Panarmonikos

Help Save Murtha from Himself, so His "Racist", "Redneck" Constituents Will Re-Elect Him

2008-10-30T22:40:00.000-07:00

It's self-parodying, really. Democrat Representative John Murtha is in a tight race, one made all the more difficult by his calling his constituents "racist". Fortunately he clarified, helpfully explaining that the district was - until recently - "really redneck". Now, shockingly, he's begging for $1 million for the remaining few days of the campaign to save his seat - one that would normally be easily maintained for a long-term incumbent in a very pro-Democrat year.

This would be an amusing story, if it didn't reflect the elitism all too typical of the Democratic party. It's not enough to disagree with one's political opponents, they have to be hicks, too. Fortunately, the Democrats haven't pushed for re-education centers yet (except for "sensitivity training"), but it's only October. January is coming.

Redistributing Income is Great - Someone Else's Income

2008-10-30T22:28:00.000-07:00

This letter to the editor from the Chicago Tribune (last item, by one A. Hart) is simply hilarious:

On my way to lunch recently, I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama; I need the money." I laughed. In a restaurant my server had on an "Obama 08" tie. Again I laughed. Just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Barack-Obama-redistribution-of-wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need—the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

All that needs to be added is that the Obama model is even worse, because the inappropriate redistribution of wealth means that those who generate wealth and jobs in our economy will have fewer resources to do so. This is change you can't believe in.

Guess Who He's Voting For

2008-10-25T15:23:00.000-07:00

Not who you might normally think, but as you'll see he's in his right mind!

McCain the Stalwart

2008-10-25T08:24:00.000-07:00

This is a great article by Charles Krauthammer, explaining why he's sticking with John McCain this voting season.

Thanks for the Warning, Joe the Senator!

2008-10-22T22:43:00.000-07:00

This past weekend, as many of you may have heard, Joe Biden warned a crowd that something bad would happen if Barack Obama gets elected:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you--not financially to help him--we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Of course Biden doesn't think this is a good reason to vote for McCain, but what should those of us who aren't going to serve in an Obama administration think about it? Unless we think the same sort of "test" will be given to McCain, the obvious answer is: don't vote for Obama! Some interesting reflections from James Taranto are here, here and here.

Barack Obama, Abortion and Infanticide

2008-10-22T22:37:00.000-07:00

Here are two articles by Princeton ethicist Robert P. George that are worth reading, though the subject matter is very grim. The first one focuses primarily on Obama's views on abortion and public policy, the second (co-authored by Yuval Levin) goes on to examine Obama's position on infanticide. Obama's positions are so extreme that they should give even committed pro-choice advocates pause before electing him to the highest office in the land.

Should Jews be Pro-Obama?

2008-10-15T15:27:00.000-07:00

If one is a religious Jew (a phrase which, sadly, is no longer a redundancy) or a friend of Israel, then the answer is no, according to Ben Shapiro.

Let's Avoid Partisanship By Agreeing That I'm Right

2008-10-12T21:38:00.000-07:00

Republicans have often cited the National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings, according to which Barack Obama was the most liberal Senator for that year. (And Joe Biden was third.) Another popular stat alleged to show Obama's extreme partisanship points out that he voted with his party 97% of the time.

That all sounds impressive, but Obama has repeatedly declared that he will go across party lines, appealing not only to his fellow Democrats but to Independents and even Republicans. There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. Take that, National Journal! (And Jonathan Edwards, too.)

There are a few ways one might take this. If one is a naive Obama supporter, he might be inclined to think that the National Journal rating is wrong. Some have fussed over the Journal's method, but it's clear that by any objective metric, Obama is quite safely ensconced in the liberal camp. A second way to interpret our data is to declare Obama a liar (or more kindly, a "typical" politician). Blathering about bipartisanship wins elections, but he blathered thusly before becoming a Senator, too, and to no avail. As a matter of policy, however, we believe in taking Senator Obama at his word. But how then can we put this together with the fact of his (very) liberal voting record?

