Zhivago and Road to Serfdom

In our recent focus to attempt to catch up on some of the more classical films, my wife and I are watching the three hours and twenty minutes of Dr Zhivago. It so happens I'm just about through with my 3rd reading of "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich von Hayek, one of my all-time favorites. It was amazing to see the history of destruction wrought by the policies of the left actually shown in a Hollywood film. "Your personal life is dead, it has been replaced by history". A very apt line, well understood by Hayek to be the near certain eventual result of collectivist policy.

After the fall of the USSR, the differences between N and S Korea, the differences between East and West Germany prior to the wall coming down, Hong Kong, the results of Reaganomics after the Carter disaster of the '70's --- and many more examples, HOW do people still believe that "The State" re-distributing wealth at the point of a gun and trying to run the economy by a central bureaucracy works "better"?

The biggest points of the book revolve around the fact that traditional liberalism means liberal ECONOMIC freedom and INDIVIDUAL freedom and responsibility in as many aspects of life as possible. The theft and confusion of the term "liberal" to mean the OPPOSITE of it's historical meaning and become "collectivist, redistributionist, central planning and control by huge government is propaganda in itself (changing the meaning of words to hide the real meaning). Even worse, the misidentification of the National SOCIALIST (Nazi) government as a "movement of the right" is a completely bold faced propaganda lie.

The collectivist movement of the Communists, Socialists and Nazis ("Socialist and Nazi are really redundant as in "National Socialist") has been able to use the apparatus of the media and the state to rename itself (amazingly) to "liberal", when in fact like all collectivist movements, it is totalitarian by its very nature. It seeks to remove the freedom of individuals under the claim that life will be "better for all" (except of course the individuals that need to "sacrifice"). We have seen the result of collectivist movements fail miserably again and again in extreme manners where millions of people are starved or slaughtered, and every phase of life becomes controlled by the state.

Why? Envy is is a powerful emotion, but unlike "greed" it isn't self-limiting. While the modern world lets one consume a lot, there are still only so many hours in a day and so many ways to attempt to pile up or consume wealth. "Worse", all the legal ones require work, risk or both. Not so with envy -- umbrage and outrage know no limits, and no extra intelligence or focused thought is required to be envious. The "poverty" of today is beyond much of the "plenty" of even the 1940's, let alone the start of the 20th century, but as long as wealth has not be allocated as some lefty "feels is right", then they feel it is only "moral" to attack the very sources of the current plenty.

The desire for power is also not wanting in the world, and no matter how many millions demagogues like Jon Edwards have been able to chase down from passing ambulances, there is always the prospect for power to go with the wealth.  Always ready and waiting envious masses with their noses pressed up against the glass store windows to listen to someone tell them that "the system is broken", and a guy that is worth millions and gets $400 haircuts REALLY has their best interests in mind! There are always plenty of feeble sheep willing to believe any propaganda dumped in their manger so that they may truly serve on their knees as serfs.

There are no doubt a significant number that have at least some dim awareness that what is proffered as "justice" is really tyranny, but their envy has grown so great that even actions which hurt the entire population are deemed desirable as long as they at least seem to "hurt the rich the most". As in Zhivago however, the individual that accepts their responsibilities and even their flaws as their own, without trying to blame others remains more praiseworthy, even if the envious succeed in even their execution. There are worse fates than death, especially since it awaits us all anyway. Living with an ideology that has had to steal it's name and is unwilling to admit to either it's history or ultimate objectives would be one.

The book is relatively accessible and is one Margaret Thatcher strongly encouraged all her staff to read. It is a MUST read for anyone that wants to understand the most important political issue of our times. 

christmas eve eve

Sitting in a Caribou coffee with a rare eggnog latte. I usually avoid the flavors, but, it's Christmas, and I like eggnog. Delivered a ton of BBQ meatballs to the Ronald McDonald cancer home for kids and their families, and my wife is serving dinner. They got rid of me as to not scare the kids.

This is my 2md attempt at a blog from the iPhone-I don't think keyboards are in danger yet!

Anyway, I've been reading up a storm lately, hopefully I will have the writing muse to get some blogs done as well.

A Good Year for Bush?

Here is a hard to find view on Bush. Do I think it is 100% accurate? No, not at all, it is "the fringe" of a positive view on '07 for Bush, BUT, in the world of "truth and information" as opposed to "propaganda and lies", one looks for multiple points of view to try to put some bounds on reality.

Something like 80% of the people were totally for the War in Iraq when we went in. I suspect that something close to that number were against the Surge and thought it was "hopeless". It didn't take all that much courage for Bush to go to war with 80% on his side. It took a tad more leadership and courage for him to do the Surge with a very high percentage of the people against him. To date, it has worked. The Democrats will do all they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and they may still make it happen-and of course the MSM will be a willing accomplice through it all. They may well still succeed in making Iraq a disaster, but it looks much less of a sure thing than it did last year at this time.

Pretty much the same for the economy. The Democrats and the MSM have a lot to say about it being bad, but econimics is pretty much about numbers in the real world, and the best real analysis is that the economy is "good to excellent". Inflating fuel prices caused by worldwide demand for fuel hasn't killed it, and the sub-prime real estate bubble has failed to scuttle the economic ship as well.

Seem like there are a lot of prospects for a Happy New Year, but I'm sure that this will be the darkest election year in my lifetime.

Tony Blair Converts to Catholicism

Interesting to read the MSMs view of Blair's conversion. The left might well do well to create a state religion beyond secular humanism. While they no doubt consider it "quaint" that 72% call themselves, it seems clear that with less than 10% attending church regularly, their "christianity" is having scant affect on their lives. It commonly seems that the MSM in this country finds anyone whose religion is actually a significant part of their life as a bit of a "nutter".

The former prime minister told the BBC this year that he had avoided talking about his religious views while in office for about 10 years for fear of being labeled "a nutter."
In England's last census, 72 percent of people identified themselves as Christian. 

Many are Anglicans affiliated with the Church of England, which was created by royal proclamation during the 16th century after King Henry VIII -- who married six times -- broke ties with the Roman Catholic Church in a dispute over divorce. 

The Church of England has said that less than 10 percent of its members are regular churchgoers. Britons often are surprised by people who openly and fervently discuss their religious views, and the degree to which faiths such as evangelicalism can influence U.S. politics

Everything Is Miscellaneous

Finished the book by David Weinberger and at least for an information technology long-term Web denizen it wasn't all that enlightening, but it did name some concepts well I guess. The idea of "order of order"; 1st order is physical, how things are ordered on a shelf in a drawer or in a store, in the physical universe, you get a single order. The second order is "index order" or "map order"; the card catalog at the library being the classic example.

The third order of order is in some degree "disorder" in the human sense, but it is what the Net is all about. Freed from the physical limits of things like cards and paper maps we can link endlessly and order in any way we see fit. Playlists on iTunes, Google, Blogs, etc. Lots of focus on the commonly used tree structure of many of our classifications, with the example of the Linnaean classification of the world of living things, and how we are finding that it really isn't that tidy.

