George Rebane
In general, liberals are not stupid; many of them just have bad luck when they think. This cannot be said of California liberals.
Recently I have encountered a literal flood of observations and events that provide more insight into the workings of the now-dominant national liberal mind. This small compilation is by no means comprehensive.
In general, liberals are not stupid; many of them just have bad luck when they think. This cannot be said of California liberals.
Recently I have encountered a literal flood of observations and events that provide more insight into the workings of the now-dominant national liberal mind. This small compilation is by no means comprehensive.
Regarding the Fiscal Cliff, President Obama assures his innumerate supporters that in “raising revenues” through closing “loopholes” (aka, the other guy’s legal deductions) will not be sufficient to bring in the mysteriously needed $800B added taxes during the next decade. Raising tax rates on the “rich” is required, otherwise “the math just does not add up.”
Meanwhile, the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute advises us that the Republican plan to cap deductions at $50K would raise $750B over the same interval, and decreasing the cap to $25K would raise $1.4T – all without raising tax rates. It is clear that the President needs to remediate some of the arithmetic he was supposed to have learned in grade school.
But as any mildly interested American knows, the objective here is visible class punishment, no matter how many businesses it hurts and jobs that get cut and/or are not created. You see, it’s a liberal thing.
In the meantime, the striking workers’ union at Hostess are holding fast to their demands for increased compensation that is now causing the company to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy – i.e. shut down. This will remove 18,000 plus workers from the nation’s payrolls. (I’m told that somewhere there is an old law that says if a union job action causes a company to go out of business, then the newly unemployed union members do not qualify for government unemployment benefits. But that’s another matter.)
The butt stupid union leadership – liberals all – don’t understand the difference between striking a government supported oligopolist, and striking a business operating in a competitive free market. For the latter there is no slack from the dollars and cents that define the real world. But again, habitually shooting yourself in the foot, and then wondering where the shot came from is a liberal thing.
SecState Hillary, that hard-traveling statesman and diplomat, is again on the road and not available for congressional testimony on Benghazi. (One of these days we’ll do a summary of her architecture of global foreign policy failures, but not now. For an early snootful, read here.)
Apropos to that, recently unemployed CIA chief Petraeus has apparently given another version of events transpiring after 11 September 2012. It turns out that he knew from the gitgo that it was an Al Qaeda terrorist attack, and claims to have said so at the time. Moreover, it turns out that then everyone at State, FBI, White House, and maybe even MSNBC knew that the video had nothing to do with the murder of four Americans that night.
And here’s the kicker, UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s now notorious and shameful Sunday performances on national TV are excused by liberal members of Congress because the globally known attack was still being considered as “classified” information on 16 September by the WH, whose occupant today invites the media to give him their best shot, since it was he who told Rice to say what she compliantly said. No one seems to be picking up that, if the ‘still classified’ BS was in effect, then Rice could have simply demurred on that ground, and not launched a blatant fabrication to make the electorate believe the President’s lies that he had vanquished Al Qaeda.
And even more mysterious is why legislators having attended both Petraeus’ testimonies must rely on their “recollection” of the first testimony to contend that Petraeus has changed his story in the interval. Didn’t someone, like Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, have a goddam recorder going during these critically important closed door hearings? We’re now relying on fond memories of month-old conversations about what Petraeus said?!! Must again be a liberal thing.
Finally, a true insight into liberal thinking, that re-surfaces as regularly as the sunrise, is the gross misunderstanding of how individual liberty and social equality are strongly linked. Astute political philosophers have pointed out for more than two centuries that those two notions, or attributes of governance, are inversely related – you cannot increase both concurrently, raising one inevitably lowers the other.
Yet this almost tautological truth is not accessible to a mind embarked on the now much-traveled liberal road. In order to sell the unread on the benefits of collectivism, the liberal must constantly dredge up and re-decorate his rhetoric with the great propagandist bamboozle of the French revolution – ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité!’ – that formed the foundation of the modern miscreation called socialism. To demonstrate the strength and spread of this myopism, I was recently saddened to see an otherwise rational RR reader succumb to this most liberal of tenets.
Meanwhile, the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute advises us that the Republican plan to cap deductions at $50K would raise $750B over the same interval, and decreasing the cap to $25K would raise $1.4T – all without raising tax rates. It is clear that the President needs to remediate some of the arithmetic he was supposed to have learned in grade school.
But as any mildly interested American knows, the objective here is visible class punishment, no matter how many businesses it hurts and jobs that get cut and/or are not created. You see, it’s a liberal thing.
In the meantime, the striking workers’ union at Hostess are holding fast to their demands for increased compensation that is now causing the company to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy – i.e. shut down. This will remove 18,000 plus workers from the nation’s payrolls. (I’m told that somewhere there is an old law that says if a union job action causes a company to go out of business, then the newly unemployed union members do not qualify for government unemployment benefits. But that’s another matter.)
The butt stupid union leadership – liberals all – don’t understand the difference between striking a government supported oligopolist, and striking a business operating in a competitive free market. For the latter there is no slack from the dollars and cents that define the real world. But again, habitually shooting yourself in the foot, and then wondering where the shot came from is a liberal thing.
SecState Hillary, that hard-traveling statesman and diplomat, is again on the road and not available for congressional testimony on Benghazi. (One of these days we’ll do a summary of her architecture of global foreign policy failures, but not now. For an early snootful, read here.)
Apropos to that, recently unemployed CIA chief Petraeus has apparently given another version of events transpiring after 11 September 2012. It turns out that he knew from the gitgo that it was an Al Qaeda terrorist attack, and claims to have said so at the time. Moreover, it turns out that then everyone at State, FBI, White House, and maybe even MSNBC knew that the video had nothing to do with the murder of four Americans that night.
And here’s the kicker, UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s now notorious and shameful Sunday performances on national TV are excused by liberal members of Congress because the globally known attack was still being considered as “classified” information on 16 September by the WH, whose occupant today invites the media to give him their best shot, since it was he who told Rice to say what she compliantly said. No one seems to be picking up that, if the ‘still classified’ BS was in effect, then Rice could have simply demurred on that ground, and not launched a blatant fabrication to make the electorate believe the President’s lies that he had vanquished Al Qaeda.
And even more mysterious is why legislators having attended both Petraeus’ testimonies must rely on their “recollection” of the first testimony to contend that Petraeus has changed his story in the interval. Didn’t someone, like Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, have a goddam recorder going during these critically important closed door hearings? We’re now relying on fond memories of month-old conversations about what Petraeus said?!! Must again be a liberal thing.
Finally, a true insight into liberal thinking, that re-surfaces as regularly as the sunrise, is the gross misunderstanding of how individual liberty and social equality are strongly linked. Astute political philosophers have pointed out for more than two centuries that those two notions, or attributes of governance, are inversely related – you cannot increase both concurrently, raising one inevitably lowers the other.
