Barr Loses Ballot Access in Connecticut
Bitch judge Janet Hall says that the poor state cannot reprint all those ballots, so if bar was illegitimately left off, screw him.
You know they would never do this to a GOP or Democratic candidate.
IMPEACH THE BITCH.
STRIP CONNECTICUT OF ITS ELECTORAL VOTES.
That is all.
You know they would never do this to a GOP or Democratic candidate.
IMPEACH THE BITCH.
STRIP CONNECTICUT OF ITS ELECTORAL VOTES.
That is all.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Nader/Baldwin Debate on October 23
A Presidential debate has been scheduled for Thursday, October 23. It is scheduled for 9 pm to 10:30 pm, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.
So far, Baldwin and Nader have agreed to come.
According to the article at Ballot Access News, C-SPAN may well cover this debate.
More on this as it develops and as ways of viewing the debate become known. (And I will report if it is cancelled for any reason).
That is all.
So far, Baldwin and Nader have agreed to come.
According to the article at Ballot Access News, C-SPAN may well cover this debate.
More on this as it develops and as ways of viewing the debate become known. (And I will report if it is cancelled for any reason).
That is all.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Krugman Doesn't Get It
After his recent win of a "Nobel" Prize in Economics (really the Bank of Sweden Prize), Paul Krugman has been lauded a bit by various (mostly liberal) pundits, and the supposed benefits of Keynesianism have been mentioned on several blogs, with the general import that Krugman and Keynes could solve our current woes. (Because Friedmanite economics was a large component of how we got into the mess, and Keynesian and Friedmanism are supposedly the only two schools out there).
Sigh, sigh, sigh.
To show that this is wrong, let's look at a discussion of the merits of Keynesianism vs. Austrianism. On the LewRockwell Blog, there was a discussion of an article that Krugman wrote back in 1998, attacking the Austrian School. First there was a link to the original Krugman article, and following it were links to refuting articles published by people from the Mises Institute (the links were added to the original linking post).
The refuting article are here, here, and here.
While the refutations are okay, I don't think that any of them provide a good, easy-to-understand point-by-point refutation of Krugman's statements (although some of them refute a few of his points, and they all seem to explain Austrian Theory, they do not provide a comprehensive explanation of how his entire view of the Austrian Theory of the business cycle is wrong). So here is my attempt to explain where Krugman's article went wrong.
Firstly, when discussing the "hangover theory," he acts as if this theory is separable from one's general theory of economics, and that one can critique the "hangover theory" in general without using one's overall economic theory as a context.
In any case, he goes on to say:
The many variants of the hangover theory all go something like this: In the beginning, an investment boom gets out of hand. Maybe excessive money creation or reckless bank lending drives it, maybe it is simply a matter of irrational exuberance on the part of entrepreneurs. Whatever the reason,
Here is the first mistake he makes (David Gordon also noted this). He assumes that the reason for the investment boom getting out of hand is irrelevant. Actually, it is very relevant, because any "hangover theory" needs to explain how so many sectors of the economy go bad at once. Without a specific reason (and one with more explanatory power than "irrational exuberance" which essentially is throwing one's hands up), one can describe but not explain the phenomenon.
The reason for the boom-bust cycle, according to the Austrian Theory, is credit that is not supported by savings. This causes people to assume that there are more resources than actually exist, and to attempt to invest in projects which require more resources than are available to complete.
...all that investment leads to the creation of too much capacity—of factories that cannot find markets, of office buildings that cannot find tenants. Since construction projects take time to complete, however, the boom can proceed for a while before its unsoundness becomes apparent.
Uh - no. Not according to the Austrian Theory, at least. In fact, this sounds suspiciously like the Keynesian "acceleration principle," a subset of "underconsumption" theory. According to this theory, production of some durable good or service rises due to a sudden increase in demand, and then falls as that demand is satisfied. For example, there is a sudden demand for a 50% increase in compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs). Then, because all of the extra bulbs will not burn out for 5 years, demand suddenly drops back to where it was before the increase, resulting in a glut of CFLs, and pushing the CFL-producing company to the edge of bankrupcy. (This is a flawed theory, largely because it assumes that the CFL makers (for example) cannot adapt their production and prices to anticipate future needs).
In any case, the flaw in this statement is the concept of "too much capacity," which is a fancy way of saying that too many goods were produced to meet the demand. While this can happen in certain industries, it seems unlikely to hapen in several economic sectors at once, and moreover, if there is actual overall "overproduction," demand will almost certainly grow to meet it.
The real problem, in any case, is not the overproduction of goods in general. It actually consists of one or both of two things:
(1) More projects started than can be completed using the resources currently available.
(2) Overproduction of one good or service, financed by underproducing another good or service, particularly if the underproduced good or service is complementary to the first.
Either of these things can (and is) often be referred to as "overinvestment," but are better referred to as "malinvestment." This is because the problem is not so much that too many resources were invested as it is that too many of the resources were invested at certain stages or certain parts of the venture, to the detriment of other stages or parts. In other words, it's not that too much was invested, but that the investment was unbalanced. We will refer to the cases above as the first and second types of malinvestment.
Let us take the two cases Krugman gives us, factories that cannot find markets and offices that cannot find tenants, and explain what Krugman thinks the problem is and what it really is.
In the case of the factory, Krugman seems to be indicating that the factory is producing more goods than consumers can consume, presumably due to a lack of purchasing power (too little money).
According to the Austrian Theory, the problem is not a factory without customers, but a factory that is unable to be completed or to scrounge up the resources to produce the goods it is designed for. Under the first type of malinvestment, the problem could be that the factory was made too big, bigger than the amount of resources that would be available to create it. So halfway through the construction, the price of labor and materials to complete the factory soars. Alternately, if the price is fixed by government fiat or by a previous agreement with the supplier, the supplier may find that he cannot produce enough to meet the demand and there is a shortage. Under the second type of malinvestment, the problem might be that the building of the factory depleted resources that were needed for the factory to perform its function. Because such a big factory was made, twice as many construction workers wre hired than would have been hired with a smaller factory. Because of this, the people producing the raw materials that the factory was going to buy cannot build their mines/refineries/wells/synthesis plants, etc, or cannot build them big enough to provide the big factory with the raw materials it needs.
In the case of the ofice building, Krugman posits that it cannot find tenants (again, presumably because they do not have the money to pay for the offices).