I wouldn't really recommend the book for anyone very serious about understanding the phenomenon of digitization and the Web. It might be a good intro, but it seemed too "Pop" to me.

The Official Democrat Platform for Election

Uh, well, from 1864, against that warmongering Republican Abraham Lincoln. I guess they only seem to have inconsistency in the short view. When one considers historic willingness to cut and run before the job is done, they really ARE a lot more consistent that I give them credit for. They really DO love that Constitution-unless they are of course trampling it with Federal regulation of business, finding new Federal rights like abortion, taking away specific enumerated rights like that of bearing arms, etc. It is very much worth the short read, some things indeed never change:

Resolved, That in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the States, both Northern and Southern.

Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States.

Resolved, That the direct interference of the military authorities of the United States in the recent elections held in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware was a shameful violation of the Constitution, and a repetition of such acts in the approaching election will be held as revolutionary, and resisted with all the means and power under our control.

Resolved, That the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired, and they hereby declare that they consider that the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution — the subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test-oaths; and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense is calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a Government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Resolved, That the shameful disregard of the Administration to its duty in respect to our fellow citizens who now are and long have been prisoners of war and in a suffering condition, deserves the severest reprobation on the score alike of public policy and common humanity.

Resolved, That the sympathy of the Democratic party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiery of our army and sailors of our navy, who are and have been in the field and on the sea under the flag of our country, and, in the events of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the republic have so nobly earned.

Tis the Season for Vote Buying

Gee, I wonder whose money she figures to use for all those "presents"?

Laws of Nature

This is an excellent little article on some of the players / issues in the cosmology discussions in physics.

The ending is super. This article is closely related to this:

Maybe both alternatives — Plato’s eternal stone tablet and Dr. Wheeler’s higgledy-piggledy process — will somehow turn out to be true. The dichotomy between forever and emergent might turn out to be as false eventually as the dichotomy between waves and particles as a description of light. Who knows?

The law of no law, of course, is still a law.

When I was young and still had all my brain cells I was a bridge fan, and one hand I once read about in the newspaper bridge column has stuck with me as a good metaphor for the plight of the scientist, or of the citizen cosmologist. The winning bidder had overbid his hand. When the dummy cards were laid, he realized that his only chance of making his contract was if his opponents’ cards were distributed just so.

He could have played defensively, to minimize his losses. Instead he played as if the cards were where they had to be. And he won.

We don’t know, and might never know, if science has overbid its hand. When in doubt, confronted with the complexities of the world, scientists have no choice but to play their cards as if they can win, as if the universe is indeed comprehensible. That is what they have been doing for more than 2,000 years, and they are still winning

HW "Nixes" Clinton Trip Idea

I love the way the MSM portrays it as HW being bad ...

How out of touch is it for the supposedly "feel your pain sensitive" Slick Willie to suggest that a Father would be willing to sign on to such a horribly cheap shot at his Son? Yes, Yes, we know that Slick and Hillary would certainly throw poor Chelsea under the bus if that would gain them votes, but one would have thought that they were more aware of the "weakness" of their opposition. They like to exploit the fact that Republican's love their children and have principles, but I thought they had more understanding of the "other side" than this displays.

People that have values and care about things like family are going to support those that they love when they are doing right, no matter how unpopular that right may be. I know that is something that is completely foreign to the Clinton's and their ilk, but they were alive during Reagan, they ought to at least realize that decency actually does exist! We won't even go into the facts of the Surge working and many world leaders working closer with Bush as a result. Even most of the spineless generally react well to success, "The Stain" is just an exception.

If Hillary sinks any lower in the polls, Chelsea better watch her back. I suspect Hillary could fake another half-human looking tear over something untoward happening to poor Chelsea. Gore, Edwards, the Kennedy's-they all seem to have a closet full of maudlin stories that are are supposed to "make folks love them" when they drag them out. The fact that they are so willing to USE those stories and apparently have so little understanding of the concept of loyalty shows that their "heart" makes the unrepentant Grinch look like a Saint!

We know Bush Sr lacked the kind of character and character judgment that Reagan had, or he would have never broken his taxes pledge appointed Souter to the Supreme Court, or allowed The Great Fornicator to use him as "a buddy". I'd like to see HW stand up with a little more force on this one,but at least he exhibited basic decency, which is WAY more than one can ever expect from Hill-Billy.

The Forgotten Man

https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0060936428

I must admit that the combination of this book by Amity Shales with "The Myth of the Rational Voter" gives me some pause for future prospects. The ability of the left to ignore known information, especially in the areas of economics and business, while catering to natural class biases and fears of "the common man" is significant. Both are however excellent books which very much deserve to be read rather than just just the cliff note version.

The short version of "The Forgotten Man" (TFM) is that Hoover and others started the policies that would cause the depression in the late '20s by trying to reduce the money supply, raise taxes pass tariffs (Smoot Hawley), and increase Government control and projects (eg. Hoover Dam). Hoover and the Republicans started the descent, but FDR and the Democrats weakened and prolonged it by pushing the failed policies harder, and most damaging, actually attacking business and criminalizing individual business practices. In some cases, the rules were completely irrational, as in the NRA insistence on "straight killing" of chickens disallowing customer selection and differential pricing that went all the way to the Supreme Court in Schechter. When FDR and the New Dealers lost, he was furious and embarked on his "packing the court" attempt to circumvent the Constitution.

The degree to which the Democrats, the schools, and the MSM have propagandized the "New Deal", The Depression" and especially FDR himself is incredible. The spectacle of a very rich man "going after the rich" while sailing on his yacht may be the poster child case for "consistency is not an issue". By raising taxes, criminalizing business behavior after the fact and moving the Government into new areas (utilities, unions, pricing, etc), he managed to simultaneously reduce the prospective return for risk taken (by tax rate increases) while drastically INCREASING the risk on both the business front (regulation, government takeover, unions), but also add in the prospects of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, even if the act was not "illegal" at the time it was done. An amazing combination of horrible policy, no wonder he managed to prolong the Depression until WWII forced him to change his policies so business could get busy and win the war.

A core of the book is this quote:

"As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering. A talks it over with B and A and B propose to get a law passed to to remedy the evil and help X. There law always proposes what A, B, AND C will do to help X. But what about C? There was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law and the indenturing of C to the cause. C is the forgotten man, the man who paid, the man who is never thought of."

FDR took if farther than that and tried to claim that X was the "forgotten man", and established the idea of buying the votes of X with the money of C. The producers that make the sacrifices and take the risks were expected to keep producing and to even increase production for less and less benefit as FDR and company tinkered with the economy at will and constantly demonized the very "rich" whom they depended on to power their redistribution schemes.

In a campaign speech at Madison Square Garden for his 2nd term FDR said:

"I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my 2nd administration that in it these forces met their master."

Not a lot of hubris in that is there? One gets a little glimpse of why God decided that man needed to be made mortal, no matter how impishly they might like to hold their cigarette. If FDR was such a "master", how come he's dead? One NEVER heard Ronald Reagan make such claims, yet his policies actually worked!