Yet this almost tautological truth is not accessible to a mind embarked on the now much-traveled liberal road. In order to sell the unread on the benefits of collectivism, the liberal must constantly dredge up and re-decorate his rhetoric with the great propagandist bamboozle of the French revolution – ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité!’ – that formed the foundation of the modern miscreation called socialism. To demonstrate the strength and spread of this myopism, I was recently saddened to see an otherwise rational RR reader succumb to this most liberal of tenets.
Here is another example of liberal thinking:
Gov. Jerry Brown told attendees at an environmental conference Friday that climate change must be prevented or humans might one day be forced to live on another planet.
Addressing the Greenbuild Expo in San Francisco, Brown lauded California’s cap-and-trade auction for greenhouse gas emissions, which began this week. It was the formal launch of the nation’s most ambitious carbon-trading market, which for the first time established a market-based system to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Democratic governor said future generations will be living “indoors ... or we’ll be living on some other planet.” He urged other states and the nation to follow California’s lead, saying the state can only do so much by itself.
“Human impact on climate is real,” Brown said. “It is growing, and we need to take steps to stop it or there will be catastrophic consequences.”
The “growing” referenced by Gov Brown stopped 16 years ago. The only thing growing is Brown’s anticipation that cap and trade will being in billions to fill legislators political slush funds. He wants to sell CO2 for $35.00 ton. On the EU Carbon Market you can buy a ton for $0.87. Only a liberal could craft a scheme to sell us clean air and then tax us for using it.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 17 November 2012 at 01:33 PM
Some more lefty thinking, taxes are for the little people they do not have to be paid by the anointed:
Thirty six Obama aides owe a grand total of nearly a million in back taxes. $833,970 in back taxes is owed to the government by Obama’s government lackey aides. But this isn’t limited to the 36 Obama aides. At the EPA for example, 413 people owe more than $19 million in back taxes! Nineteen Fricken Million dollars! At the FDIC, 185 employees owe more than $3 million; and five people at the U.S. Tax Court owe $62,508.
You see this is why liberals are so eager to raise taxes, they don’t pay them anyway!
Posted by: Russ Steele | 17 November 2012 at 04:37 PM
The liberal mind is a piece of work. The more we more toward socialism (be it slowly or quickly), the more we lose our personal liberties and freedoms. The libbowels get all up in arms with such talk and say "Or, so you think it is ok to poison your well and contaminate everybody downstream?" No. There is a reason we have stop signs and are not free to yell FIRE in the proverbial movie theater..
The libs possess a twisted ideal of social justice. They judge social justice (their God) by outcomes, not opportunities. In pursing such a goal, they have to trample personal liberties and The Constitution of the United States of America to achieve their dastardly outcomes. They have no choice. Its the way they are wired. Except, of course, when it comes to legalization of pot and the like. Then they become staunch libertarians.
The outlandish defensiveness and outrage by posters who have broken thinkers are evidenced by comments responding to Dr. Rebane's recent posts. Doc, you hit too close for some and struck a nerve. Libbowels actually believe they are doing the greater good. Its more like a comedy of errors. Strike that. It is more akin to a Greek tragedy.
Posted by: Billy T | 17 November 2012 at 08:08 PM
More broken thinking. President Obama said there will be 1 million electric cars tootling down our roads by 2015. The good news the Leaf is the best selling all electric car in the USofA. The bad news is they have not sold 7,000 Leafs year to date. Give them time. They might break 7,000 before the end of the year and maybe the Chevy Volt will sell half as much. How much do we pay the taxpayer to buy a Volt? How many thousands can the taxpayer write off this government subsidized car? 5K, or is it 10k?
https://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/11/16/nissan-leaf-wont-meet-sales-targets-in-2012/
Posted by: Billy T | 17 November 2012 at 09:11 PM
Re. the items:
* Fiscal Cliff--yes, class punishment. Elections have consequences.
* Hostess--no worries, we can make our own: https://www.mnn.com/food/recipes/blogs/make-your-own-hostess-treats
* Benghazi--yeah, bummer. It was a football game, they did the ol' Statue of Liberty play. Faked you out. Plus sex with cheerleaders. Beautiful.
* Liberty vs. Equality--I addressed this in my recent comment on the Ruminations - 13nov12 thread above.
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 17 November 2012 at 11:32 PM
Well, it should have been the video what caused it.
We can't let circumstances get in the way of our perfectly sculptured narrative.
Ah…….
Big Oil, Big Tobacco, George Bush, Climate Change, Fair Share, RACISTS(!);………..Sorry, I panicked!
Posted by: D. King | 18 November 2012 at 06:33 AM
MichaelA 1132pm - And hurting a large segment of your own constituency in order to pander to them just because they are stupid is a cruel way to maintain your aura of infallibility. The consequence of electing that kind of leader is what saddens even many in his own party.
In these times the union's message to Hostess' 18,000 workers not to worry, that they can make their own, will probably go over like a fart in church. Nevertheless, the workings of such liberal minds remain totally beyond comprehension to the rest of us.
The bottom line concern here is that Obama's impact will have ramifications that may outlive our Republic.
Posted by: George Rebane | 18 November 2012 at 08:09 AM
Mr. Anderson. Class punishment? Exactly. That is the term I have been searching for. Perfect. Should add "class punishment" to Rebane's dictionary of words and phrases.
Mr. King. There is a racists lurking in every shadow and behind every bush in the libbowel mind.
Posted by: Billy T | 18 November 2012 at 08:17 AM
This is what bugs me most about liberal thinking. There is a lot of endless chatter about the fiscal cliff. The talk is all one sided from the liberals. Its all about raising taxes. Period. WTF??? There is little to no talk about spending. The libs want mo money, mo money to keep things they way they are. We have a damn spending problem, yet they don't want cuts in real terms. Not now, no way, not ever.
Chuck Schumer wants another Stimulus spending program as his answer. The Dems and libbies left of Fantasyland say entitlement reform is off the table. No way, no how, not ever. Raising taxes is going to get us to the promised land??? Brain dead used tampons they are.
We can not longer criticize Greece anymore. They are raising taxes and cutting spending so they can borrow mo money. We are raising taxes so we can borrow mo money. Its all about borrowing mo mula. Nary a utterance about living within our means. We are worse than Greece in debt to GDP ratio. We and Greece will do only what is required to get borrowed money.
At first I could not understand the hate and vitriol against the Tea Party in 2010. Made libs spin their heads spewing green vomit like Linda Blair in The Exorcist. The Tea Party appeared to be a bunch on folks that avoided social issues and stood for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Not even a political party. Smaller government, less spending, Pay-Go, if you will.
Now I understand why the Tea Party is a dirty word in lib circles. The TP opposes everything the libs are for. The Tea Party is a threat to lib thinking. The libs see government as on top of the hierarchy pyramid and all things flow down from there. The Tea Party sees the people on the top of the hierarchy pyramid and the government on the bottom.
I have not joined the Tea Party Patriots, but they are more in line with my worldview than any group out there. Now I get it. The TP must be destroyed by the libs as they are the antithesis to the libs' broken thinkers.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 18 November 2012 at 09:59 AM
Just wondering, Dr. Rebane, do you have a license to practice psychology?