According to the Austrian Theory, the first type of malinvestment would be that the person who would own the building decides to put up two builidings instead of one, due to the cheap credit available. The problem again could be that there are not enough resources, and when he is halfway through, the price to complete the building soars, or material shortages postpone its completion. The second type of malinvestment might be that the buildings are both completed, but because there were not enough people looking for energy resources or building refineries/wells/mines/processing facilities, there is an oil/coal/uranium shortage and it becomes cost-prohibitive to heat both buildings in the winter to the extent necessary for working in the building to become feasible (or maybe it is cost-prohibitive to light the buildings and to provide the energy for computer use).
Since construction projects take time to complete, however, the boom can proceed for a while before its unsoundness becomes apparent.
Krugman is implying that the boom is driven by the consumption inherent in completing a business project, and that the bust occurs when the project is finished and consumption ends. Actually, the boom occurs at all because there are savings in the economy, and that as long as there are savings, the boom can last by people eating their savings. There are enough resources to complete some part of all of the projects. It's just that at some point before the projects are completed, there will not be enough savings left to complete all of them.
Eventually, however, reality strikes—investors go bust and investment spending collapses. The result is a slump whose depth is in proportion to the previous excesses. Moreover, that slump is part of the necessary healing process: The excess capacity gets worked off, prices and wages fall from their excessive boom levels, and only then is the economy ready to recover.
Actually, what happens is that the market (by which I mean the collective results of various individual transactions) has to prioritize which projects will get the limited resources available so that they can be completed, and which ones have to end in order to free those resources up. The slump is necessary because the projects which are not prioritized will fail. Trying to save all of the projects will result in even fewer resources exisiting, with the result that while more projects will get closer to completion, more will eventually have to give up. Earlie liquidation is preferable, because it is better for 50% of the projects to fail 50% of the way to completion than for 75% of the projects to fail 75% of the way to completion.
And the issue is not simply failed new investments. If resources are frittered away on unsuccessful project, that also reduces the supply of resources needed to maintain existing production facilities. Perhaps an oil shortage makes it more expensive for a 50-year-old plastics company to keep producing plastics at the rate it did a year ago. Perhaps expensive electricity puts a baker out of business.
In any case, Paul Krugman writes:
But let's ask a seemingly silly question: Why should the ups and downs of investment demand lead to ups and downs in the economy as a whole? Don't say that it's obvious—although investment cycles clearly are associated with economywide recessions and recoveries in practice, a theory is supposed to explain observed correlations, not just assume them.
The question is not silly so much as nonsensical. The problem is not "investment demand." It is "investment supply," the pool of goods available to finance investment. The problem is not that "demand for investment" has dropped, it is that there are not enough resources to make the investments necessary to increase production, or even to maintain production.
As a matter of simple arithmetic, total spending in the economy is necessarily equal to total income (every sale is also a purchase, and vice versa). So if people decide to spend less on investment goods, doesn't that mean that they must be deciding to spend more on consumption goods—implying that an investment slump should always be accompanied by a corresponding consumption boom?
The fatal flaw in Krugman's story here is the assumption that total spending must remain constant. So if less is spent on investment, that surplus spending must go to consumption. The problem is that at the end of the boom there are simply fewer resources overall - if overall spending goes down, then less can be spent on both consumption and investment. If you define spending in terms of money rather than resources (e.g. actual dollars as opposed to "inflation-adjusted dollars,") then, as David Gordon points out, it is possible to have an increase in spending on consumption at the end of the boom, but that increase indicates higher prices rather than greater consumption. Alternately, there can be a decrease in dollar spending as well as in resource spending, in which case there is a "money contraction," i.e. credit-created dollars are simply destroyed.
It appears here that Krugman is not aware of the realtionship between investment and production, and therefore between investment and consumption. In the real world, investment in capital goods (e.g. factories and other productive technologies) allows for the production of consumer goods, which then allow for consumption. In Krugman's world, the consumption of goods drives their production, and investment is some totally unrelated phenomenon. Now, on a micro-scale it is certainly true that consumption drives production in the sense that when consumption of a good increases, people will tend to try to redeploy resources to produce more of that good. But this means producing less of something else; for overall production in an economy to increase, more must be invested in creating the means of production.
So Krugman finally gives us his explanation:
A recession happens when, for whatever reason, a large part of the private sector tries to increase its cash reserves at the same time.
There are at least two problems here. For one thing, Krugman doesn't give us any explanation as to why everyone's preferences change at the same time and in the same direction, instead using the hand-waving phrase "for whatever reason." Secondly, he sems to misunderstand what "cash reserves" are all about, as if it involves cash just sitting around idle.
Many Keynesians (and Friedmanites seem to look at savings and investment as two separate entities, when in reality they are two sides of the same coin. Savings goes into investment; when you put money in the bank, it doesn't stay there, the bank invests it by loaning it out. And personal investments, such as the stock market, are financed by money that you have not consumed somewhere else. Increasing one's cash reserves involves putting more money in the bank which then has more money to lend. Certainly if more people who have mortgages now were to start paying off more of the principle, it would give banks more cash on hand to use to fund credit in markets where it is drying up.
The point is, if people want to hold more cash, the economy will adjust to that.
In any case, misdiagnosing the problem, Krugman has a ridiculous solution:
For if the problem is that collectively people want to hold more money than there is in circulation, why not simply increase the supply of money?
But if the problem is, as we Austrians argue, that there are too-many partially finished projects and not enough resources to complete all of them, won't this just encourage people to keep on trucking, using more of the depleted resources to continue funding projects that are doomed to failure?
You may tell me that it's not that simple, that during the previous boom businessmen made bad investments and banks made bad loans. Well, fine. Junk the bad investments and write off the bad loans. Why should this require that perfectly good productive capacity be left idle?
Krugman makes several mistakes here:
(1) He assumes that we can distinguish good and bad investments and loans easily (indeed that the problem is always that individual investments are bad). This also in an incomplete picture of what goes on in a recession. "Bad loans" are often bad only in context. It is not just that there are obvious good and bad projects, but that sometimes there are too many projects for all of them to be completed. It is not always easy to tell which investments should survive and which should not, and if the problem is merely a lack of resources to complete all of the investments then sometimes the choice will be arbitrary.
(2) He assumes that we can simply "junk" the bad investments and loans at will, and that expanding the money supply will in no way hamper us from doing so. In reality, an increase in credit will allow "bad investments" to be financed for longer, eating up more resources that could have been used productively. A credit crunch is how bad investments get junked, unless he wants some government manager to announce by edict who will no longer receive loans.
(3) He assumes that we have idle productive capacity, in the sense that there are factories with all the ingredients to make product that are idle for no reason. In reality, much of the productive capacity has been squandered, and we do not have the resources to produce until the economy has re-equilibrated, bad investments have been liquidated, and resources have been diverted to more productive uses.