After FDR went too far for even his lefty supporters, and some of them started to criticize him, one of his cronies, Harold Ickes wrote the following in his diary that is a pretty good (though unintended) peek into the soul of the modern liberal:

"I often think that the definition of a liberal is a man who wants what is unattainable or who wants to reach his objective by methods that are so impracticable as to be self-defeating. So many liberals want merely to be in opposition. They do not want to advance from objective to objective."

So true, and one might add "Thank God"! If they went that extra little step of FDR and Ickes and completely ignored the Constitution, packed the court and took even more power, we would have no democracy left at all by now, only Government.

"Roosevelt also set out to prove that the intention of taxpayers who failed to complete complex returns correctly was malign: Where there was ambiguity, taxpayers ought to be presumed guilty. This was especially disingenuous of the president, for Roosevelt himself would submit an ambiguous tax return for the year 1937 ... with the note attached: "as this is a problem of higher mathematics, may I ask that they Bureau let me know the balance due?..."

How consistent. A liberal never expects his rules to apply to him, only to others.

The book is excellent, but scary. There are so many parallels to what we likely face going into '09. Bush mistakenly attempted to tack back to the middle like Slick Willie had done before him with the predictable result of derision from the middle to left and abandonment by the right. Now we will likely ride into a full Democrat controlled administration with everyone primed so that any disaster created can be "blamed on Bush" for a least the first two, and likely full four years of the first term.

Not Dirty Tricks

In a classic example of grade-school level logic, a Clinton campaign staffer points out how:

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," Shaheen said. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Oh yes, "Republican dirty tricks", there are no other kind, right? They even have multiple names; "Willie Horton", "Swift Boating".

Of course the CLINTON's are completely above such things, and the Democrats nor their buddies in the MSM would ever engage in anything even remotely "dirty". If pointing out that a guy released by a Presidential candidate on a furlough program that he was in favor of murdered, or that others that had served with equal and greater honor didn't have the right to question a candidates flaunting 3 purple hearts for which he never spent a night in the hospital was actually "dirty".

From the reverse side, the "bad guys" in the case of pointing out that Dan Rather was using fake documents to smear Bush over 40 year old potential issues are "the pajama media", the evil bloggers that brought the facts to light. In the "good old days" when the ONLY media was the Democrat controlled MSM, they never had to worry about such things.

Bi-Partisan Wishes

To All My Democrat Friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive,  gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere.

Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To My Republican Friends:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Gore Attempts to Reduce House Energy Use

CNN proudly proclaims that Gore is actually trying to get his mansion to be less of an environmental hog. It is nice to see that he isn't so much of a potentate that he at least "reacts" to criticism even while dismissing it. Sort of seems on one had that it is POSSIBLE to get even the most hard core environmental offenders to take action with enough public criticism? Naturally, it is "unfair" for the Nobel Prize Winning "Goreacle" to receive criticism. We all know how he avoids casting any stones at others.

He was also in the news this week from Bali, where he traveled for a global conference on the environment. NPR had a nice segment on him apologizing for the USA, it sounded like he was embarrassed for the country that he once had the honor of being Vice President for. I wonder if they selected Bali as the place fly to in their private jets to out of "minimal carbon impact"?

I suppose the life of zero personal responsibility while receiving accolades for being such an "environmentalist" is fun for those that have no need for any consistency. From the article, it is pretty clear that even AFTER all the high priced changes he makes his massive mansion will STILL be hugely more of an energy hog than George Bush's modest home which the media seems quite capable of completely ignoring.

Ray of Hope for '08?

Part of the reason that the outlook for '08 looks so dreary for Republicans is because the MSM is keeping a pretty solid lid on anything that could be seen as good news. However, a couple strongly Republican districts staying Republican isn't earthshaking either--Just means that the House and Senate won't be 100% Democrat.

read more | digg story

Golden Compass

I had heard rumors of this, but it sounds like it is a fact. The Golden Compass is a "teaser" to bring youth into the atheist faith. It is a free country, I don't have an objection to atheists trying to increase their numbers, BUT, it seems that a bit of "truth in advertising" might be something that an "unbiased MSM" would be interested in?

What if a movie was trying to soft-pedal racism or was anti-Muslim? Do you suspect that the MSM would be as quiet about that undertone?

Snopes on Golden Compass

Four Types of People

Quoted from Wikipedia and oh so true!

A practical observation on the risks of stupidity was made by the German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in Truppenführung, 1933: "I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"

The Myth of the Rational Voter

This book by Bryan Caplan subtitled "Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies" is groundbreaking and has an easy to understand thesis with a lot of supporting data that is not quite so easy to understand, but quite convincing. Even if it ISN'T convincing, the data is laid out with such rigor, that if it can be disproved, that will move knowledge forward as well.

The thesis is that the real cost to a voter of a single vote is zero so voters "rationally decide to vote irrationally". Since the cost of a vote for a policy that we may suspect to be irrational (eg. protectionism), but makes us "feel like we did something good" (eg. protected American jobs) is zero, we are incented to vote irrationally.

The book opens with "In a Dictatorship; government policy is often appalling, but rarely baffling. The building of the Berlin Wall sparked worldwide outcry, but few wondered, "What are the leaders of East Germany thinking?" That part was pretty clear; their people were fleeing and they wanted to keep them.

On the other hand, protectionism is universally known and proven to be harmful to economies, it was one of the cornerstone causes of the great depression, and the unanimity of professional economists on the subject makes Global Warming look positively outlandish. However; "Even when countries negotiate free trade agreements, the subtext is not, "Trade is mutually beneficial", but, "We'll do you the favor of buying your imports if you do us the favor of buying ours". Admittedly, this is less appalling than the Berlin Wall, yet is is more BAFFLING." The book is about "why does this happen, and what does it mean".

There are no doubt a longer list of biases than are covered here, but this book is written by an economist so that is where the focus is, here is the list of the main ones:

Antimarket Bias - "The public has severe doubts about how much it can count on profit seeking business to produce socially beneficial outcomes. They focus on the motives of business, and neglect the discipline imposed by competition." Unlike a commonly accepted idea like say "global warming", even though we have many solid comparisons of how well markets work next to non-markets (USSR/USA, W Germany/E Germany, Hong Kong and Taiwan vs Communist China, Communist China after adopting markets vs Communist China prior to markets).

The cases where markets have been "shown not to work", as in the Great Depression have turned out to actually be other cases where Government messed things up (inadequate money supply, protectionist trade regulation, raising taxes into the face of a faltering economy, a myriad of switches in direction that caused business to have no idea of what direction to go, attacks on business by government as scapegoating that added to the desire to avoid risk when the only way to move forward is always to take risks).