Posted by: earlcrabb | 18 November 2012 at 10:21 AM
earlcrabb 1021am - No Robert, I got my doctorate the old-fashioned way. Not only did I have to learn a field (actually two fields) of practice, I, like all PhDs, had to demonstrate that learning by enlarging the field of human knowledge, and that to the satisfaction of my peers as had been the requirement since that level of philosophizing was recognized. Sadly, for the last two hundred years doctorates have been handed out to almost everyone for just learning a collection of tricks of their trade, some more considerable than others. They even give them to physicians.
What little psychology I practice is done on the sly, hidden under the umbrella of ideology disbursement.
Posted by: George Rebane | 18 November 2012 at 12:01 PM
"Now I understand why the Tea Party is a dirty word in lib circles"... sorry, but that is very wrong. The Lib's love the Tea Party and have from the start because they knew the TP would take down the R Party... the last election and the next elections to come make this clear.
"TP must be destroyed by the Libs as they are the antithesis to the Libs' broken thinkers"... sorry, but again wrong. It's the R's that are now in the process of destroying the Tea Party and hard right to clean up the mess they and folks like Herman, Sara, Rush, Allen, etc., etc, made of the R Party.... the last election and next elections to come make this clear too.
It’s the R’s that must and will finish off the Tea Party. The Tea Party has no future for so many reasons.
The R's went hard right to play up to the extreme right and now the R Party is starting to do some major house cleaning in the hopes of a future as a party. Now the R's and the hard right and TP will go at it while the Lib's have pizza and beer and root them on as they melt down.
As so many said and predicted when the Tea Party started up... the Tea Party will be responsible for taking down the R Party for years to come, they insured the re-election of President Obama, they rallied the D's, minorities, women, gays, woman and young voters to vote D.
The R’s will now clean their Party house, they will move towards the center, they will cut deals with President Obama. The remaining, ageing, 19th century stuck hard right and Tea Party will shake their fists and yell from the side of the road as America drives forward while they fade in the rear view mirror… all a direct result of the Tea Party, Rush, Sara, Herman and all the rest in the hard right, extreme clown car.
Posted by: Steve Enos | 18 November 2012 at 02:05 PM
"...extreme clown car."
O.K. Enos, that was funny!
Posted by: D. King | 18 November 2012 at 02:19 PM
Ross Douthat: Liberals look at the Obama majority and see a coalition bound together by enlightened values — reason rather than superstition, tolerance rather than bigotry, equality rather than hierarchy. But it’s just as easy to see a coalition created by social disintegration and unified by economic fear. This disintegration will grow as the economy collapse become evident and they learn that Obama cannot, or will not, lead and his promises will go unfulfilled for an other 4 years.
The Democrats did not do that well in Nevada County regardless of the Obama's victory.
The Tea Party has a 40 year plan and this as only a single election. You can see some of the 40 year plan coming together here in Nevada County in the election of Grass Valley City Council to Jan Arbuckle, while denying a seat to Democratic leader Jim Firth. It is back to the Grass Roots and build from the bottom and it is working in Nevada County.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 18 November 2012 at 02:32 PM
Russ is right about one thing, the Tea Party is at the beginning of its planned 40 year struggle to take America to its vision of a 1000 year ....Republic.....and they are not done. We will need to crush them [metaphorically] at every election for the next decade to ensure the protection of the Constitution.
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 18 November 2012 at 03:21 PM
Steven@03:21PM
Can you please explain how the Tea Party has violated the Constitution? What have they done that requires protection from liberal Democrats that violate it on a daily basis?
Posted by: Russ Steele | 18 November 2012 at 04:22 PM
The Tea Party to me represents an idea more than political posturing.. Just like the founding ideas of the United States of America. The government that governs least governs best. Government must be constrained according to our Founding Fathers because government inherently lusts for power and control. Exactly like the libs who are driven by insatiable wanton cravings to control everything and put everything in its place. Under their control, of course.
Ironically, those that say they are THE Defenders of our personal liberties are the first to tell us what to eat and drink and even how to live and what is acceptable speech and thought. Its their blind side. They are controlled by the need to control. What you sow is what you reap.
I suppose we all remember the media's astonishment and dismay when the Tea Party emerged after Obamacare. Them angry white folks even had the gall to carry Don't Thread On Me flags of all things. They had to be racists and militant extremists to quote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other quaint antiquated sayings from a by-gone era. Geez, they are sooo out of touch (and scary). The media and the libs have forgotten we where founded on an idea. That idea is personal freedom and a populace that tells government what to do, not the other way around.
In the past 90 days alone, the Obama Administration has created out of thin air 6,000 new regulations affecting just about everybody. 6,000 in ninety days? At that pace the Executive Branch alone with lay down upon us 24,000 new regulations in a single year. Can't wait to see what Congress will come up with.
No, friends, going to the "hard right" will not bring down the opposition party. Darn hard to unseat an incumbent President unless you are Ronald Reagen or Bill Clinton. Obama's margin of his reelection victory (compared to his initial election margin) was the lowest since Woodrow Wilson. We still are a center of right country any way you slice it. That is what Clinton found out.
If being hard right means I stand for the ideals this country was founded on, then so be it. Personal liberties that are inherent in the human spirit and defended by blood shed against the control freaks and a government that actually believes it is the final source and arbitrator of those liberties....well then, I am a proud Right Wing Whack Job and part of the Great Right Wing Conspiracy to wage war on women and other minorities. Wait, men are a minority of this country. How foreign to the liberal mind.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 18 November 2012 at 04:38 PM
SteveF 321pm - Echoing Russ' 422pm, yes, what has the Tea Party promoted or done that has been or promises to be unconstitutional???
Will Rogers once said, "It ain't what you know that worries me, it's what you know that ain't so."
Posted by: George Rebane | 18 November 2012 at 04:40 PM
Dowd cooks Rice: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/dowd-is-rice-cooked.html?hp&_r=0
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 18 November 2012 at 04:48 PM
Dowd is a punk. Condi Rice has scraped less off the bottom of her shoes walking through a dog kennel.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 18 November 2012 at 06:17 PM
Ummm...but she's on your side this time, Todd.
Look for the forest from the trees. Myopia isn't pretty.
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 18 November 2012 at 06:27 PM
"The Tea Party has a 40 year plan". Someone might want to check the current demographics and projected demographics for the next 40 years to see the future.
Posted by: Steve Enos | 18 November 2012 at 07:28 PM
Here's another one for you, Todd. Yet another New York Times columnist who agrees with your position. Who woulda thunk it?!?
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/kristof-Grandma-Faces-Down-War-in-Syria.html?hp
I happen to agree with the analysis as well.
"A 14-year-old boy, Muhammad Abbas, showed me scars on his stomach where a bomb had gravely injured him (and killed his best friend). He now must use a colostomy bag to collect his wastes. 'I blame the Alawites,' he said venomously. 'They should all be killed.'"