The hangover theory, then, turns out to be intellectually incoherent; nobody has managed to explain why bad investments in the past require the unemployment of good workers in the present.
The reason is that the distorted economy does not have a place for everyone until the distortions are corrected. If there is a construction boom, followed by a bust when it is revealed that there are not enough resources to finsih all the buildings or to make all of them livable, huge numbers of construction workers will become unemployed because there is no need for more construction at this time. Perhaps some of them, freed from (currently) unproductive construction, will go into fields that need more workers, such as mining, lumbering, or the production of synthetic materials. Unfortunately, it may take time to get these increase the productive capacity of these industries enough to absorb the unemployed construction workers. Of course, eventually, if the productive capacity of these insdustries increases enough, a large number of the construction workers can go back to construction, as the resources now exist to make such a job productive.
Why must there be unemployment at all? Why cannot everyone just change to a more productive job?
Several reasons:
(1) Certain jobs require that certain capacities be online before they can be had. Most well-paying jobs require infrastructure. That infrastructure may not exist, and the economy take time to produce it. In the meantime, displaced workers may need to either be unemployed or to take menial jobs to hold them over, with a reduction in pay.
(2) Workers have certain specialties which are not always easily translatable. If there is a huge excess of computer hardware designers, yet the current economy needs more miners to extract the rare-earth metals to build computers, it is not likely that the designers wil be able to simply transfer to mining.
(3) It takes time for the market to determine which investments are bad and to transfer resources over the good ones, or for the market to determine which of the many potentially good investments is most worth saving when not all of them can be funded.
In any case, unemployment due to malinvestment need only take a short time, if the economy is allowed to correct itself and if liquidation is allowed to proceed, because more productive uses are found for workers who are displaced by the end of the boom.
Which brings us to the fourth reason why not everyone can simply transfer to a better job:
(4) The government is manipulating the credit market to keep all of the malinvestments solvent, and thus reducing the amount of resources available for productive investment. This keeps workers working at jobs that are not productive, and that increasingly squander valuable resources. It also prevents those who are displaced from finding productive work because the squandered resources are not available to build the infrastructure that they need to do the work.
Krugman (earlier in the piece) dismisses this idea as:
The best that von Hayek or Schumpeter could come up with was the vague suggestion that unemployment was a frictional problem created as the economy transferred workers from a bloated investment goods sector back to the production of consumer goods.
Actually, it is a frictional problem created as the economy gets rid of unproductive jobs but has not yet created the more productive jobs that will replace them. The creation of productive jobs can be seen as a "booting" problem, much like computers need time to boot up after a restart. Unforunately, if the government intervenes to save the unproductive jobs, it makes it harder to use resources to create the more productive jobs, and make the period of adjustment longer.
The rest of the piece is about using Asia as a historical example. I don't know enough about the specific history, so I won't go into it right now.
So, what are we to make of Krugman's statement that recessions can and should be avoided by prolonging the boom?
What would happen if we did that?
What would happen would be fairly simple. If we discourage savings and encourage people to keep investing more in a time of great malinvestment, we will get more and more of our diminishing pool of resources going to unproductive uses. This will make the coming recession worse and worse. But what if we just keep pumping in money to keep the bubble going? Can't we simply put off the recession indefinitely?
No, because at a certain point all of our saved resources are gone. At this point, we are faced with two possibilities. Stop pumping in money and get a deflationary recession (credit contraction). Alternately, we could try to keep the boom going with more money creation, but without additional saved resources to buy with the money, all we will accomplish is for prices to skyrocket. This is known as hyperinflation, and the economy will contract whether the supply of money and credit contracts or not.
So in short, Krugman is all wet, and his Keynesian Theory ought to be taken about as seriously as the "phlogiston theory of fire," as he says of the Austrian Theory.
That is all.
Sigh, sigh, sigh.
To show that this is wrong, let's look at a discussion of the merits of Keynesianism vs. Austrianism. On the LewRockwell Blog, there was a discussion of an article that Krugman wrote back in 1998, attacking the Austrian School. First there was a link to the original Krugman article, and following it were links to refuting articles published by people from the Mises Institute (the links were added to the original linking post).
The refuting article are here, here, and here.
While the refutations are okay, I don't think that any of them provide a good, easy-to-understand point-by-point refutation of Krugman's statements (although some of them refute a few of his points, and they all seem to explain Austrian Theory, they do not provide a comprehensive explanation of how his entire view of the Austrian Theory of the business cycle is wrong). So here is my attempt to explain where Krugman's article went wrong.
Firstly, when discussing the "hangover theory," he acts as if this theory is separable from one's general theory of economics, and that one can critique the "hangover theory" in general without using one's overall economic theory as a context.
In any case, he goes on to say:
The many variants of the hangover theory all go something like this: In the beginning, an investment boom gets out of hand. Maybe excessive money creation or reckless bank lending drives it, maybe it is simply a matter of irrational exuberance on the part of entrepreneurs. Whatever the reason,
Here is the first mistake he makes (David Gordon also noted this). He assumes that the reason for the investment boom getting out of hand is irrelevant. Actually, it is very relevant, because any "hangover theory" needs to explain how so many sectors of the economy go bad at once. Without a specific reason (and one with more explanatory power than "irrational exuberance" which essentially is throwing one's hands up), one can describe but not explain the phenomenon.
The reason for the boom-bust cycle, according to the Austrian Theory, is credit that is not supported by savings. This causes people to assume that there are more resources than actually exist, and to attempt to invest in projects which require more resources than are available to complete.
...all that investment leads to the creation of too much capacity—of factories that cannot find markets, of office buildings that cannot find tenants. Since construction projects take time to complete, however, the boom can proceed for a while before its unsoundness becomes apparent.
Uh - no. Not according to the Austrian Theory, at least. In fact, this sounds suspiciously like the Keynesian "acceleration principle," a subset of "underconsumption" theory. According to this theory, production of some durable good or service rises due to a sudden increase in demand, and then falls as that demand is satisfied. For example, there is a sudden demand for a 50% increase in compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs). Then, because all of the extra bulbs will not burn out for 5 years, demand suddenly drops back to where it was before the increase, resulting in a glut of CFLs, and pushing the CFL-producing company to the edge of bankrupcy. (This is a flawed theory, largely because it assumes that the CFL makers (for example) cannot adapt their production and prices to anticipate future needs).
In any case, the flaw in this statement is the concept of "too much capacity," which is a fancy way of saying that too many goods were produced to meet the demand. While this can happen in certain industries, it seems unlikely to hapen in several economic sectors at once, and moreover, if there is actual overall "overproduction," demand will almost certainly grow to meet it.