Anti foreign Bias - "The Law of Comparitive Advantage, one of the most facinating theorems in economics, shows that mutually beneficial international trade is possible even when one nation is less productive in every way. Suppose an American can make 10 cars or 5 bushels of wheat, and a Mexican can make one car or two bushels of wheat. Though the Americans are better at both tasks, specialization and trade increase production. If one American switches from wheat to cars, and three Mexicans switch from cars to wheat, world output goes up by two cars plus one bushel of wheat.

People are biased against foreigners, and even then only SPECIFIC foreigners. In the 1980s it was against Japan, now it is against China. During anti-Japan hysteria of the 1980's, British direct investment in the US always exceeded that of the Japanese by at least 50%, BUT, it was "the Japanese that were buying America".

If you factor out anti-foreign bias, there is no difference in your "balance of trade" with Wal-Mart and the US balance of trade with China. If you believe that to be false and the law of comparative advantage to be false, then simply grow/produce all your own food and see how much "cheaper" it is.

Make-Work Bias - "The public often literally believes that labor is better use than conserve. Saving labor, producing more goods with with fewer man hours, is widely perceived not as progress, but as a danger." ... "No solitary man would ever conclude that, in order to make sure that is own labor had something to occupy it, he should break the tools that save him labor, neutralize the fertility of the soil, or return to the sea the goods that it may have brought him. He would understand, in short, that saving in labor is nothing else than progress."

Pessimistic Bias - "Two more generations should saturate the world with population, and should exhaust the mines. When that moment comes, economical decay, or the decay of economical civilization, should set in" (Henry Adams, 1898) It is never very hard to find people to explain to you how the past was better, the present is going downhill and the future is going to be awful. Humans tend to confuse their own life cycle with that of the world.

David Hume said; "The humour of blaming the present and admiring the past, is strongly rooted in human nature, and has an influence on even on persons endued with the profoundest judgment and most extensive learning". It isn't hard to imagine what many of the average voters with below average judgment and learning think.

In order to show what the public thinks, the book leans heavily on the Harvard "Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy" or SAEE. This part of the book gets a little dry, but the bottom line is that people that have earned money money to improve their economic position (not those born rich, not those that win the lottery) and people with college degrees are much closer to understanding economics.

So after a lot of statistics and other analysis, he concludes that since the cost of each vote is effectively zero, people would much rather vote their biases because those make them feel better, so Democracy is irrational at least for economics. Worse, we seem to keep wanting to move to a more popular vote posture and adding in regular polls to make the "public view" more widely felt, and thus encourage more irrational behavior.

For me the scariest thing was that a lot of what appears to be malevolent behaviour on the part of politicians and the MSM can be explained by simple stupidity. Once again, Heinlein's axiom is proven; "NEVER attribute that to malice that can be explained by simple stupidity".

The book is very entertaining on balance, but a bit frightening. "Should my book push you toward democratic pessimism? Yes. Above all I emphasize that voters are irrational. But I also accept two views common among democratic enthusiasts: That voters are largely unselfish and politicians usually comply with public opinion. Counter-intuitively; this threefold combination - irrational cognition, selfless motivation, and modest slack is "as bad as it gets".

"What economists currently see as the optimal balance between markets and government rests upon an overestimate of the virtues of democracy. In many cases, economists should embrace the free market in spite of it's defects, because it still outshines the democratic alternative."

The book is WELL worth reading in it's entirety, although not much is lost if one wants to skim the supporting statistical and survey information. There is MUCH more covered than I comment on here, and I'm not really sure that I covered all the high points.

Believing What You Like

On the way home tonight, NPR continued it's attack on the Bush Administration because the CIA has "proved them wrong". Daniel Schorr seemed to have his nose even higher in the air than normal and his pronouncements more arrogant than normal if such a thing is possible. The Bush Administration is just not "reality based" according to ancient Daniel.

I think we have another "liberal fundamental here". The "National Intelligence Estimate" (NIE) prior to the Iraq war called WMD in Iraq a "slam dunk". While I might be far more prone to think that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" than Daniel, I assume his assessment is that the pre-Iraq war NIE was "100% wrong".

In 2005, the NIE on Iran gave the same level of confidence that Iran had an active and aggressive nuclear weapons development program. Now, in 2007, they have done a complete 180 and concluded the opposite with the same level of certainty. Only THIS TIME, Daniel and the left seems 100% willing to accept their conclusions. Apparently in no small part because they feel this is is "bad news for Bush", but hopefully in at least a bit because it is hard to not consider this "good news"-but for the "reality based", I'd argue with the IMPORTANT caveat "if it is correct".

Conservatives tend to believe in individual responsibility, the need to make the best choices we can, and generally that "what we do makes a difference". We tend to do stuff like build things, invest in things, stick with jobs, educate ourselves; "lasting things"-at least on an earthy scale. We tend to believe that consistency IS an issue, but realize that any sort of "intelligence", even the kind that seems "most certain" is at best "an indication".

All human action must be taken with FAR less than the whole picture in view. Pronouncements like Daniel's about "reality" say a lot more about the pronouncer than any corner of what is real. Any person that invests in markets has put their money where their prognosticating mouth is and been proved wrong-and usually right as well. They understand that "predicting the future" is an imprecise activity, but one that millions of people have been able to do to at least their financial benefit for many many decades.

When consistency is no issue and emotion is more important than reason, it is MUCH easier to "believe what you want to believe". If you like to ignore the recent track record of NIEs and bite into this one, you know that you can take the opposite tack next week based on how you "feel" and all your liberal buddies will be just fine with that. If one believes that the world is all "random and unfair and consistency IS NOT an issue", then it is perfectly rational to not accept responsibility for your own decisions, but on the other hand, saddle your favorite scapegoat (Bush) with 100% responsibility for everything.

Oddly, most conservatives tend to believe in something transcendent, usually religion, of which liberals tend to accuse them of "believing what they want to believe". The interesting thing is that the conservative "wishful thinking" tends to come with some "rules" that liberals despise. Worse, it always puts the supplicant in "less than the prime position" and DEMANDS some sort of consistency. Demands that are the antithesis of liberalism

22 Ways To Be a Good Democrat

This one is old as well, but it has been going around the net again and deserves capture. I'd add the "meta-rule" that makes all of these make sense; "Consistency Is Not An Issue!".

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money t o make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day ..........but it's not okay to say 'Merry Christmas.'

Bar Stool Economics

This one has been around the net for a long time, but wisdom is worth capturing. One can't expect the angry envious left to get this, but the story is as old as the golden goose and will be with us over and over for as long as humanity exists.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men—the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “But he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I did!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


Dr David R. Kamerschen
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Snow Jobs

We seem to be enjoying the start of a normal winter here in MN. I say "seem", because although I was out riding snowmobile in December on limited snow in Dec 2004, it promptly melted and it was still a mild winter. Last winter was mild as well, but we did have a monster late-season storm and we were able to get out. It was also somewhat colder, since we were able to ride in Iron River WI on solid snow for the first time in years rather than having to go all the way to the Keweenaw Peninsula of upper Michigan.