"NATO should create a no-fly zone in northern Syria and provide weapons (short of antiaircraft missiles) and intelligence and training for the rebels, to break the stalemate. Otherwise, as the war drags on endlessly, more people are killed and injured, neighboring countries are destabilized, and Muslim extremists gain credibility because they do confront the regime. Worst of all, sectarian tensions are growing and could turn Syria into a Somalia."
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 18 November 2012 at 07:31 PM
More fun!
As W.’s former aide Karen Hughes put it in Politico on Friday, “If another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue.”
https://blogs.christianpost.com/disciple/how-theelectoral-college-betrayed-the-people-12981/
https://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/president/
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 18 November 2012 at 09:49 PM
Michael-
The whole "winner take all" electoral college thing makes no sense other through the lens of two-arty politicking. Texas and California are two big examples of this. It makes more sense to award electors based on district, rather than disenfranchise (I do not think that's an overstatement) a sizable chunk of voters.
This way, we can keep the electoral college to keep the less populated States happy, and better represent the vote. Also, ranked voting or alternative voting would give people another choice other than "I'm voting for the less of two evils" vote.
The best thing that could happen in the Republic is a marginalization of one of the major parties. Either one would be fine for me. Looks like the GOP is first in line, unless they want to become more like Democrats. And that seems to be the message GOP Command. Like a dysfunctional marriage, the Democrats and the Republicans need each other.
Posted by: Ryan Mount | 19 November 2012 at 05:57 AM
More evidence on the dangers of liberal thinking:
CALIFORNIA: What happens when Dems get everything they want. “The California Republican Party is functionally dead. And how is California doing, now that liberals have successfully terminated the state’s remaining conservatives?” #1 in debt, #1 in welfare, #1 in taxing the rich. And hoping for a federal bailout, I suspect. As is Illinois, which is in similar straits for similar reasons. “One-third of all the nation’s welfare recipients live in the state, despite the fact that California has only one-eighth of the country’s population. That’s four times as many as the next-highest welfare population, which is New York. Meanwhile, California eighth-graders finished ahead of only Mississippi and District of Columbia students on reading and math test scores in 2011.”
More here: https://washingtonexaminer.com/can-conservatives-prevent-the-u.s.-from-becoming-california/article/2513695#.UKpLfqWjeQp
Posted by: Russ Steele | 19 November 2012 at 07:15 AM
RyanM 557am & RussS 715am - both points long argued in these pages. And the repetition of California's sad economic and education statistics is becoming more frequent as time passes and we sink deeper. The once remarkable thing was that the entire phenomenon has been invisible to the liberal mind. However, with rampant dumbth and generations of growing polarization (giving rise to clinically detected changes in brain processing), that blindness is also no longer remarkable.
I am reminded of the Papua-New Guinea episode where anthropologists discovered a tribe of 'stone age' natives whose world ended at a river bank across which they saw nothing. And speaking of Papua-New Guinea, CARB's long lamented (heraled by liberals) cap n' trade (tax) debacle has launched. It too hearkens back to the benighted primitives of that isle in their years-long cargo cult practice, the connection to CARB was discussed here -
https://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/12/californias-purple-cargo-cults.html
Posted by: George Rebane | 19 November 2012 at 08:52 AM
Now here is some of that wild Progressive thinking at it's finest.
"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Friday that Congress should stop placing legal limits on the amount of money the government can borrow and effectively lift the debt limit to infinity.
On Bloomberg TV, “Political Capital” host Al Hunt asked Geithner if he believes “we ought to just eliminate the debt ceiling.”
“Oh, absolutely,” Geithner said."
This sounds like it came right out of a Bogart movie. ( some here may even remember the famous line) " Budget...? BUDGET!!???? WE need no stinkn' budget!!! Start spendin' Amigos! " ( and the sound of cash register bells go off like machine gun fire)
How did "spending our way to prosperity" work the first time? Now Timmy wants to do it again.
Posted by: Walt | 19 November 2012 at 11:18 AM
When I confront my fiscal dove friends about this long term debt problem, they invariably remind me of two things, usually stolen from Professor Krugman:
1) It's the US Government, and we don't necessarily have to pay it back in a normal fashion. It isn't, they tell me, like a mortgage or credit card payment. We can tell foreigners to go suck it. They do admit that such adolescent behavior would have notable consequences.
2) The bond market is low, which tells them that there's no there, "there."
Posted by: Ryan Mount | 19 November 2012 at 11:27 AM
More evidence the liberals cannot comprehend the unintended consequences of their actions.
I highly recommend our liberal political leaders read and ponder this latest artcie by Joel Kotkin: The Rise of the Third Coast. While CARB is rasing the cost of docking in California ports the Gulf Coast is on the verge of capturing the fall out from this stupidity:
The trends favoring the Third Coast will accelerate further once the $5.25 billion Panama Canal expansion is completed in 2014, as I pointed out in Forbes last year. The wider canal will be able to accommodate Asian megaships, which are currently forced to dock in California. That will open the Gulf to more Pacific trade, since most northeastern and West Coast ports have been reluctant to make the necessary capital investments to capture it. China’s abandonment of the Maoist ideal of self-sufficiency and its growing willingness to rely on imports of food and other items represent a huge opportunity for the region.
Full article is here: https://www.newgeography.com/content/003230-the-rise-third-coast
Posted by: Russ Steele | 19 November 2012 at 11:37 AM
Ah, California is a rich futile field of futile thinking, so I will let others gleam pearls of foolishness that are waiting to be found. Mr. Steele has already pointed out that CA's 8th graders finished only ahead of Mississippi and DC in scores. Doesn't DC spend the most per pupil in the USA? Ca's solution to piss poor embarrassing results is to pass measures that pour more good money down the public education sinkhole thinking it will be all better this time. Keep doing what you are doing and you will keep getting what you are getting.
Moving on the the Great Liberal Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the current liberal administration in its infinite wisdom hired someone with no experience. Oh, she has pretty of experience driving no doubt.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/19/massachusetts-highway-safety-head-loses-job-after-report-driving-violations/?test=latestnew
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 19 November 2012 at 11:45 AM
So if Liberals are so bad can any of you explain why the Republicans offer such pitiful alternatives?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 19 November 2012 at 12:32 PM
Re: The fiscal cliff. They don't call him No Drama Obama for nothing. Now the Dems are calling the Repubs "fear mongers" for trying to sound the alarm about the Fiscal Cliff. Yep, I have been doing the politics of fear and people like me are to blame. Let's not discuss the issue. No, let's shoot the messenger.
Debt? Its not like real money or real consequences. Its all make believe. Its not even a real issue. Its just an entry in some imaginary ledger on somebody's desk. Who can trust some bookworm who dons a green visor anyway? Nothing to see here. Just those evil Right Wingnuts up to their politics of fear again.
Can you say Can Kicking Time? Thats right. I knew you could.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 19 November 2012 at 12:45 PM
Paul@12:32
The Republicans offered solutions and the Democrats offered free stuff for peoples votes. It was a no brainer for the voters, the solutions were going to limit the amount of free stuff. Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year old's. Now you and I and all the other taxpayers are going to have to pay for all that "free stuff."