The answer: Obama really is inviting everyone to join him, and really believes in his ideas. These ideas all happen to be liberal - indeed, sometimes radically so - but everyone's welcome to join in supporting them. So you see, one can get beyond partisan politics. (Yes you can...yes you can...) All that's necessary is to agree with the ultra-liberal Obama. But we wonder: if a Republican proferred a similarly "post-partisan" approach where the right ideas just happened to be the Right's ideas, do you think that even if he rejected it, he'd call it non-partisan? (If your answer is: not before the Cubs win another World Series, then you're probably right.)

Republicans Behaving Badly

2008-10-12T21:20:00.000-07:00

It has been widely noted in some recent McCain rallies that people in the audience are exhibiting far more passion than he is. That's a mixed blessing: it's great that they're passionate, but terrible that he's not. However, the audiences went over the line when they called Obama a terrorist and shouted to kill him. The first charge is wrong and the second simply vile. That should be reason enough to cease and desist, but for those who only respond on pragmatic grounds, let's add that it's incredibly stupid. The mainstream media will pick it up and repeat it endlessly, and it gives our political opponents the chance to brand us in all sorts of unfavorable ways. They can do that anyway, but now we're giving them ammunition! Very stupid - in addition to being vile.

Even worse, albeit in a different way, is the reaction we've seen on a couple of conservative websites. McCain has taken his audiences to task over the comments above, as well as when he corrected a befuddled supporter who claimed that Obama is an Arab. Incredibly, these websites have reacted by taking McCain to task for dampening his supporters' enthusiasm. Now, if they were pointing to something else McCain had done to scold his supporters, they might have a point. But as far as we can tell, the websites are referring to the comments discussed above. If so, then their remarks are disappointing, to say the least. Is "the team" so dear and goodness so worthless that you'd prefer to slander Obama and criticize McCain than correct the base?

There are plenty of good reasons to prefer McCain to Obama (scan through earlier posts on this blog, for starters), so even ignoring issues of propriety, there's no need to use such lowbrow techniques. And if those good reasons don't exist, then why vote for him at all?

Guess Which Candidate Pushed to Regulate Fannie and Freddie?

2008-10-12T21:12:00.000-07:00

Hint: It's not Obama. Here's a copy of the actual letter written by McCain and signed by a total of zero Democrats (surprise, surprise) warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in danger, at risk, and in need of regulation.

N.B. The article linked to above misleadingly notes that Barack Obama did not sign the letter. That's true but utterly irrelevant, as he wasn't then (in May 2006) a Senator. (It's unlikely that he would have signed it, given that no other Democrat did, but it's not fair to blame him for what he didn't even have the chance to do.)

Freedom of Speech Is Good -- Especially Mine. Yours, Not So Much

2008-10-12T21:10:00.000-07:00

The 1st Amendment Party in action.

Playing the Race Card?

2008-10-12T20:50:00.000-07:00

We've been amazed during this campaign to see talking heads wonder if people will vote against Barack Obama just because he's black. Nevertheless, it has been a common conjecture, rendered even more prevalent thanks to Obama's pre-emptive warning that his opponents would say that he's inexperienced, has a funny name, and by the way, he's black.

You don't say!

But seriously, folks, how can anyone with half a brain take that charge seriously, except under the banner of political correctness? Most blacks vote Democrat anyway, so the anticipated Obama landslide among that community won't be a surprise. But how do we explain the 90%+ poll numbers Obama had among black voters when he was competing against Clinton in the Democratic primaries? There were some relatively minor differences between them in terms of policy, but nothing that would even come close to choosing one candidate over the other on purely racial lines.

Now, it's an open question as to whether or not one should vote for a candidate based solely on race. Maybe in some hypothetical circumstance where all else is equal, it would be worth voting for a black (or a woman, etc.) on the grounds that it would provide uplift to the members of that community. Maybe, maybe not, but only if there's absolutely no other basis for making a decision. Are we really going to pretend that's the case here?