I make these observations somewhat with tongue in cheek because although Christian, I am not a young-earth fundamentalist that believes in a 6K age of the planet. Even on that scale, trying to discern climate trends on years and decades would normally considered completely irrational. This however is the age of "Global Warming", now re-christened "climate change". Now, only the "most foolish" fail to believe that not only climate direction on a planetary scale, but causality for same as, can be discerned in years and decades. In any case, we have to "assume the worst" and "play it safe".

How different this doctrine from the believability of threat assessments by our security agencies. When they asserted that WMDs were in Iraq, only to apparently be wrong because of failure to find the weapons, the culprit was the President believing the assessment. The same security services also asserted that Iran was building nuclear weapons, but apparently decided based on new information this last summer that this was no longer true. They changed their minds, thus, it is a problem for THE PRESIDENT.

I listen to the MSM all the time, so this doesn't really surprise me. The answer these days is always "bad for Bush" ... stocks up, stocks down, deficit up, deficit down, surge bad, surge working, the answer is always "Bush Bad".

As the snow drifts down as it should in early December and we complete yet another year with well below normal hurricane activity when it was publicized after Katrina that "due to Global Warming" we would have season after season of worse and worse storms, but in '06 we had none and this year we had a single barely cat 1 qualifier, one tends to wonder.

We were assured by the left that "Iraq was all about oil", by which I guess I falsely assumed meant "cheap oil". It was $20 a barrel before the war and around $90 now. Does that mean that they were wrong, it wasn't about oil? We were assured that the Surge was "a huge mistake" and "there was no way a military solution could work". Bush was called "delusional" and worse. So now even Jack Murtha says the surge has worked? (although you have to search for that almost as hard as news of a new stock market high or yet another good economic number).

So BOTH Libya and Iran apparently decide to bail out of their covert weapons programs as the US decides to invade Iraq and that invasion gets no credit for that result? We had "No Blood for Oil", would the left feel as good with a bumper sticker saying "No Blood to Stop Nukes"?

I must have listened to 100s of NPR stories on "the failure of Bush to stop the REAL threat of Iranian (and N Korean) nukes while he "wasted our blood and treasure" in Iraq. So when the best data that we have shows that they DID stop their program at about the same time we invaded their neighbor, THAT is yet ANOTHER "failure of the Bush Administration"?

The sheep must be willing to be led off the cliff even more than usual these days.

NPR on Politics and Torture

Driving into work today I got to hear an NPR segment that purported to be a "discussion of what the Republican Presidential Candidates positions were on torture". It seemed that the purpose of the piece was to try to make the topic an issue, all of them were clearly "against torture", but it was asserted to get complex when the question became "what is torture".

Naturally, Democrats are completely clear;  they are against it all - even sleep deprivation. I'm quite certain that they would be 100% clear if asked that there is really no such thing as a "terrorist" and in the unlikely event that anyone has to be "detained", it is important that this be with conjugal visits, weekend release, the diet of their choice and 24x7 entertainment. (Unless they are an American Corporate "criminal" like the Enron guys, then the death penalty isn't strong enough)

Ah yes, folks that would give their lives in suicide attacks to kill as many Americans as possible in any manner they can, who regularly cut the hands off thieves and stone adulterers and gays must really enjoy the spectacle of americans caught up in an endless discussion of whether "water boarding" is torture. I'm sure they are deeply respectful of the "moral high ground" that many on both the left and the right seem to think such a discussion stakes out.

Imus: 'The program is not going to change' - CNN.com

"Just three months after he was fired, the Rev. Al Sharpton, one of the strongest voices calling for his firing, said Imus had a right to make a living and could return to radio. Sharpton planned a news conference later Monday."Nice to see that the Rev. Al says that "Imus has a right to make a living".

read more | digg story

Power Line: A general the Democrats can embrace

Being "credible" to the MSM and the Democrats is pretty easy. Declare defeat and hopelessness for America on all fronts early and often, especially in Iraq. Progress? Never the truth. Maybe time to be renamed into "General Betray Us". Defeat? Little history of being in charge of Abu Griab like Richard Sanchez? NO PROBLEM!!!

read more | digg story

My Grandfather's Son

This memoir by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a fairly quick and I believe important read for our times. The left has of course come out and called this an "angry book" and been strongly against it even though it is selling pretty well from what I hear. It is a book with emotion, but the primary emotions that I find come through are regrets, uncertainties, shame, feelings of inadequacy and yes anger, but primarily at himself, although also at injustice in many forms. To dismiss it as an "angry book" says more about the people dismissing it than it does about the book. They must have REALLY missed Dawkins and almost every anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-business and anti-everything screed out there.

His grandfather taught Clarence about personal responsibility, truth, character and "playing the hand that you are dealt". Thomas started out literally no running water barefoot poor and learned about hard work and stern discipline from his grandfather. One of his major regrets is that he rebelled and due to the makeup of both men, irreparably damaged that relationship. Thomas left the training of his youth behind for a time and dabbled in the "racism / victim hood world" during his Yale years and for some time after. His slow trend to conservatism and essentially back to the training of his grandfather was based on life experience and the influence of people of the right, especially John Danforth.

I find that Bill Clinton and Clarence Thomas provide a very good set of book ends to understand that people one truely can and can't respect and trust. A significant number of the same ones were supporters of Clinton and no difficulty with his actions, yet either at the time, or as time as unfolded have come to think of Thomas as having "poor character". Certainly the facts can't warrant that assessment, so one can understand a lot about the worldview of one on opposite sides of those cases. Biden and Kennedy are two that come to mind as especially good examples.

For me, the biggest insight of the book is how much courage is really required for a black man to hold views on life that don't align with those allowed by the Democratic liberal "proper worldview for blacks". Even conservatives have a hard time believing that blacks can think independently on issues like victimhood, racism and personal responsibility. Thomas makes it clear just how lonely it really is to really be "away from the herd".

I was also impressed with how willing he was to open up and put his self-doubts, fears, drinking, broken marriage and other items that he is clear he isn't proud of, but is willing to accept as part of the life he has lived. It provided an insight into a VERY different human experience of a black man in the old segregated south growing up and making good in life against long odds and a lot of difficulties. It is the kind of story only a liberal could hate!

The Language of God

In the subject book, Francis Collins, the head of the government side of the Human Genome project attempts to "provide evidence for belief". While I enjoyed the book quite a bit, if you are looking for "evidence of God", Collins pretty much just defers to C S Lewis on the actual discussion of "The Moral Law" which is the cornerstone of his "evidence". I'm still in the "belief and unbelief are equal leaps of faith" camp, but the point is that there is logic for either case and nothing in science, philosophy, or religion are going to "rationally prove" the case in this universe. Either God or chaos decided that our existence wasn't going to give us that rational proof in this universe.

The question of the book is: "In this modern era of cosmology, evolution and the human genome, is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews?" His answer is very much "yes", as is mine. "Whether we call it by name or not, all of us have arrived at a certain worldview. It helps us make sense of the world around us, provides us with an ethical framework, and guides our decisions about the future." Seems obvious.