Posted by: Russ Steele | 19 November 2012 at 01:04 PM
Big government's legacy: Total debt hits new record: $16,281,329,916,599.63 (https://www.usdebtclock.org/)
The Liberal answers: don't worry about it, in the long run we will all be dead.
I've never met/read a liberal who saw gov debt in a bad light or understood the enslaving 'powers' of said debt. They only see debt as bad when a rich capitalist deploys it.
Posted by: MikeyMcD | 19 November 2012 at 01:25 PM
Paul, I saw very little difference between Romney/Obama. Both are pro-war, both Keynesian, both for socialized healthcare... as I have said before I think Romney could run as a democrat.
The repubs are left-of-center and in need of a jolt to push them towards the right. Ditch the social platform (abortion/gay rights) and focus on debt, employment, broader tax base, smaller government, peace and individual liberty.
Posted by: MikeyMcD | 19 November 2012 at 01:32 PM
Mikey
But the Repubs can't do that without loosing the thumpers. Of course that's what lost them any chance to take the Senate.
Russ
Are you saying Romney offered solutions? When Romney suggested volunteer deportation as a solution for immigration woes and borrowing money from your parents to go to start a business as "solutions" I knew they were going to lose. He will now join Bush in exile and will historically will be known as one of the worst candidates in modern history.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 19 November 2012 at 02:17 PM
Pandering to 'the thumpers' while focusing on federal government issues/topics can be done by the right candidate.
Romney's business resume was better than anything we will see again in our lifetime.
Posted by: MikeyMcD | 19 November 2012 at 02:28 PM
Mikey
Do you have any insight on who that might be ? (candidate)
Posted by: Paul Emery | 19 November 2012 at 02:37 PM
He or She has yet to arrive to the stage... He or she may never come. I simply opined that it is possible to pander to 'the thumpers' while focusing on federal government issues/topics.
:)
Posted by: MikeyMcD | 19 November 2012 at 04:02 PM
Mikey
Actually Mike Huckabee could have fit that bill. He left a pleasing memory in 2008 as someone who could work with both sides and keep the wingers in line. Too late now that Fox bought him out and encouraged him to be the media darling of the Christian right. Actually the Newt was the Repubs best hope but look what they did to him when he suggested a reasonable solution to Immigration issues. Now they are all embracing what they dumped him for. Lots of fun for sure watching the Repubs retreat and get attacked on both sides.
Certainly George when you accuse the Liberals if being stupid you don't look upon the Republicans as being smart.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 19 November 2012 at 04:21 PM
PaulE 421pm - You have a point there Paul. I see the Repubs as not knowing how to play in this sandbox of the brave new world. Their stated principles are way better than the Dems' - when the Dems even list them - and their candidates are more attuned to the real world. But put them in the ring with Dems and a dumb electorate, then they look like they brought a knife to a gunfight.
Posted by: George Rebane | 19 November 2012 at 04:29 PM
Is "thumper"a racist dog-whistle for the left?
Posted by: Russ Steele | 19 November 2012 at 05:11 PM
Should read "by the left"
Posted by: Russ Steele | 19 November 2012 at 05:13 PM
Bible Thumpers Russ. More properly the Christian Right. Not to be confused with the fiscal conservatives or necessarily the Tea Party which is often falsely branded as activists for the social conservatives.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 19 November 2012 at 05:19 PM
“A modern liberal is someone who doesn’t care what you do, as long as it’s compulsory.”
— Stanton Evans
Posted by: MikeyMcD | 20 November 2012 at 07:33 AM
Some thoughts on the failure liberalism by John Hinderaker at Powerline:
"Things have now devolved to the point where California leads the nation in poverty:
The Golden State’s poverty rate is a whopping 23.5 percent – higher than the District of Columbia, at 23.2 percent, and even Florida, and 19.5 percent.
This is based on the federal government’s new poverty measure, and California suffered a bit because of its high cost of living, but that is a minor point–by any measure, California is number one in destitution. The cause is obvious: liberal Democrats have held unimpeded sway in California, just as they have in Detroit, Illinois, Miami, the District, and so on. Everywhere, the results have been similar. Where liberal policies are implemented, productive citizens fade away and poverty follows.
Sure, there are still a few rich people in California; the rich are always best able to withstand the ravages of leftism, for a time. But California now appears to be in a death spiral, and the consequences will be devastating, not just to Californians, but to the rest of us who will be called on to pick up the tab, once again, for failed liberalism."
Posted by: Russ Steele | 20 November 2012 at 07:38 AM
I watched a CSPAN panel from AEI last night regarding immigration and the minority vote. They were all over the board on the reasons why Obama received mopre votes. He got 71% and Romney got 29%. Well, the one fellow said after Reagan granted amnesty to the Latinos in 1986 they voted n the next Presidential election as follows. Dukakis 71% and GHW Bush 29%.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 20 November 2012 at 07:45 AM
Mr. Paul Emery. You appear to be a thinking kind of guy. You have stated positions as being anti-war, anti Christian Right, and Pro-Choice. What puzzles me is you do not declare yourself as a Democrat Liberal. It seems a perfect fit for you under the Big Tent, but then again, I have not walked a kilometer in your shoes.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 20 November 2012 at 09:04 AM
Bill Tozer 9:04am I think Paul understands the following:
NRA, pot-heads and homosexuals OH MY!
The title of this rant is somewhat misleading. I could have used a myriad of labels in place of ‘homosexuals,’ 'pot-heads' or ‘NRA.’
I am surprised at how many people place the plight of various groups (abortionists, wealthy, etc) into different camps while ignoring the fact that the said group is made up of individuals. And each individual battles the same foe. Government.
Each group is birthed by the desire of/for individual liberty. The liberty to do as they wish in the bedroom, protect themselves through armament, use their property as they see fit, eat/smoke what they want, etc.
The demands, laments and frustrations of each individual is nothing short of a protest against an over-bearing government.
[note: this rant will not focus on organizations that exist solely to collude with government (i.e. labor unions, environmental organizations, crony capitalists, etc)]
Why can’t the religious zealot, the ‘prepper’, the bi-sexual, marijuana user, the wealthy tax payer/landowner, the employer join together to fight their common foe? At the end of the day each of these individuals wants the same thing…. Liberty.
Posted by: MikeyMcD | 20 November 2012 at 09:18 AM
Tea Party Repub Allen West has conceded his re-election fight after two weeks of rants, court appearances and two partial recounts.
Murphy vs. West will go down as one of the most expensive in congressional history. Murphy won though he was out fundraised more than four-to-one by West and his PAC supporters. All that money flushed down the rat hole. Talk about a bad investment by the hard right.
West was a Tea Party favorite among the most conservative reaches of the Republican Party. He made a string of headline grabbing statements calling a majority of congressional Democrats communists and saying President Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and others should “get the hell out of the United States.” Well the voters spoke and over the massive amount of money spent by West the voters told him to... "get the hell out" of elected office.