The real problem, in any case, is not the overproduction of goods in general. It actually consists of one or both of two things:
(1) More projects started than can be completed using the resources currently available.
(2) Overproduction of one good or service, financed by underproducing another good or service, particularly if the underproduced good or service is complementary to the first.
Either of these things can (and is) often be referred to as "overinvestment," but are better referred to as "malinvestment." This is because the problem is not so much that too many resources were invested as it is that too many of the resources were invested at certain stages or certain parts of the venture, to the detriment of other stages or parts. In other words, it's not that too much was invested, but that the investment was unbalanced. We will refer to the cases above as the first and second types of malinvestment.
Let us take the two cases Krugman gives us, factories that cannot find markets and offices that cannot find tenants, and explain what Krugman thinks the problem is and what it really is.
In the case of the factory, Krugman seems to be indicating that the factory is producing more goods than consumers can consume, presumably due to a lack of purchasing power (too little money).
According to the Austrian Theory, the problem is not a factory without customers, but a factory that is unable to be completed or to scrounge up the resources to produce the goods it is designed for. Under the first type of malinvestment, the problem could be that the factory was made too big, bigger than the amount of resources that would be available to create it. So halfway through the construction, the price of labor and materials to complete the factory soars. Alternately, if the price is fixed by government fiat or by a previous agreement with the supplier, the supplier may find that he cannot produce enough to meet the demand and there is a shortage. Under the second type of malinvestment, the problem might be that the building of the factory depleted resources that were needed for the factory to perform its function. Because such a big factory was made, twice as many construction workers wre hired than would have been hired with a smaller factory. Because of this, the people producing the raw materials that the factory was going to buy cannot build their mines/refineries/wells/synthesis plants, etc, or cannot build them big enough to provide the big factory with the raw materials it needs.
In the case of the ofice building, Krugman posits that it cannot find tenants (again, presumably because they do not have the money to pay for the offices).
According to the Austrian Theory, the first type of malinvestment would be that the person who would own the building decides to put up two builidings instead of one, due to the cheap credit available. The problem again could be that there are not enough resources, and when he is halfway through, the price to complete the building soars, or material shortages postpone its completion. The second type of malinvestment might be that the buildings are both completed, but because there were not enough people looking for energy resources or building refineries/wells/mines/processing facilities, there is an oil/coal/uranium shortage and it becomes cost-prohibitive to heat both buildings in the winter to the extent necessary for working in the building to become feasible (or maybe it is cost-prohibitive to light the buildings and to provide the energy for computer use).
Since construction projects take time to complete, however, the boom can proceed for a while before its unsoundness becomes apparent.
Krugman is implying that the boom is driven by the consumption inherent in completing a business project, and that the bust occurs when the project is finished and consumption ends. Actually, the boom occurs at all because there are savings in the economy, and that as long as there are savings, the boom can last by people eating their savings. There are enough resources to complete some part of all of the projects. It's just that at some point before the projects are completed, there will not be enough savings left to complete all of them.
Eventually, however, reality strikes—investors go bust and investment spending collapses. The result is a slump whose depth is in proportion to the previous excesses. Moreover, that slump is part of the necessary healing process: The excess capacity gets worked off, prices and wages fall from their excessive boom levels, and only then is the economy ready to recover.
Actually, what happens is that the market (by which I mean the collective results of various individual transactions) has to prioritize which projects will get the limited resources available so that they can be completed, and which ones have to end in order to free those resources up. The slump is necessary because the projects which are not prioritized will fail. Trying to save all of the projects will result in even fewer resources exisiting, with the result that while more projects will get closer to completion, more will eventually have to give up. Earlie liquidation is preferable, because it is better for 50% of the projects to fail 50% of the way to completion than for 75% of the projects to fail 75% of the way to completion.
And the issue is not simply failed new investments. If resources are frittered away on unsuccessful project, that also reduces the supply of resources needed to maintain existing production facilities. Perhaps an oil shortage makes it more expensive for a 50-year-old plastics company to keep producing plastics at the rate it did a year ago. Perhaps expensive electricity puts a baker out of business.
In any case, Paul Krugman writes:
But let's ask a seemingly silly question: Why should the ups and downs of investment demand lead to ups and downs in the economy as a whole? Don't say that it's obvious—although investment cycles clearly are associated with economywide recessions and recoveries in practice, a theory is supposed to explain observed correlations, not just assume them.
The question is not silly so much as nonsensical. The problem is not "investment demand." It is "investment supply," the pool of goods available to finance investment. The problem is not that "demand for investment" has dropped, it is that there are not enough resources to make the investments necessary to increase production, or even to maintain production.
As a matter of simple arithmetic, total spending in the economy is necessarily equal to total income (every sale is also a purchase, and vice versa). So if people decide to spend less on investment goods, doesn't that mean that they must be deciding to spend more on consumption goods—implying that an investment slump should always be accompanied by a corresponding consumption boom?
The fatal flaw in Krugman's story here is the assumption that total spending must remain constant. So if less is spent on investment, that surplus spending must go to consumption. The problem is that at the end of the boom there are simply fewer resources overall - if overall spending goes down, then less can be spent on both consumption and investment. If you define spending in terms of money rather than resources (e.g. actual dollars as opposed to "inflation-adjusted dollars,") then, as David Gordon points out, it is possible to have an increase in spending on consumption at the end of the boom, but that increase indicates higher prices rather than greater consumption. Alternately, there can be a decrease in dollar spending as well as in resource spending, in which case there is a "money contraction," i.e. credit-created dollars are simply destroyed.
It appears here that Krugman is not aware of the realtionship between investment and production, and therefore between investment and consumption. In the real world, investment in capital goods (e.g. factories and other productive technologies) allows for the production of consumer goods, which then allow for consumption. In Krugman's world, the consumption of goods drives their production, and investment is some totally unrelated phenomenon. Now, on a micro-scale it is certainly true that consumption drives production in the sense that when consumption of a good increases, people will tend to try to redeploy resources to produce more of that good. But this means producing less of something else; for overall production in an economy to increase, more must be invested in creating the means of production.
So Krugman finally gives us his explanation:
A recession happens when, for whatever reason, a large part of the private sector tries to increase its cash reserves at the same time.
There are at least two problems here. For one thing, Krugman doesn't give us any explanation as to why everyone's preferences change at the same time and in the same direction, instead using the hand-waving phrase "for whatever reason." Secondly, he sems to misunderstand what "cash reserves" are all about, as if it involves cash just sitting around idle.