So to white voters out there, if your only reason to vote for McCain is that Obama is black, then shame on you. But to blacks who are guilty of the opposite, shame on you, too. Looking at polling numbers, one must say that race-baiters are right: this is a racially divided society. Unfortunately, most of the racial division, percentage-wise, seems to be taking place on the black side of the equation. Whites are pretty evenly split between the candidates, pretty much as they have been in the past two elections. That's not what one would expect from a racist society. But blacks going for Obama over not only McCain but Clinton by better than nine-to-one? Yeah, that's beautiful. No racism here.

See all this article for more on the Obama team's race-baiting shenanigans.

Obama's Magic

2008-10-10T21:58:00.000-07:00

Change you can't believe in.

A Brief ACORN Video

2008-10-10T10:26:00.000-07:00

Nothing like documentary evidence to show what ACORN did, how it worked (or didn't), and who(bama) was behind it.

Barack Obama, Trickle-Down Economist

2008-10-08T15:46:00.000-07:00

Part of the Democrat party's playbook is to refer to normal free market economics as "trickle-down" theory, followed up with a smirk, laugh, eye roll or statement making it clear that trickle-down economics is a nutty theory. Spelled out a little, the Democrat narrative runs like this: Republicans, who are rich and pro-rich, want the rich to pay as little in taxes as possible while not giving any special breaks to the poor or middle class. That's OK, say the Republicans, because prosperity at the top will "trickle down" [you know, like urine] to the less well off. Everyone wins. This theory is "obviously" crazy, to Democrats, because those nasty, greedy rich Republicans will want to keep as much of it for themselves - thus the mere trickle. As Barack Obama recently said, "it's not enough just to help those at the top. Prosperity is not just going to trickle down."

This is an effective rhetorical trick, but it's poor economics. First, unless the rich cannibalize each other, they can only get their "more" from the financial activities of the less wealthy buying their products. And that, in turn, can only happen if they have money, which requires jobs. And there are only jobs if those with some money are able to invest it. In short, we're all interdependent - as a random politician recently noted:

Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what's in the rescue package for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means, as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses just can't get loans. If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off.

And if you imagine just one company trying to deal with that, now imagine a million companies all across the country. So it could end up having an adverse effect on everybody, and that's why we had to take action. But we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Guess who the speaker was? Obama, of course. What he's saying is sensible and basic Republican economic theory; in fact, it's basic economic theory, period. If they would stick to the truth and avoid the class warfare, this country would be a much better place.

HT: The Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web"

Barney Frank's Race-Baiting

2008-10-08T15:34:00.000-07:00

One popular tactic used by the left is to suggest that those who disagree with them are against the poor or, better still, are racists. Representative Barney Frank is an overachiever, and so he accuses his political foes of both. According to Frank, those Republicans who have blamed the current financial crisis at least partially on the foolish mortgage loans made to low-income families are racist.

Thankfully, not all his political bedfellows engage in buck-passing demagoguery. Here's a quote from Arthur Davis, a Representative and member of Congressional Black Caucus:

Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

If only all politicians were so honest!

HT: Wall Street Journal

Biden Errors, Part 2

2008-10-05T21:28:00.000-07:00

The previous post linked to a site listing Sen. Joe Biden's errors, but the link didn't elaborate on the specifics. This one does.

Biden Errors in Last Night's Debate

2008-10-03T11:41:00.000-07:00

Or maybe they're lies, but I'm not in a position to know Biden's motivations. Whatever they are, they're false statements, and you can see 14 of them listed here.

More Political Combat: Dick Morris vs. Alan Colmes

2008-10-03T00:49:00.000-07:00

Here's some more light entertainment, but then really, it's time to return to substance.

Bill O'Reilly vs. Barney Frank

2008-10-02T21:53:00.000-07:00

Lots of heat, some light. First, Bill O'Reilly about Barney Frank (and right wing talk show hosts), on his radio program:

Next, O'Reilly vs. Frank, on the former's TV show.

Entertaining as that might be on a primal level, I'm not sure O'Reilly is really getting Frank on the right points. And Frank does deserve to be gotten, as noted in this earlier post.