This is yet another Tea Party ranter that was shown the door by the voters in this election. Read the Tea leaves as the "Tea Party 40 year plan" will not make it past the 2014 elections.
Posted by: Steve Enos | 20 November 2012 at 09:20 AM
Which of the core values do progressives have a beef with when hating on the Tea Party?
Fiscal Responsibility? Limited Government? Free Markets?
Do they promote fiscal irresponsibility? Are they pro-tyranny? Do they believe in a state ordained/designed/planned/elitist 'economy'?
Lastly, where does their faith (in the deity sense) in government come from?
Posted by: MikeyMcD | 20 November 2012 at 10:23 AM
Christian Right is a threat to what exactly? Work? Paying taxes? Living quiet lives? So-called family values? Charity?
The left hates the Christian Right because the thumpers do not support nor approve of abortion or alternative life styles. Thus, the "Progressives" paint them as guys wearing wife beater tee shirts, keeping enslaved wives barefoot and pregnant and existing only to serve the husband. Bunch of ignorant hillbillies clinging to the guns and Bibles. The progressives usually exclude mention of Black Churches who hold the same values.
The Christian Right even has the gall to say "I will tolerate your behavior, but do not ask me to condone it. That is asking too much and against my core beliefs."
I am not a church going man and not even a gun owner for reasons I wish not disclose here. I could legally have a gun anytime I choose, fyi. With that said, I do have an old Bible laying around here somewhere. Will have to look for it. I seem to recall that Jesus gave his followers one guarantee. The guarantee went something like this: "They will hate you because they hated me first." True words. But topics of religion are not fit for polite company in certain circles. Like fingernails on the chalkboard. The Progressives certainly are a gloom lot. Very hateful. Happy Thanksgiving y'all. We have much to be thankful for this year.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 20 November 2012 at 10:30 AM
Steve Enos@09:20AM
We cannot win them all, but here are some of the successes that your can chew on:
20 Things That Went Right on Election Day by Michelle Maulkin
1. Republicans retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
2. Voters in Alabama, Montana and Wyoming all passed measures limiting Obamacare.
3. Tea Party candidate Ted Cruze, one of the conservative movement's brightest rising
stars, overcame establishment GOP opposition to clinch a U.S. Senate victory in
Texas.
4. Corruptocrat Beltway barnacle, Representative Pete Stark was finally kicked out of
office in California.
5. Despite entrenched teachers' union opposition, a charter school initiative in
Washington State triumphed.
6. Despite entrenched Big labor support, a radical collective bargaining power grab in
Michigan failed.
7. Oklahoma voters said "no" to government race-based preferences in college
admissions, public contracting and government hiring.
8. Montana voters said "no" to boundless benefits for illegal aliens.
9. Wahsington state approved taxpayer-empowering limitations on its state legislature's
ability to raise taxes.
10. For the first time since Reconstruction, the GOP won control of the arkansas state
house.
11. Voters rejected tax hike ballot measures in Arizona, South Dakota and MIssouri.
12. Louisiana voted to protect gun rights.
13. Kentucky voted to protect hunting and fishing rights.
14. Parental notification for minors' abortion prevailed in Montana.
15. North Carolina Republicans claimed the governor's office, congressional gains and
control of the state's general assembly.
16. Paul Ryan will return to Congress after winning re-election and continue to carry the
tourch for entitlement reform and budget discipline.
17. Conservatives won big victories in the Kansas state legislature.
18. Republicans won historic supermajorities in Tennessee.
19. Across the country, Republicans reached a post-2000 record number of gubernatorial
victories.
20. Wisconsin GOP wins back control of the state government.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 20 November 2012 at 10:46 AM
MikeyMcD's and BillT's last comments echo the questions that have been asked here for years, and the response has always been been supplied by crickets (see also my 440pm above).
The only exception to the crickets have been the denigrations of strawman tenets not uttered or backed by the attacked organizations.
Posted by: George Rebane | 20 November 2012 at 10:56 AM
Mr. Steele, you omitted to mention that a Democrat Presidential Candidate failed to carry one single county in West Virginnie for the first time since...well, for the first time ever.
Just 4 years ago I heard the same song and dance that the Republicans are toast. Dust in the wind. Kaput. Nada, zilch, out of here, long time no come see. Then there was 2010, just 2 years ago.
Let Stevie "Isn't It Any Wonder" E dance in the streets. They won, we lost. We are relegated to the dust bin of history. Behind the times, dinosaurs. Let them think that. "Pride cometh before a fall" my Mother always said.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 20 November 2012 at 11:07 AM
So Russ, is the Tea Party taking "credit" for your above list? These were Tea Party efforts, these were Tea Party “victories”?
13. Kentucky voted to protect hunting and fishing rights. This was a Tea Party effort? What a hoot!
Across the U.S. Tea Party folks were shown the door, the hard right was shown the door and now the R's are in full melt down, circular firing squad mode.
Just watch FOX to see the blood letting that is now starting to take place after the re-election of President Obama and all the defeats of the hard right.
Between now and 2014 the R’s will move farther away from the hard right and the Tea Party. The R’s will move back towards the middle and it will make the Tea Party and hard right crazy as they are marginalized and left on the side of the road.
Demographics and social issues will bury the Tea Party and their "40 year plan" and the R Party will be the ones holding the shovel.
Posted by: Steve Enos | 20 November 2012 at 11:13 AM
Bill T
I was reflecting my view that the Thumpers are an appendage of the Republican party that keeps them from winning Presidential or even Senatorial elections. The "life begins at conception" platform combined with repeal of Rove V Wade means that if they had their way abortion would be illegal and criminalized. This is a different issue from whether it should be a funded part of national health care. As long as that is the Republican platform they will never have my support. BArry Goldwater supported a womans right to choose. Not this crew of self appointed moral guardians.
If they had their way it would be back to clothes hangers in cheap motels for millions of women. Also, marriage definition is not a function of government.
Mikey
I agree with so much of what you say. I believe that Libertarian values will have their day. There are rough edges that we part ways on but we're on the same path for sure.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 20 November 2012 at 01:54 PM
PaulE 154pm - good clarification. Yes, criminalizing abortion, and paying for legalized abortion are separate issues. My personally difficult stand has been that 1) withstanding the usual exceptions, abortion is legal in the first trimester, and 2) the feds don't get involved abortion payments. I stand to be dissuaded.
Posted by: George Rebane | 20 November 2012 at 03:15 PM
George
That's a point of view that I can respect though not necessarily embrace when it comes to woman's health issues.
My flirtation with Libertarian values struggles with health care which I believe is an essential human need such as clean air and water, national defense, contract law police and judicial that falls under the legitimate role of government responsibility.
My mantra of being a Green Libertarian still serves me well and is entirely plausible and defensible.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 20 November 2012 at 03:44 PM
PaulE 344pm - You have mentioned your 'Green Libertarian' leanings before, but I'm not sure that you've ever put meat on those bones. Is there any conflict in the 'green' component with that of 'individual liberties' so highly touted by libertarians - in short, where does your 'green' allow you and others to tell me what I can/not do?