Many Keynesians (and Friedmanites seem to look at savings and investment as two separate entities, when in reality they are two sides of the same coin. Savings goes into investment; when you put money in the bank, it doesn't stay there, the bank invests it by loaning it out. And personal investments, such as the stock market, are financed by money that you have not consumed somewhere else. Increasing one's cash reserves involves putting more money in the bank which then has more money to lend. Certainly if more people who have mortgages now were to start paying off more of the principle, it would give banks more cash on hand to use to fund credit in markets where it is drying up.
The point is, if people want to hold more cash, the economy will adjust to that.
In any case, misdiagnosing the problem, Krugman has a ridiculous solution:
For if the problem is that collectively people want to hold more money than there is in circulation, why not simply increase the supply of money?
But if the problem is, as we Austrians argue, that there are too-many partially finished projects and not enough resources to complete all of them, won't this just encourage people to keep on trucking, using more of the depleted resources to continue funding projects that are doomed to failure?
You may tell me that it's not that simple, that during the previous boom businessmen made bad investments and banks made bad loans. Well, fine. Junk the bad investments and write off the bad loans. Why should this require that perfectly good productive capacity be left idle?
Krugman makes several mistakes here:
(1) He assumes that we can distinguish good and bad investments and loans easily (indeed that the problem is always that individual investments are bad). This also in an incomplete picture of what goes on in a recession. "Bad loans" are often bad only in context. It is not just that there are obvious good and bad projects, but that sometimes there are too many projects for all of them to be completed. It is not always easy to tell which investments should survive and which should not, and if the problem is merely a lack of resources to complete all of the investments then sometimes the choice will be arbitrary.
(2) He assumes that we can simply "junk" the bad investments and loans at will, and that expanding the money supply will in no way hamper us from doing so. In reality, an increase in credit will allow "bad investments" to be financed for longer, eating up more resources that could have been used productively. A credit crunch is how bad investments get junked, unless he wants some government manager to announce by edict who will no longer receive loans.
(3) He assumes that we have idle productive capacity, in the sense that there are factories with all the ingredients to make product that are idle for no reason. In reality, much of the productive capacity has been squandered, and we do not have the resources to produce until the economy has re-equilibrated, bad investments have been liquidated, and resources have been diverted to more productive uses.
The hangover theory, then, turns out to be intellectually incoherent; nobody has managed to explain why bad investments in the past require the unemployment of good workers in the present.
The reason is that the distorted economy does not have a place for everyone until the distortions are corrected. If there is a construction boom, followed by a bust when it is revealed that there are not enough resources to finsih all the buildings or to make all of them livable, huge numbers of construction workers will become unemployed because there is no need for more construction at this time. Perhaps some of them, freed from (currently) unproductive construction, will go into fields that need more workers, such as mining, lumbering, or the production of synthetic materials. Unfortunately, it may take time to get these increase the productive capacity of these industries enough to absorb the unemployed construction workers. Of course, eventually, if the productive capacity of these insdustries increases enough, a large number of the construction workers can go back to construction, as the resources now exist to make such a job productive.
Why must there be unemployment at all? Why cannot everyone just change to a more productive job?
Several reasons:
(1) Certain jobs require that certain capacities be online before they can be had. Most well-paying jobs require infrastructure. That infrastructure may not exist, and the economy take time to produce it. In the meantime, displaced workers may need to either be unemployed or to take menial jobs to hold them over, with a reduction in pay.
(2) Workers have certain specialties which are not always easily translatable. If there is a huge excess of computer hardware designers, yet the current economy needs more miners to extract the rare-earth metals to build computers, it is not likely that the designers wil be able to simply transfer to mining.
(3) It takes time for the market to determine which investments are bad and to transfer resources over the good ones, or for the market to determine which of the many potentially good investments is most worth saving when not all of them can be funded.
In any case, unemployment due to malinvestment need only take a short time, if the economy is allowed to correct itself and if liquidation is allowed to proceed, because more productive uses are found for workers who are displaced by the end of the boom.
Which brings us to the fourth reason why not everyone can simply transfer to a better job:
(4) The government is manipulating the credit market to keep all of the malinvestments solvent, and thus reducing the amount of resources available for productive investment. This keeps workers working at jobs that are not productive, and that increasingly squander valuable resources. It also prevents those who are displaced from finding productive work because the squandered resources are not available to build the infrastructure that they need to do the work.
Krugman (earlier in the piece) dismisses this idea as:
The best that von Hayek or Schumpeter could come up with was the vague suggestion that unemployment was a frictional problem created as the economy transferred workers from a bloated investment goods sector back to the production of consumer goods.
Actually, it is a frictional problem created as the economy gets rid of unproductive jobs but has not yet created the more productive jobs that will replace them. The creation of productive jobs can be seen as a "booting" problem, much like computers need time to boot up after a restart. Unforunately, if the government intervenes to save the unproductive jobs, it makes it harder to use resources to create the more productive jobs, and make the period of adjustment longer.
The rest of the piece is about using Asia as a historical example. I don't know enough about the specific history, so I won't go into it right now.
So, what are we to make of Krugman's statement that recessions can and should be avoided by prolonging the boom?
What would happen if we did that?
What would happen would be fairly simple. If we discourage savings and encourage people to keep investing more in a time of great malinvestment, we will get more and more of our diminishing pool of resources going to unproductive uses. This will make the coming recession worse and worse. But what if we just keep pumping in money to keep the bubble going? Can't we simply put off the recession indefinitely?
No, because at a certain point all of our saved resources are gone. At this point, we are faced with two possibilities. Stop pumping in money and get a deflationary recession (credit contraction). Alternately, we could try to keep the boom going with more money creation, but without additional saved resources to buy with the money, all we will accomplish is for prices to skyrocket. This is known as hyperinflation, and the economy will contract whether the supply of money and credit contracts or not.
So in short, Krugman is all wet, and his Keynesian Theory ought to be taken about as seriously as the "phlogiston theory of fire," as he says of the Austrian Theory.
That is all.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Thoughts on Palin
The strongest reason against voting for Palin for Vice President is her running mate.
That is all.
That is all.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thoughts on the Current Crisis, with Apologies to Kipling
In the late Bushian Epoch we were promised salvation for all,
By robbing collective Peter to bail out selected Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't save, you die."
That is all.
By robbing collective Peter to bail out selected Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't save, you die."
That is all.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Another Third Party Debate!
Update: Maybe this won't happen. I'll let you know as soon as I figure out what is going on.
Sunday, October 19, 2008.