Sarah Palin and the Integrity Gap

2008-10-02T21:00:00.000-07:00

Change, change, change! That's one of the mantras across the political landscape, especially prominent on the left. But change isn't automatically desirable - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"! It is clear that there's plenty to be fixed, though, and to do that some real guts are needed. So who has the intestinal fortitude necessary to go against the system? Maybe all four of the Presidential/Vice Presidential candidates do, maybe not. But it does seem that Palin does, as this detailed article shows.

Sarah Palin's Accent: What Does It Mean?

2008-10-01T20:46:00.000-07:00

According to this article on Slate, it means she's from Wasilla, and that's about it. Or at least, that's it from an objective standpoint. Subjectively, it could mean a lot, as people react very differently to different accents, as I noted in passing a couple of days ago. That's why, as the Slate piece noted, Palin seems to be making an effort to speak a more "neutral" brand of English these days. We'll pay careful attention to this, and more importantly to the content of her speech, during tonight's debate.

Is Deregulation to Blame? Not According to Bill Clinton

2008-10-01T00:45:00.000-07:00

Liberal punditry's favorite hobgoblin in the current financial mess is the 1999 deregulation bill sponsored by McCain's (former) economic advisor, Phil Gramm. The story, oversimplified, is that deregulation and the resulting lack of government oversight made it easier for bad loans to be approved. This thesis has been addressed and critiqued elsewhere on this blog, and to those arguments and references we can add the testimony of none other than the President who signed the 1999 bill into law: Bill Clinton. President Clinton denies that the bill was forced upon him, and right up front denies that it is responsible for the current crisis:

But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.

One would hope that evidence like this would put a halt to the liberal media's boilerplate, but alas.

Tom Sowell on CEO Pay

2008-09-30T22:12:00.000-07:00

Thomas Sowell is a man with a gift. When you read his books and essays, you think "Of course, this is obvious!" Now if only those obvious thoughts would occur to us before reading what he has to say - but then that's the gift. See for instance his insightful remarks on the emotionally vexed topic of CEO pay. It seems outrageous that an executive who runs a company into the ground can bail out with a golden parachute, and indeed, on one level it is outrageous! To take one's justifiable anger about this and then apply it to legislation limiting CEO pay, however, is to offer a cure that's worse than the disease, as Sowell so eloquently points out. (Exercise for the reader: figure out why that is before reading his essay.)

The Obamajünge

2008-09-30T14:53:00.000-07:00

Lawrd, this is creepy. [Update: The Obama people have removed this video from YouTube and everywhere else, apparently recognizing what's obvious to normal people; to wit, that having pre-teen children singing hymns to a political candidate is somewhere between creepy and cultic.]

Christianity and Politics

2008-09-30T14:47:00.001-07:00

How should they be related? Frank Pastore offers some brief but thoughtful reflections.

Reflections on Palin

2008-09-30T14:15:00.000-07:00

While I want the McCain & Palin to be elected, my enthusiasm for that ticket diminishes each time I see Palin in action. With the exception of her speech at the Republican National Convention, she has not been an effective speaker. Her prepared answers are shallow, and when flustered her remarks border on incoherence. Her gestures are awkward (please, Governor Palin, stop with the raised left hand!), and she doesn't give off an air of either confidence or competence. Obviously this is grist for the opposition's mill, but it doesn't help with independent/undecided voters and doesn't inspire the base, either.

So Palin needs, without question, to work on her presentation skills. That said, let me offer several comments in her defense. First, there's surely an accent bias at play. Those of us who don't live in the South or in certain rural areas - like Alaska - expect politicians to sound a certain way; namely, the way almost everyone on TV sounds. If someone has a different sort of accent or verbal style, it can grate or lead us to look down our noses at the person. Second, it's obvious that Palin has to catch up on lots of issues, and that will take a little time. Until she does, then she has little choice but to offer up these canned answers. That she needs to catch up on some issues doesn't mean she's incompetent; other skills and areas where her knowledge is up to snuff can compensate, especially if she's a quick study. And third, a tu quoque: Biden has been a "gaffe machine" for years, and he hasn't shown any signs of abating. (Here's a piece from last year when Biden was running for the top of the ticket; for more recent "accomplishments" here's another, and another.)