And while you're at it, if we must share the cost of providing "essential human needs", where does it stop? Does it stop with daily bread, sufficient education, shelter from the elements, raiment to present oneself in a dignified manner, facile communications (cell phones), diversions from the daily grind (entertainment), ...? all human needs the absence of any of these will leave a sad mark on us either in our quality of life, or simply killing us. Are then all of these "the legitimate role of government responsibility"?
Posted by: George Rebane | 20 November 2012 at 03:56 PM
You start with the basic responsibilities of being a responsible citizen of this planet. Let's start with this
A bear does not shit in his own backyard. Why should we? If we do what is the remedy?
Big topics I will gladly engage in. How do we insure quality of life for future generations and not depend on a monster government. There are no easy answers and lots of questions.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 20 November 2012 at 04:10 PM
PaulE, the Christians keep R's from winning the Presidency? Let me see. Reagan 8 years, GHW Bush 4 years, GW Bush 8 years. And you libs claim Nixon has some "southern strategy: which contained Christians. I think you have stretched your credibility to the breaking point.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 20 November 2012 at 04:45 PM
Todd
That was then, this is now. The election was there for the taking. If Romney would have declared a woman has the right to choose despite his personal opinion and offered a reasonable immigration program he would have won. Done deal. Instead he caved to the thumpers on woman's issues (amplified by senate and house candidates as we know) and offered his ridiculous voluntary deportation idea the combination of which cost him the election. There are few observers that would disagree with me.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 20 November 2012 at 04:59 PM
George you asked... "where does your 'green' allow you and others to tell me what I can/not do?".
How about reviewing the Dust Bowl, what caused it and the damage, cost and deaths that resulted... no points for just saying drought as drought was not the primary cause.
Ken Burns' well done "Dust Bowl" documentary has been playing on PBS the last couple of days. Folks can watch this for the main answer of what caused the Dust Bowl and what "green" regulations were put in place after the fact to help insure it would not be repeated.
Then review Love Canal and how that happened as a second example of the ‘green’ need to tell others what to do or not due for the sake of all.
Posted by: Steve Enos | 20 November 2012 at 05:57 PM
Yes Steve
The dust bowl is a great example of what happens when ignorance about the consequences of human behavior manifests itself in disaster. It was indeed the combination of depleted soil due to grazing and agriculture and severe drought which was historically routine. The depleted native grasses which held the soil in place and helped retain moisture, even during dry periods were no longer a buffer against severe climate routines. I lived in Oklahoma in the mid 50's and in a casual ride in the country you'd see the devastation and abandoned farms and homes.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 20 November 2012 at 07:35 PM
Your dust bowl narrative = propaganda.
Posted by: James Clawson | 20 November 2012 at 08:20 PM
Paul Emery and Steve Enos,
I'd like to perhaps stretch a metaphor here. I'd like to suggest that just as those folks who were unwilling to accept that their farming practices in the Dustbowl counties had to change (become more sustainable), so are some Republicans unwilling to accept that some of their practices are also no longer sustainable.
Public Enemy #1 in this regard is no other than Grover Norquist. His time has certainly come and gone. How can we tackle tax reform in a bipartisan fashion w/o some taxes going up? As Ronald Reagan would say, "answer me that, Batman!" Sure, go after loopholes. But you are also going to lower taxes on some people and raise taxes on some other people. This is the definition of reform.
Grover Norquist is a stick-in-the-mud old poopy bottom, and the American body politic need never hear from him again. Good riddance, just like the Plains idiots who continued to shallow-plow in straight lines during the Great Depression.
No-Tax Pledges are yesterday's discarded Depends. New baby Norquist, meet today's bathwater.
Michael A.
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 20 November 2012 at 08:31 PM
Mr James
Can you provide me with some narrative on the dust bowl other than your one liner to help enlighten me on the topic?
Michael A
Yes, Grover is fading and will soon join Bush and the Mittster for a permanent time out. He's had quite a run though but every puppy has his day. Here's a start of what will come.
"Even more striking, an increasing number of prominent Republicans are dismissing Norquist as a pest. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has referred to him as "some random person." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says Norquist's power has been "broken." And in the unkindest cut for any Washington idea-monger, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) dismissed Norquist as inconsequential. "It doesn't matter what he says," Coburn told MSNBC in July."
Even our gracious host GR believes that's it's not appropriate for elected officials to make such pledges.
https://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-norquist-20121121,0,2290363.column
Posted by: Paul Emery | 20 November 2012 at 08:59 PM
PaulE, you crack me up. A defeat does not make a trend. GW Bush beat your boys in 2000 and 2004 so I guess that was a trend? You need better talking points.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 20 November 2012 at 09:04 PM
Todd
The juicy corn dog that you owe me should be a evidence enough of our comparative political observations.
"Romney by 6-8 " Sure Todd
Actually if you pay attention to what I say you would see that there is potential light in the tunnel for the Pubsters. They just have to change their game plan. Based on the success of my predictions you should thank me me for my good advice. Would you hire you to be a political adviser?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 20 November 2012 at 09:18 PM
Steven you wrote:
How about reviewing the Dust Bowl, what caused it and the damage, cost and deaths that resulted... no points for just saying drought as drought was not the primary cause.
Here are some facts from NASA:
NASA Explains 'Dust Bowl' Drought (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center (2004, March 19).) [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040319072053.htm]: “cooler than normal tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures and warmer than normal tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures contributed to a weakened low-level jet stream and changed its course. The jet stream, a ribbon of fast moving air near the Earth's surface, normally flows westward over the Gulf of Mexico and then turns northward pulling up moisture and dumping rain onto the Great Plains. As the low level jet stream weakened, it traveled farther south than normal. The Great Plains dried up and dust storms formed. Analysis of other major U.S. droughts of the 1900s suggests a cool tropical Pacific was a common factor.”
Normally, the state of Nebraska averages around 20 inches of rainfall a year.
In 1930, Nebraska got 22 inches of rain, and the state's corn crop averaged 25 bushels per acre.
In 1934, Nebraska saw the driest year on record with only 14.5 inches of rainfall. The state's corn crop dropped even more to only 6.2 bushels per acre.
In other words, between 1930 and 1934 rainfall dropped 27.5 percent, and as a result corn crop yields dropped over 75 percent.
The rain fall dropped because of the PDO. Not because of any action by humans. I like Burn's work, but in this case he is hewing to the liberal line on climate change. As a result I have no desire to watch his propaganda.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 20 November 2012 at 09:24 PM
SteveE 557pm - Yes, I saw the PBS 'Dust Bowl', but your citing it misses the point of my 356pm question (and confirms the academic research on liberal thinking by Prof Beverly Gage cited here). More here -
https://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2012/08/the-liberals-intellectually-baseless-ideology.html
What you've brought up is an example of 'issue activism' that does not address the intended topic of discussion. And as Burns again makes clear, the man-contributed cause of the Dust Bowl was NOT due to individual farmers going against best practices. The farmers did what was best at the time, and when an obviously better method (e.g. contour plowing) was discovered along with the return of rain, they all switched to that for obvious reasons.