McKinney, Nader, and Baldwin will be participating.
C-Span will broadcast this debate at some point (whether live or recorded has not yet been determined).
That is all.
Sunday, October 19, 2008.
McKinney, Nader, and Baldwin will be participating.
C-Span will broadcast this debate at some point (whether live or recorded has not yet been determined).
That is all.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
ThirdPartyTicket Moneybomb on Sunday (October 19)
(Note: Post originally said "Thursday Oct. 16" I either misread the date or it changed again).
Don't forget to pledge to donate!
That is all.
Don't forget to pledge to donate!
That is all.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Liberals' View of Conservatives' Rights
Note: Some recent htings have made me more hopeful (and more kindly disposed to the Alas, a Blog crowd on this front. I'll explain more later, too tired now.
This piece contains one very interesting line defending California's antidiscrimination regulations from accusations that they would result in schools usurping the moral authority of parents:
Also. This whole thing about forcing teachers to tell their students that homosexuality is okay? Please. The reasoning goes like this: since teachers sometimes talk about marriage in the classroom, teachers would theoretically be required to teach that same-sex marriage is just as good as hetero marriage. I actually wish that were the case [emphasis mine - G.], but no - the police aren’t going to break down the doors of classrooms in which teachers aren’t extolling same-sex marriage. It just isn’t going to happen.
Got it? It's not that tliberals do not want schoolsto become indoctrination centers where they are instructed in the correct moral views of homosexuality and gay marriage. We aren't supposed to worry about it because (supposedly) they lack the power to do it.
I'm reassured.
That is all.
This piece contains one very interesting line defending California's antidiscrimination regulations from accusations that they would result in schools usurping the moral authority of parents:
Also. This whole thing about forcing teachers to tell their students that homosexuality is okay? Please. The reasoning goes like this: since teachers sometimes talk about marriage in the classroom, teachers would theoretically be required to teach that same-sex marriage is just as good as hetero marriage. I actually wish that were the case [emphasis mine - G.], but no - the police aren’t going to break down the doors of classrooms in which teachers aren’t extolling same-sex marriage. It just isn’t going to happen.
Got it? It's not that tliberals do not want schoolsto become indoctrination centers where they are instructed in the correct moral views of homosexuality and gay marriage. We aren't supposed to worry about it because (supposedly) they lack the power to do it.
I'm reassured.
That is all.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Donating to Democrats
Note to Eric Dondero: Actually, I'm a little ticked off at Nader myself, due to his general reluctance to engage in debates that do not include the two major party candidates (I remember 2 of the 2000 debates between Hagelin, Phillips and Browne, Nader was nowhere to be seen). He is definitely a bit of a hypocrite on third party issues, particularly debates. Of course, the same holds true for Bob Barr.
If the Naderites behaved as you say, that is truly disgusting. On the other hand, based on some of the discussions at Ballot Access News, I am skeptical of your claims.
Update 2: I have given another $50.00.
Update: I have given $25.00.
I think I will be making a donation to the Bob Conley campaign.
Anything to get prissy little John McCain Jr. defeated in his quest for re-election to the Senate.
I am also considering giving to the Pennsylvania Democrats to spite the GOP for its attempt to get Bob Barr off the ballot, although they have been just as bad with Nader in the past.
That is all.
If the Naderites behaved as you say, that is truly disgusting. On the other hand, based on some of the discussions at Ballot Access News, I am skeptical of your claims.
Update 2: I have given another $50.00.
Update: I have given $25.00.
I think I will be making a donation to the Bob Conley campaign.
Anything to get prissy little John McCain Jr. defeated in his quest for re-election to the Senate.
I am also considering giving to the Pennsylvania Democrats to spite the GOP for its attempt to get Bob Barr off the ballot, although they have been just as bad with Nader in the past.
That is all.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Third Party Debate
9 pm Eastern, 8 Central, until Midnight eastern, 11pm Central on Revolution Broadcasting.
And don't forget to pledge to the the Third Party Ticket debate.
That is all.
And don't forget to pledge to the the Third Party Ticket debate.
That is all.
Baldwin 08 for Mac Users
Click here. and DO NOT click on "home."
If you want to go to Baldwin's website, use http://baldwin08.com/# rather than just http://baldwin08.com. This will get you past the video page, which for some reason links in a format that only works on Internet Explorer.
That is all.
If you want to go to Baldwin's website, use http://baldwin08.com/# rather than just http://baldwin08.com. This will get you past the video page, which for some reason links in a format that only works on Internet Explorer.
That is all.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Who Really Predicted the Mess? NOT MCCAIN.
(From the CFR transcript of the October 9 2007 Republican Presidential Nomination Debate):
(Click here to see the Youtube video).
MATTHEWS: OK.
Congressman Paul, I think you have questions and concerns about the bonanza in the hedge fund industry. Do you?
PAUL: Yes. I think this is not a consequence of free markets. What's happening is, there's transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.
PAUL: This comes about because of the monetary system that we have. When you inflate a currency or destroy a currency, the middle class gets wiped out.
So the people who get to use the money first which is created by the Federal Reserve system benefit. So the money gravitates to the banks and to Wall Street.
That's why you have more billionaires than ever before. Today, this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people. Michigan knows about it. Poor people know about it. The middle class knows about it. Wall Street doesn't know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn't know about it.
But it's because of the monetary system and the excessive spending. As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means.
And we have lived beyond our means because we are financing a foreign policy that is so extravagant and beyond what we can control, as well as the spending here at home.
And we're depending on the creation of money out of thin air, which is nothing more than debasement of the currency. It's counterfeit. And it is a natural, predictable consequence that you're going to have people benefit from it and other people suffer.
PAUL: So, if you want a healthy economy, you have to study monetary theory and figure out why it is that we're suffering. And everybody doesn't suffer equally, or this wouldn't be so bad.
It's always the poor people -- those who are on retired incomes -- that suffer the most. But the politicians and those who get to use the money first, like the military industrial complex, they make a lot of money and they benefit from it.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, Congressman.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Senator McCain, what about that? How are you going to win the middle class back?
Wall Street executives are making millions of dollars every year, paying tax rates of 15 percent, while the average guy out there is paying 30 percent in taxes.
Is this system fair?
MCCAIN: Everybody is paying taxes and wealth creates wealth. And the fact is that I would commend to your reading, Ron, "Wealth of Nations," because that's what this is all about.
Paul pointed out how rotten the current financial system was, and McCain basically suggested that he didn't know economics very well. He suggested that the hedge funds were doing well because of the free market, and that all of the wealth in the funds wa really being created, rather than being a monetary illusion.