This Thursday's debate is Palin's biggest - and probably last - chance to make a good impression on the American voting public. It would be a pleasant shock to see her hit it out of the park, but at this point a demonstration of competence, both on the issues and as a public speaker, would go a ways toward reversing the Republican slide in the polls.

Do We Even Need A Bailout?

2008-09-30T14:09:00.000-07:00

Or more specifically, do we need the current bailout package? 166 economists say no in this open letter.

Voter Fraud from Democratic Ally ACORN

2008-09-30T14:03:00.000-07:00

Read about it here. There's no excuse for voter fraud from either party, and it's likely that both have engaged in it over the years. It seems clear that the Democrats are the biggest beneficiaries these days, however, all the while claiming to be the party dedicated to "openness", "transparency" and "integrity" in government. (So said Nancy Pelosi in the 2006 campaign, when corrupt Republicans were ousted in favor of corrupt Democrats.)

Barney Frank's Chutzpah

2008-09-29T23:57:00.000-07:00

An old joke: a man killed his parents, then begged the court to have mercy on him because he was an orphan.

A new joke: Barney Frank fought to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac deregulated when concerned Republicans saw things were dangerous, then in 2008 blamed the Republicans for their deregulating us into this mess. And now he's grandstanding at Republican opposition to the bailout package - is this guy a winner or what?

More about Representative Frank here, and see also the previous post.

The Democrats and Fannie Mae

2008-09-29T23:48:00.000-07:00

One expects politicians to spin and pass blame around whenever possible, but it would appear that Democratic deceit on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue goes above and beyond the "call". Behold the Democrats in 2004, in their own words, strenuously objecting to any regulation on those entities, insisting that they are the picture of health and that houses are "riskless" assets. Riiiiiiight.

McCain and the Keating Five

2008-09-25T22:28:00.000-07:00

Should John McCain be dismissed as an agent of financial reform on account of the old Keating Five scandal? Not if you believe that more than disproved innuendo is enough to besmirch a man's good name - witness the evidence here. (If this post is read after October 1, 2008, go here and select the September 24, 2008 column.) Or if you don't like that source, read this or this (the final section is the most relevant).

Two Types of College Feminism

2008-09-25T22:24:00.000-07:00

One is oppressive to women, and the other is positive. One is seen on some of the most prestigious campuses in the United States, and the other can be found on Evangelical campuses like Hillsdale and Wheaton. Can you guess which is which? The answer is here.

The Mortgage Crisis of 2008: Who's to Blame?

2008-09-22T23:07:00.000-07:00

The quick answer: the other guy!

The Democrats' preferred scapegoat is Phil Gramm, an economist, former senator, and recently removed McCain economic advisor. (Example here.) On this way of telling the story, Gramm and his evil friends (boo! hiss!) deregulated the banking industry, which gave greedy banks the go-ahead to offer all sorts of dubious loans. If the loans were repaid, then great: they'd make a profit; if not, then ultimately the government (read: taxpayers) would foot the bill. Win-win.

That's an easy story to tell, and a convenient one in election season. There may even be something to it, but the overall story is far more complicated. This Wall Street Journal article lists a number of culprits, including the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, the screwups at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. And as Rich Lowry notes in a TownHall.com article, the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley bank deregulation bill received 90 votes in the Senate (out of 100 possible; in other words, it received very strong bipartisan support), including that of Joe Biden (Barack Obama's running mate), and was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.

The upshot, then, is that the attack on Gramm - which is used as an attack on McCain - is essentially bogus. If Gramm is to blame for his 1999 bill, then so are the Democrats. And as noted above, there are other culprits behind the mortgage crisis, too. If the goal is to simply score cheap political points, then we should note that Barack Obama was the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's largesse - but that's probably just as unfair. (The jury is instructed to disregard that last statement.)