He lists 3 responses to the Anthropic Principle: (that the universe is uniqely tuned to give rise to humans, or as really good atheists put it "we are here because we are here"):

1). There are essentially an infinite number of universes (the "multiverse theory"), so "we had to be here", all possibilities are. (a current atheist favorite that they had to come up with fairly quickly)

2). We are just ultimately and incredibly lucky ... a string of many known and likely many unknown 10 to the - many 10's and even at least low hundreds of decimal place improbabilites all worked out in our favor. We won the cosmic lottery. No way to prove that the winning lottery ticket for the next 300 million Powerball WON'T blow into your house window. In fact, it would be nearly a dead certainty stacked against the odds that you would be here at all.

3). God did it.

Actually, in the ebb and flow of human history, this hasn't really changed much. We just have a few more specific numbers for just how high the odds against our random existence really are.

After some time wading through angry atheist tracts, the thing I liked best about this book was the tone and humility of the author and a lot less "intellectual grandstanding" than Gould even though this guy is clearly extremely intelligent and accomplished. He seems to be far more interested in his reader understanding the issues and his points than in being impressed with the authors intelligence.

A lot of time is spent on the problems of Creationism and Intelligent Design. I generally agree with his assessment that they cause more trouble than they are worth. I find "fundamental literalists" to almost always be quite brittle and quickly become uncomfortable and judgmental or both when issues of origin and science are discussed. However, I think Collin's fails to understand what I would see as the "the appearance of age problem". God could create the universe as I write this using whatever methods he chooses--how that happens to "look to us" is interesting TO US, but doesn't have anything to do with his "somehow trying to fool us". From a divine perspective, it is all "just stuff"(matter, or the appearance of matter), not of any great importance. The hope we have is that he has chosen to provide us with a "soul in his image" ... no doubt with less fidelity than a low res cartoon, but promised to be eternal.

Sit back, try to focus on the NOW, being as opposed to doing, "say thanks"--there may be more "proof" available than logic would indicate. God wants to know you, shut off your monkey brain and LET HIM!

What is Middle Class?

Tucked away in this unenlightening little column that I'm not sure why I read is an unintended gem. Howard clearly things that $100K is "rich". A couple of middle aged high school teachers in most areas make $100k. Do they believe they are rich?

clipped from www.newsweek.com To be sure, Hillary had her lame moments. She airily dismissed the NAFTA debate in 1993 as a cavalcade of "charts," forgetting, perhaps, that union members think they have lost a million jobs as a result of the deal. And she attempted to defend the idea that people making $97,000 a year are members of the "middle class."  That's true enough for some people—the ones who think it's reasonable to have diamonds and pearls.

Reviled and Isolated

The linked Krauthammer article is very much worth the read. BUSH is certainly "isolated and reviled" by the MSM, the left and the far right, but as one can see if they look at the success of the surge, relations with France and Germany, and the general health of the economy, he hasn't quit being successful just because the folks that hate him would want him to. In my book, if both the far right and the far left hate you, you must be doing something right.

read more | digg story

The Anti-Keillor

Two things strike me in this Power Line Post:

1). The idea that someone would need to be a "stealth conservative" at a paper is funny and sad. We know that 90% of media people self-assess themselves as "liberal" when given the chance and whine loudly about ANY sort of "conservative view" ever showing up in the media. It is just amazing to see the need for stealth by someone with a conservative view so prominently displayed.

2). Keillor is a great example of the constant liberal mixing of fact and fantasy to make their points. Hollywood for example is a master of the technique. The left loved to bash Reagan for allegedly "mixing up the movies with reality". Why does one have a humorist (Al Franken) running for Senator and a "Radio Humorist" writing a weekly column largely on politics for a major newspaper? Because for the left, "mixing" is never a problem as long as it is effective!

MSM Reports Iraq Headline

Hey, Iraq is back as headline news on CNN! Get a bunch of Democrats to figure out the most inflated cost figure they can come up with and it is printed as headline gospel truth. No need to report any positive news, we "just can't afford Iraq". It is already been declared a "defeat", no need to make any reassessment just because of problem. It is never too soon to declare defeat.

Oh, and Al Quaeda interrupting oil shipments at the Straights of Hormuz, or another attack on US soil? "Free" I assume.

Of course, entitlements are over $1.5 TRILLION every year and the "futures" if done with same the pessimism as the Iraq analysis would run that "family of four" something well over $100K. According the the MSM or the Democrats though, no question about "affording" THAT.

'Buckwheat' Comment Gets Candidate In Trouble

Guess the political party of the "Rep"? Well, the article doesn't say, but it DOES say that her HUSBAND is in a key position with the state DEMOCRATS. Gee, I wonder why it doesn't say? I always find it interesting when there is negative news on a Democrat the MSM somehow finds "Representative" too long to spell out so has to be abbreviated "Rep", and also fails to find the letter "D" on their typewriter. Not that the MSM would ever want to confuse anyone.

read more | digg story

Peru and Other Menaces, George Will

"The stock market has predicted 9 of the last 3 recessions" is something worth remembering. On a more somber note, Democrats while most likely headed for power seem to be solidly protectionist, and everyone seems to want to talk the economy down. Will does a good job of covering some of the key bases.

read more | digg story

Are The Poor in America Really Getting Poorer?

Excellent Walter Williams column, VERY worth reading it all, but a highlight quoted here. As Jesus said, "the poor will always be with us". Why? Well, because if you decide call the bottom 1/5 of the population "poor", then there will ALWAYS be a bottom 1/5. They may have two cars, air conditioning, color TV and more space than the middle class in Europe and Japan, as those in the US do, but RELATIVE to the rest of the US, they will be "poor". Relative to something like 70% of the people on the planet, they are RICH! As Dinesh DeSouza says brought him here; "I want to live in a country where the poor people are fat!".

Having a lot has never prevented people from being envious. Jimmy Buffett with only a Cessna Citation jet is envious of someone with a Gulfstream. The US "poor" are envious of those that have more, and typically so is the middle class-envy is fun! No matter what you have, you can always want more-especially if you don't look at the "costs" in effort, risks or other changes that would get you to that "more" that you desire.

In the US however, if you ARE willing to look at that other side of that coin, the evidence is strong that you can move up that income ladder, and in fact have a 30% chance of moving into the TOP 1/5th from the bottom. None of this will ever be good enough for the lefties though. Like suicide bombers, they don't really care if their policies take EVERYONE down including themselves and the poor they are supposedly helping.

To a lefty, it is worth seeing an honest poor person actually hungry if that will get some upper 1/5ther to have to vacation in FL rather than taking a cruise this year. It makes no difference if that poor persons problem without the "help of the left" would have been "buying a smaller color TV than they wanted" vs going hungry. The important issue is for that upper 1/5ther to feel some "sting", then mission accomplished! What's a little collateral damage if the "rich" have to "pay the price"?

As study after study as shown, if you are able to get and stay married and work reasonably hard, success in the US is as close to a guarantee as anywhere in the world.