And now I keep hearing - in particular from a recent Fox News special on the current economic problems - that John McCain is the voice in the wilderness because he noticed some problems with Fannie and Freddie? PLEASE.
This is as ridicuous as the claims that Bush was the hero who tried to prevent this - when he was at the forefront of the movement to eliminate down payments as an unfair barrier to home ownership.
That is all.
(Click here to see the Youtube video).
MATTHEWS: OK.
Congressman Paul, I think you have questions and concerns about the bonanza in the hedge fund industry. Do you?
PAUL: Yes. I think this is not a consequence of free markets. What's happening is, there's transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.
PAUL: This comes about because of the monetary system that we have. When you inflate a currency or destroy a currency, the middle class gets wiped out.
So the people who get to use the money first which is created by the Federal Reserve system benefit. So the money gravitates to the banks and to Wall Street.
That's why you have more billionaires than ever before. Today, this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people. Michigan knows about it. Poor people know about it. The middle class knows about it. Wall Street doesn't know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn't know about it.
But it's because of the monetary system and the excessive spending. As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means.
And we have lived beyond our means because we are financing a foreign policy that is so extravagant and beyond what we can control, as well as the spending here at home.
And we're depending on the creation of money out of thin air, which is nothing more than debasement of the currency. It's counterfeit. And it is a natural, predictable consequence that you're going to have people benefit from it and other people suffer.
PAUL: So, if you want a healthy economy, you have to study monetary theory and figure out why it is that we're suffering. And everybody doesn't suffer equally, or this wouldn't be so bad.
It's always the poor people -- those who are on retired incomes -- that suffer the most. But the politicians and those who get to use the money first, like the military industrial complex, they make a lot of money and they benefit from it.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, Congressman.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Senator McCain, what about that? How are you going to win the middle class back?
Wall Street executives are making millions of dollars every year, paying tax rates of 15 percent, while the average guy out there is paying 30 percent in taxes.
Is this system fair?
MCCAIN: Everybody is paying taxes and wealth creates wealth. And the fact is that I would commend to your reading, Ron, "Wealth of Nations," because that's what this is all about.
Paul pointed out how rotten the current financial system was, and McCain basically suggested that he didn't know economics very well. He suggested that the hedge funds were doing well because of the free market, and that all of the wealth in the funds wa really being created, rather than being a monetary illusion.
And now I keep hearing - in particular from a recent Fox News special on the current economic problems - that John McCain is the voice in the wilderness because he noticed some problems with Fannie and Freddie? PLEASE.
This is as ridicuous as the claims that Bush was the hero who tried to prevent this - when he was at the forefront of the movement to eliminate down payments as an unfair barrier to home ownership.
That is all.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Augustawell
Realistically, I probably will not be posting Augustawell strips anymore until after the election, at which point I will be able to find a good image hosting site. I am movong my images off of Flickr after discovering that Flickr does not want people to post anything but photos there. I moved to PicAttic, but that site is a piece of crap that supposedly allows hotlinking but who hotlinks don't actually work (they stopped working sometime in late August).
Google hosts images, but they only have 3 options for posting size, none of which are big enough for my comic.
So, I will try to get back to Augustawell when I have the time and energy to sort it out.
That is all.
Google hosts images, but they only have 3 options for posting size, none of which are big enough for my comic.
So, I will try to get back to Augustawell when I have the time and energy to sort it out.
That is all.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
We Didn't Lose $1.2 Trillion
I find it comical how people are talking about the market "losing $1.2 trillion" because the bailout failed. There are even some who are suggesting that we lost more money than the $700 billion we would have spent on the bailout. (Note: There was a specific comment on Yglesias' blog that I intended to link to, but I can't find it anymore).
Newsflash: $1.2 trillion of assets was not destroyed in any meaningful sense. No houses blew up, no food suddenly went "poof!" Nothing was destroyed. What happened is that some people suddenly found that the nominal value of their houses, investments, etc. went down.
In other words, the loss was on paper - and it probably consisted of a loss of value that wasn't real anyway, that is to say that the assets were overpriced.
What is happening here is simply a realignment of the relative value of goods and of who the wealth belongs to - an overdue re-alignment, in my opinion.
That is all.
Newsflash: $1.2 trillion of assets was not destroyed in any meaningful sense. No houses blew up, no food suddenly went "poof!" Nothing was destroyed. What happened is that some people suddenly found that the nominal value of their houses, investments, etc. went down.
In other words, the loss was on paper - and it probably consisted of a loss of value that wasn't real anyway, that is to say that the assets were overpriced.
What is happening here is simply a realignment of the relative value of goods and of who the wealth belongs to - an overdue re-alignment, in my opinion.
That is all.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
More Good News
E-Verify has been continued until March 6 2009, ending the current crisis, although it would be nice to re-authorize it rather than just extend it with a continuing resolution.
Chuck Baldwin will be on an internet-broadcast third party debate on October 9 from 8-11 pm central time (9-12 EST). This will be broadcast on Revolution Broadcasting.
That is all.
Chuck Baldwin will be on an internet-broadcast third party debate on October 9 from 8-11 pm central time (9-12 EST). This will be broadcast on Revolution Broadcasting.
That is all.
Stephen Bainbridge is a Lying Piece of Fecal Matter
After Stephen Bainbridge wrote this, (referenced by Matt Yglesias), I wrote something along the lines of:
Baindbridge's argument is that blacks were not given subprime loans too easily, because their share of subprime loans (16.2%) is about the same as their share of the population (12.4%). But this assumes that blacks are, on average, equally creditworthy as whites (in other words, it is making the same affirmative actiony assumptions that we are attacking). If a smaller percentage of blacks are good candidates for mortgages, then that 16.2% figure starts looking a lot more disproportionate.
This comment was deleted and comments on that post closed.
Bainbridge is a lying coward who cannot stand criticism of his ideology.
And I'm not the only one that Bainbridge wants to shut up.
That is all.
Baindbridge's argument is that blacks were not given subprime loans too easily, because their share of subprime loans (16.2%) is about the same as their share of the population (12.4%). But this assumes that blacks are, on average, equally creditworthy as whites (in other words, it is making the same affirmative actiony assumptions that we are attacking). If a smaller percentage of blacks are good candidates for mortgages, then that 16.2% figure starts looking a lot more disproportionate.
This comment was deleted and comments on that post closed.
Bainbridge is a lying coward who cannot stand criticism of his ideology.
And I'm not the only one that Bainbridge wants to shut up.
That is all.