Teddy Roosevelt's Timeless Wisdom

2008-09-22T23:04:00.000-07:00

"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" (Theodore Roosevelt)

Amen, brother.

A Misguided Assumption

2008-09-22T18:08:00.000-07:00

According to the 1950 pronouncement by Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus (MD) it happened that Mary, the mother of Jesus, "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Pius XII did not invent this doctrine, nor is it distinctive of Roman Catholicism. What the Pope did do in MD was to turn this teaching into a dogma. As the Catholic Catechism points out, a dogma goes beyond mere doctrine:

The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (88)

Thus the doctrine of Mary's Assumption is not just any teaching, but something a Roman Catholic must believe. Let's assume (no pun intended) for the sake of argument both that the doctrine is true and that it's historically well-founded. (I will address the issue of the historic evidence in a subsequent post.) All the same, one should wonder why this is a dogma. A Roman Catholic must accept the Assumption on pains of forfeiting salvation, but what in the name of heaven could this have to do with anyone's salvation? The Virgin Birth (better: Conception) is reasonably construed as dogma, because its denial implies that Jesus has a human father, which would violate the fundmental Christian doctrine that Jesus is the Word made flesh. And while I don't subscribe to it, the dogma of Mary's Immaculate Conception makes sense as a dogma, as its telos is the purity of Jesus. But by the time of the (presumed) Assumption, Jesus had not only been conceived and born, but crucified, died, buried, risen and ascended as well. We can even grant the Roman Catholic view that Mary lived a sinless life. But the doctrine of the Assumption doesn't follow from any of these, and it's extraordinarily hard to see what possible relationship it could have to any factor relevant to salvation.

So while I have no serious problem to its being a doctrine, nor any deep theological objection to the claim itself, it at least seems evident that this should not be a dogma. I'd be happy to be corrected, though.

A Day in the Life of Joe Democrat

2008-09-21T23:17:00.000-07:00

Perhaps some of you have seen this clever little piece, called "A Day in the Life of Joe Republican". The gist is that as the Republican goes through his day, enjoying his safe coffee, safe breakfast, clean air, cheap public transportation, union-created job benefits, safe car, affordable house and so on (all the while belittling Democrats and proclaiming his status as a self-made man), there's a deep irony at play. All of these benefits, according to the author, were brought about by Democrats and resisted by Republicans.

Three comments:

(1) There's an unargued assumption in the article, that the good outcomes could only have arisen by the means chosen by Democrats. But is this true in every case? In the case of unsafe products, there's nothing like lawsuits and competition to get businesses in line. And it's not clear that government-subsidized public transportation really is cheap. It might not cost much to cross the turnstile at the subway or to get aboard the bus, but the costs buried in the tax system are considerable.

(2) It may be true that these benefits were brought to us by Democrats and resisted by Republicans. But did they need to be? Unless there's a deep link between the each party's philosophy and their actions on these past matters, it's not a good argument that Joe Republican and his friends should change their party affiliation.

(3) Note the parasitic relationship between most of the Democrat goods and the Republican ones. It is the free market that generates the primary goods: that we have access to coffee, diverse foodstuffs, a wide variety of attractive employment possibilities, attractive homes and cars, etc., are what happen in the sort of free market economy Republicans promote and those on the left don't. The more a government tilts to the left, the lower the quality and variety of goods.

Thus for Joe Democrat, busy sneering at the ignorant Republicans who don't realize all the ways in which Democrats have made their life better, is himself a rather ignorant character. Without the contributions made by pro-free marketeers like Joe Republican, the Dems might enjoy a safe life, but one lacking in the comforts of 21st century living. At best, the story of Joe Republican might show a role for both parties to play, but it's a long way from showing that we should prefer the left wing of American politics.

Welcome

2008-09-21T23:09:00.000-07:00

And so begins an exercise in working through the topics that perplex me and the issues that confound me. Topics in religion, politics, and philosophy are likeliest to arise, but if it grabs my attention, it will show up here. Let's get started.