What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations? The only statistical distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage. There is far less poverty in married-couple families, where presumably at least one of the spouses is employed. Fully 85 percent of black children living in poverty reside in a female-headed household.

Poverty is not static for people willing to work. A University of Michigan study shows that only 5 percent of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 remained there in 1991. What happened to them? They moved up to the top three-fifths of the income distribution -- middle class or higher. Moreover, three out of 10 of the lowest income earners in 1975 moved all the way into the top fifth of income earners by 1991. Those who were poor in 1975 had an inflation-adjusted average income gain of $27,745 by 1991. Those workers who were in the top fifth of income earners in 1975 were better off in 1991 by an average of only $4,354. The bottom line is, the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.

Wonderful Life

I finally slogged my way through the last of what is certainly a very worthy text on the Burgess Shale, the Cambrian Explosion, and the proper way to understand contingency in evolution, by Stephen Jay Gould titled "Wonderful Life". Yes, the title pays homage to the Frank Kapra movie "It's a Wonderful Life" because the angel shows Jimmy Stewart's (George Baily) what the town would be like if he had never been born. Gould attempts a bit of that conjecture, but mostly he just points out how very likely it is that humans would have never happened in any "roll of the tape".

Gould is considered by many to have been the foremost expert on Darwinian evolution of the late 20th century (he is recently deceased), and his expertise shows through in the book. He writes well, but feels that a huge amount of detail on personalities, latin names and classification jargon is required to tell the story. I disagree; the book, while significant, borders on the unreadable to all but someone VERY interested in paleontology, evolution studies, and minutia of Gould's ways of thinking of the people involved in science.

The actual message is very simple; If one would "rewind the tape of evolution" (he says that a lot) to the point of the Burgess Shale and start again the odds that any of the rewinds would result in human consciousness are infinitesimal. Darwin, Charles Walcott, and most every textbook have an erroneous idea of the "cone of increasing diversity" in evolution that leads by "design" to man. I give Gould credit for not harping on the relationship (although it is mentioned) that Walcott still believed in a "designer" (God), so that influenced his thinking that "evolution was part of the mechanism", and therefore "directed". A more apt description might be "the wastebasket of evolution" and the "graveyard of creative destruction" as much of the massive diversity of the early Cambrian simply ceases to exist, and it the reasons for the destructed and the selected are unknowable to us, and probably much more "contingency" than "order".

The book drives home the point that there isn't any such "assumption of progress" or even idea that "progress" means getting to something like humans. Gould's "watchmaker" is not only blind, but purposeless. There is no thought that "a watch" is a worthy outcome. Gould seems to think that life showing up was "inevitable" (oddly, he provides no scientific basis for that, and nobody has gotten close to creating even the simplest of life in the lab).

Other than that "inevitability", even the development of the eukaryotic cell (the type we are made of, with the wall and structures in the cytoplasm) doesn't show up until 1.5 billion years ago. Gould suspects that this is another major league accident in planetary development that often wouldn't happen soon enough before sun depletion (something like 4 billion years) to give a decent chance at consciousness like ours. There is very little chance of the undirected, completely random evolutionary accident arriving at us (uh, "news at 11 I guess" ... this wasn't exactly a surprise).

I'm struck by how often very intelligent people find a flaw in one item that someone else had asserted for evidence of God, and immediately jump to the "SEE!, it isn't created!". Meanwhile, they almost always expand the odds against their own existence by some astronomical factor. Gould never provides an imagined "10 to some huge negative decimal" odds against humans showing up, but over and over he indicates how at MANY points in the random dance of evolution, if one "rewound the tape", there is no way we ever happen.

He brings up the "anthropic principle" that says "this is the universe we see, because we are here" as about the only possible explanation a dutiful atheist scientist can be left with. This explanation is pretty much "it is because it is", or "we did a lot of study, discovered that the odds against us defied explanation, so we decided that we are just here because we are".

Say you are on Death Row and I'm your lawyer. I come in and tell you that we have exhausted all appeals, but you will be released before you are executed because "I've never lost a capital case". Are you comfortable? Turns out that in the real world, I've never lost a capital case nor had one of my patients die in brain surgery! Therefore, by the sorts of odds of us being here in this universe, you ought to find me as a "reasonable choice" for a lawyer at a murder trial, or your brain surgeon if you need one! "We are here because we are" has just as much to suggest it as a wise answer philosophically.

I suppose if you are betting against God, then any explanation that lets you live without that concern is comforting. Gould allows us to stack yet another giant but unstated number against us being here on top of a stack from physics with the wonderful cosmological constant of 10 to the -120, not estimated by man, but DISCOVERED in the fabric of our universe saying, "It could be ANY number, none of the others allowing your existence.How do you like those apples?".

I find that simple premises in life tend to work best. The old "If you are in a game of chance and you don't know who the patsy is, it is probably you" has a lot of truth. That is also heavily related to "the house wins"-you just have to figure out who "the house" is. In Vegas, that is pretty easy, in the US, lots of folks would like you to believe "corporations", and I falsely went with that, thinking it was a good idea to "work for the house". Unfortunately, it is Lawyers. If you look closely at our system you find they are all the politicians, judges, and BOTH sides in any dispute. Take a look at John Edwards-oh, and BTW, how many Lawyers are running for President vs CEOs or even long term corporate employees? But I digress.

Lots of scientists and atheists seem to think that they can explain to God just how he can run his house. "If evolution doesn't look ordered to US, then it can't have INTELLIGENCE behind it"! Uh, and exactly what would it be that would give us the perspective to decide that as little more than pond scum orbiting on obscure rock on the outskirts of one obscure galaxy out of what we believe to be 100 billion galaxies in at least this universe?

If one wants to believe string theorists, that would be out of 10 to the 500 universes. Is even the definition of "intelligence" that simple? Isn't even defining what our yet not understood to ourselves consciousness does as "intelligence" in some universal sense a pinnacle of hubris WAY beyond the simple idea that the earth was the center of the universe? We have decided we KNOW the parameters within which an ultimate power can decide to create? We believe God wouldn't play dice, it looks random to us, ergo, there is no God.

I was glad to finally read a Gould book since I've heard a lot about him and seen him quoted by many atheists as a comforting; "See, he is a really smart piece mass of protein, he has done a lot of study and decided God didn't create life, so let's commit the unforgivable sin and maybe set up a website where teens can do it, because we are scientists and only think RATIONALLY".

Maybe so; if it happens that randomly generated protein arrived at the proper definition of "rational" then my hopes are in vain and life has the atheist desired lack of meaning. Strangely, it seems like other than really large odds against OUR existence, it is going to be hard to have any evidence for or against God.

How to Report War News

The linked article shows a theme picked up by the MSM to get the war back in the news in a way they find acceptable after a few months in which they have been forced to drop coverage because of not enough bad news. Headlines of "Bloodiest Year Of War" in some format or another have started to crop up, and the linked article is even better because since Afghanistan deaths can be used, they don't even need to give a hidden line on the success of the surge inside the article.