Third Party Debate
If 10,000 people pledge to donate to a moneybomb for a third party debate, Trevor Lyman of Ron Paul moneybomb fame will go ahead to try to put together a debate for all of the theoretically electable candidates (i.e. those on the ballot in states with enough electoral votes to win; i.e. Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader, and Obama, although McCain and Obama probably would not participate).
If you want to have a third party debate, this is the best way to do it.
Also check out Break The Matrix, who it appears would be video-hosting the debate.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Richard Winger's Ballot Access News.
That is all - for now.
If you want to have a third party debate, this is the best way to do it.
Also check out Break The Matrix, who it appears would be video-hosting the debate.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Richard Winger's Ballot Access News.
That is all - for now.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
China Stops Loans to U.S. (Maybe)
Uh-oh. It looks like the Federal government may decide simply to man the printing presses pretty soon and to print whatever they need to fund their programs.
I'm beginning to think that economic collapse is a real possibility.
This report may be exagerrated. Time will tell what the truth is.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Thoreau at UO.
That is all.
I'm beginning to think that economic collapse is a real possibility.
This report may be exagerrated. Time will tell what the truth is.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Thoreau at UO.
That is all.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Bailout is Bad News
I think that if we don't let the banks fail now, they will fail bigger later.
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Buck for Chuck
To all who like the Constitution Party -
Today is Buck for Chuck Day, the September 20 moneybomb for the Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
Please visit his website and make a donation.
That is all.
Today is Buck for Chuck Day, the September 20 moneybomb for the Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
Please visit his website and make a donation.
That is all.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Farah: I've Bent Over. Please Give it to Me.
Joseph Farah once again finds a way to sort of endorse McCain, but without really saying so.
Joseph Farah, bending over - again.
That is all.
Joseph Farah, bending over - again.
That is all.
Ballot Access Maps September 16, 2008
Click here for the ballot access maps.
I'm sorry for not posting them on the site, but PicAttic sitll isn't hotlinking, and I do not have the time to find another image hosting service right now.
As always, my maps are based on Richard Winger's Ballot Access Chart on his Ballot Access News website.
Note: My map contains an error. Nader is on the ballot in Vermont. I will correct it later.
That is all.
I'm sorry for not posting them on the site, but PicAttic sitll isn't hotlinking, and I do not have the time to find another image hosting service right now.
As always, my maps are based on Richard Winger's Ballot Access Chart on his Ballot Access News website.
Note: My map contains an error. Nader is on the ballot in Vermont. I will correct it later.
That is all.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
We made it to 270
By my calculations, the Constitution Party is on the ballot in states with an electoral vote total of 295. It will be 304 if we get on in Alabama (the Party has submitted its signatures, and is waiting for the decision), and 325 if the ballot access lawsuit in Pennsylvania succeeds.
We definitely need to do better next time, but at least we made the magic number.
That is all.
We definitely need to do better next time, but at least we made the magic number.
That is all.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Ballot Access Maps Updated September 9, 2008
Due to PicAttic's hot-linking problems, I am posting links to the images that you can click on to see the maps. This will be easier for now. If anyone would like to host these images and let me hotlink to them until the problems are resolved, please let me know.
Click here to see all maps on one page.
Libertarian Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Constitution Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Green Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Ralph Nader Presidential Ballot Access 2008
That is all.
Click here to see all maps on one page.
Libertarian Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Constitution Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Green Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Ralph Nader Presidential Ballot Access 2008
That is all.
Obama Steals my Line!
Obama says something similar to what I myself have said:
Obama - ""You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
Me - "Whatever she may call herself, Palin is less a pitbull with lipstick than she is the lipstick on a pig. And that pig's name is McCain."
Unfortunately, I did not post that on my blog before Obama made his statement, but I can still accuse him of stealing it from me, because I did post it elsewhere.
Of course, Obama was referring to McCain's "change" rhetoric, while i was referring to the meaningless (in practical terms) of McCain's choice of Palin.
That is all.
Obama - ""You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
Me - "Whatever she may call herself, Palin is less a pitbull with lipstick than she is the lipstick on a pig. And that pig's name is McCain."
Unfortunately, I did not post that on my blog before Obama made his statement, but I can still accuse him of stealing it from me, because I did post it elsewhere.
Of course, Obama was referring to McCain's "change" rhetoric, while i was referring to the meaningless (in practical terms) of McCain's choice of Palin.
That is all.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
More on Augustawell
I recently switched my image hosting from Flickr to PicAttic and am in the process of moving all of my images there. Unfortuantely, PicAttic has been acting up, so updates on the ballot access map may be a little slow, and new posts on Augustawell may be as well. I may replace my hotlinks with "cold" links to the photos on PicAttic so that I can post new stuff and people can see it, although it will be an extra step.
Also, I will be writing Augustawell a little more slowly over the next few weeks than I was during June, July, and early August, as there is a lot more on my plate now.
That is all.
Also, I will be writing Augustawell a little more slowly over the next few weeks than I was during June, July, and early August, as there is a lot more on my plate now.
That is all.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Farah on McCain
Whatever one thinks of Palin, I think Joseph Farah hits the nail on the head as to why McCain must be opposed.
Although I think that whoever is elected this November, we can stop amnesty if we work together.
That is all.
Although I think that whoever is elected this November, we can stop amnesty if we work together.
That is all.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Monday, September 01, 2008
I Remember Her from Way Back When
But not very well.
I just found out that the woman playing Shana "Scarlett" O'Hara in the new G.I. Joe movie (coming next year) is someone I remember from Middle School (specifically I remember her when she was in seventh grade and I was in eighth). I also went to high school with her (well, my sophomore through senior years anyway, she would have been in eighth grade when I was a freshman), but I cannot remember a single thing about her from those days.
That is all.
I just found out that the woman playing Shana "Scarlett" O'Hara in the new G.I. Joe movie (coming next year) is someone I remember from Middle School (specifically I remember her when she was in seventh grade and I was in eighth). I also went to high school with her (well, my sophomore through senior years anyway, she would have been in eighth grade when I was a freshman), but I cannot remember a single thing about her from those days.
That is all.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Housekeeping
I'm not sure what to make of McCain's VP choice, Sarah Palin. More on it as I develop an opinion.
As for Augustawell, I have been having problems with my image server, but that should be geting better soon. I have about a "week's worth" (i.e. seven) of comics written beyond what is posted, but getting them scanned in, colored, and posted takes time.
That is all.
As for Augustawell, I have been having problems with my image server, but that should be geting better soon. I have about a "week's worth" (i.e. seven) of comics written beyond what is posted, but getting them scanned in, colored, and posted takes time.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)