That example is worthless for addressing the bigger questions that I posed about collective limits on freedom and collective funding of human needs. Am not sure whether you follow any of this. What are the principles that would be used to evaluate practices such as the now state forced cap and trade auctions conducted by CARB? Clearly they are not the same ones that were introduced to help alleviate the Dust Bowl.
Posted by: George Rebane | 20 November 2012 at 09:26 PM
Russ
You are way off track on this one. Are are saying that the destruction of the native grasses that had held the soil firm in the past when there were similar droughts had no effect on the conditions that led to the dust bowl? Yes or no.
This makes me doubt your observations on global warming which I was finding at least intriguing and informative.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 20 November 2012 at 09:35 PM
Thanks Paul (and GR), that pretty much cements it. Nasty Norquist baby and bathwater--out the window in one fell divestment. Opprobrium and rebuke: Bye Grover!
https://www.change.org/petitions/grover-norquist-vote-out-all-signers-of-the-norquist-pledge
And George, I know that you find Brooks to be way too pablum, but take a look at his recent column--I think there might be some things in here you actually like: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/opinion/brooks-the-conservative-future.html?hp
In particular, his review of Yuval Levin's writings on entitlement and health care reform are worth noting. They resonate for me, anyway.
M.
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 20 November 2012 at 09:42 PM
Paul@09:35PM
Here are some more facts. The mid-west droughts are cyclical, they have noting to do with human activity. Yes, farming practices contributed to the dust, but not to the drought, that was Mother Natures doing. She has cycles just like human women do.
The droughts in North America that took place between 1130 and 1180 CE and between 1276 to 1299 CE took place before the Industrial Revolution and when North America had a sparse human population. Evidentially, droughts in North America can occur without mankind causing them. The drought that preceded the Dust Bowl took place during a time of increasing industrial activity, but according to a report published by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, that particular drought was not as bad as those that took place during the 1800s. That report states the following:
The Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. But the Dust Bowl drought was not meteorologically extreme by the standards of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Indeed the 1856-65 drought may have involved a more severe drop in precipitation.
Knowing that climates in North America have not remained steady, and knowing that severe droughts have struck North America periodically, would it not make sense to anticipate climate change even if mankind is not the cause of it?
Posted by: Russ Steele | 20 November 2012 at 10:02 PM
This seems a bit odd:
"...that was Mother Natures doing..[s]he has cycles just like human women do..."
Umm, really? Have you gone pagen? This sounds like pure Lovelock in his early days, before he started projecting aerosols. Plus Wicker Man. Cycles, heh.
Russ, no truer words were spoken:
"...would it not make sense to anticipate climate change even if mankind is not the cause of it?"
Umm, yeah. For sure. Let the planning begin.
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 20 November 2012 at 10:30 PM
Thanks Russ
That's pretty much my conclusion. I never claimed the drought was the result of climate change but the dust bowl that followed was largely the result of farming practices and the destruction of natures defenses which were man made. Can we agree on that?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 20 November 2012 at 10:32 PM
I saw the Dust Bowl. Good informative show. My, what hardy stock and hard times those people endured. Made me think of the role of the federal gov't when disasters or mayhem strikes which is too big/regional for one state or even the hardiest of us can handle.
Ever tromp around the area north of Flagstaff and the San Francisco Peaks? North is all desert all the way to Vegas. Barren land. Used to be all grassland, full of Native Americans weaving baskets and playing in the little Colorado river basin. Probably changed 900-1,500 years ago. Before the Navajo. What caused that?
Concerning being a good citizen of the planet, its an agreement. In fact, the Christian Right and the greenies are in full agreement. The Greenies say "citizen", the Christian Right says "steward". The Christian Right believes that it is their responsibility to be a good steward of the planet, the gardener assigned to caretake it if you will. An early and stubborn people were given laws and regulation concerning treatment of animals, especially beasts of burden. Most of the Ten Commandments deal with respect of others and property/possession rights. Other regulations deal with restitution of injury or harm done to others. But I digress. Without farming none of us would be here. We can argue about grazing rights and use of open land and pasture land and clearing all day long. We know it is from the Earth that we receive our substance, our nourishment.
Ducks Unlimited is a duck hunting organization that is absolutely convinced that ducks/fowl have to have a good environment, habitat, sensible practices by hunters to insure there will be enough ducks for the future. Same with the fishing industry, and farmers letting ground rest up (fallow) and rotating crops. We have learned alot. Cities are a different ball of wax. How many redwoods are in Redwood City?
Where they greenies and the Christian Right differ is most basic. The greenies (some of them) worship the creation, while the Christian Right worships the Creator and appreciates the handiwork of the Divine as expressed through the creation.
Posted by: bill tozer | 20 November 2012 at 10:34 PM
Well spoken Bill
That's all for me tonight. To all of you I appreciate the thoughtful conversation. Let's continue in this manner.
Tomorrow is my birthday then Turkey day. Everyone have a good holiday.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 20 November 2012 at 10:53 PM
Paul, BTW thanks for the LA Times article, that was really good. I just finished reading it.
It made me think of this: https://belindabentley.com/Public/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BurningPictureMan.jpg
Sorry in advance for the large bytes...
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 20 November 2012 at 11:04 PM
Bill, your invocation of Green and Christian alignment is spot on. I know of many of these alliances both locally and regionally.
The bigger question is whether the two party system will hold; so many of these alliances are tortured by artificial differences created by these two untrustworthy parties.
I agree with Paul, George's RR is a good venue to further these discussions...and Happy Birthday Paul, BTW.
...and Happy Thanksgiving to all. We have a lot to be thankful for.
Michael A.
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 20 November 2012 at 11:19 PM
So PaulE, how is it too turn 75? Happy 75!
BillyT, I like your analysis. There are not many Christians I know who crap in their kitchens. The difference is the Greenies do.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 21 November 2012 at 08:10 AM
MichaelA 942pm - Good survey by Brooks that still begs the question I raised (and you ignored?) in my 'Does Multikulti require Multi-party?' The advice given by Brooks' referents is all over the map; can/should these be fit under one party umbrella?
BillT 1034pm - Excellent essay.
PaulE 1053pm - A very happy birthday to today Paul (I'll see you in a bit).
And echoing MichaelA, we do have a lot to be thankful for, Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Posted by: George Rebane | 21 November 2012 at 08:55 AM
Paul E @ 4:10p 20 Nov.
If a bear don't do de doo doo in his own backyard, where do he do de doo doo?
On a related copy, untill Hansen, Mann and the rest of the AGW zealots began adjusting things, 1934 was also the hottest year on record in the USA. And it sure as hell wasn't caused by CO2. L
Posted by: L | 21 November 2012 at 10:08 AM
L
The question of the Dust Bowl never implied global warming so why are you going there? It had to do with the destruction of grasslands that provided a defense against drought caused erosion-the dust bowl
Posted by: Paul Emery | 21 November 2012 at 12:02 PM