Tommy Franks was against putting more troops in Iraq mostly because more troops meant more targets and more deaths. In retrospect, that was probably wrong thinking, but it is a pretty easy sentiment to understand. When Bush was effectively backed into doing the surge, it resulted in more deaths as those more soldiers acted against the enemy, but it also resulted in the tide being turned and the locals finally beginning to pick up more of the load as well.

Can it keep working? Well, not if the Democrats and MSM have anything to do about it. The Democrats fabricated a resolution on asserted genocide in Turkey in the 19th century and successfully created a diplomatic and potentially shooting crisis in Northern Iraq. In the MSM, it is nearly as hard to find information on the surge working as it is on the stock market going up or the economy being good. Most people have no idea. Now, rather than reporting "the death of the day", we are going to report "a new record number of deaths for the year" as long as we can in order to keep the war news negative.

"Success" at this point for the Democrats and their supporting MSM involves defeat in Iraq being as clear as possible. The last few months it has looked like success in Iraq was a very real possibility, although not one that there was likely to be any significant reporting on. They appear to be making progress on a move back to defeat at this point.

Understanding Hillary

There was some coverage of Hillary taking 3-4 positions on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in a 3 minute time span in the Democrat debate a couple of weeks ago, and then accusing Tim Russert of playing "gotcha" in trying to pin her down. This week we have Slick Willie coming out with accusations of "Swift Boating", apparently now extended to mean any criticism of a Democrat by anyone.

The video is worth taking the time to watch, because it suggests a lot about Hillary as a person. She strongly feels that she ought to have any group of positions she wants and never have to be pinned down to anything. For a Republican front-runner, a ham-handed gaff of this level would have the MSM talking "unfit", but as we charge on to the coronation, it gets barely a whisper.

I Got My Buck

It only took until age 51 to finally get a deer. Fourteen years of hunting prior to getting married, a 21 year "break", and then the last couple of years with my youngest son. I always enjoyed "the hunt", especially now that I've had the chance to spend some time in the stand with my son. There are a number of pictures out here.

The first 14 hunts I was younger and generally hunting with older hunters in NW Wisconsin farm country. I tended to be pretty impatient and unable to stay on a stand for a long while, so was usually "driving" (walking to move the deer to others). I covered a lot of brush country in those days, and did a fair bit of "road hunting"; driving around to find deer and then shoot from the road (illegally, but it was sparsely populated and not a lot of enforcement). Through a combination of poor skills, badly suited personality traits and no doubt a little bad luck, I just never quite downed a deer even though I had a number of what seemed like "golden opportunities" over the years.

One thing that likely contributed was my tendency to enjoy technology may have hurt me in deer hunting. I purchased a 30-06 semi-automatic rifle while I was in college with a 3-9X scope that I really couldn't afford. I never spent enough time shooting it to be comfortable since the ammo was also very expensive. Worse, I was usually trying to shoot at a deer 200 yards away with the scope cranked up to 9x in order to be sure of seeing antlers. A really bad combination for accuracy.

Some tendencies hold in life, especially if they at least seem to be beneficial, so I bought a 3-9x scope to put on my smooth bore 12ga for hunting this year, but the fates spared me. After 2 attempts to get sighted in I was unable to hit the target at all and was starting to panic that I'd have no gun on opening day of hunting in my new stand. I decided to purchase a cheap 20ga rifled barrel single shot open sights as a "backup" as I launched on my last ditch attempt to sight in the 12ga.

The second shot with the single was the best target shot I've ever made-completely center, and moving out to 50yards, I was able to shoot a 3in group. As things usually work, the 12ga also sighted in with ease on that outing BUT, I came to the conclusion that "simple was better" in this case. I didn't get a shot Saturday with that gun, and if I had, yet another piece of "bad luck" would have played out. Although the gun shot perfectly so I never touched the sights, apparently they weren't tightened at the factory and the perfection was random. Saturday PM I noted that the rear sight was ready to fall off the gun.

My son however decided to head for home Saturday night, so I was able to hunt with his 20ga pump open sights on Sunday AM and for a change I had a standing shot out the window of my stand, braced, through open sights, and hit the deer in the heart. Surprisingly (to me) he ran about 25 yards directly at the stand before simply falling over.

So ends my deer curse. Hopefully I will be like Boston and be able to show a new trend pretty rapidly in future years, but no matter, I will still enjoy the hunt. It is very much about the activity rather than the result, just like fishing. It is also another of those "great equalizers". The stands may be a bit nicer than my youth, the "shack" much nicer, but cool stands, guns, clothes, or camp technology won't really bring the deer in. Being able to afford expensive sabot ammo for targets is nice, but the deer have to show up AND, the accuracy has to be reproduced with a live creature out there.

Rather, senior corporate management and technical people are pretty much identical to farmers, construction workers, college kids and mechanics in deer camp. Difficulty rolling out of bed in the AM, the cold, the need for naps at noon, the appetites in high gear due to the time out of doors, stories of "the one that got away" or the "big one", just glimpsed through the brush or more imagined than real. All those memories and more translate over the 21 year gap with perfect continuity. Most of the things that the masses believe make a difference really don't, but many that they assume don't count, really do.

The hunt is one of those experiences that ties one rather closely with reality. The planning and calculations to arrange for deer and projectile to come to the same point at the same time and of course the facts of "life and death". The steak or burger on the plate is quite abstract, the connection to the living thing it came from tenuous at best. The still-warm gut sack that one can't help but realize is very much like the "power pack" that gives us our motive power is much more connected with reality. Our species is significantly better equipped for a small group to venture out in search of game than it is to conceive, design and build computer systems. True, we are ABLE to do the latter, but our natural adaptation is much more to the former. To those willing to relate to reality, hunting is almost certainly "familiar" at some basic human level.

There are of course very few "liberal hunters". The concept is very close to an oxymoron. To interact with reality in real vs imagined and ideal nature, using guns, a potent symbol of "individual rights and power" is something that isn't going to sit well with many on the left. The idea that people are allowed to have guns for any purpose is only given lip service in the interest of political calculation. Guns are one of the hated "dividing issues" as in "God, Guns and Gays", the "false issues" that the evil right uses to divide the country according the the MSM. The existence of hunting is part of the "barbarism" of the right, the left has "evolved beyond that".

Calling hunting "barbaric" in one breath, holding up human kind to be worshiped, and then explaining natural selection as taking "millions of years" in the space of a few paragraphs of thought would make perfect sense to most liberals. However, it seems pretty undeniable that we were fully adapted to hunting and it was our main manner of survival up to 10K years ago when we began the farming task. Not much in the way of natural selection happens in 10K years, so we have exactly the same human nature that we had at that point. If hunting was "barbaric" then , we are still very much "barbarians" and there is nothing the left can do to change that.

I've succeeded in the hunt. Long live the barbarians.

Tale of Two Houses

I've blogged on the contrast between Gore's house and Bush's house before, Snopes is usually pretty reliable, so it looks like the previous stories are pretty correct.

As I've said before, if the MSM covered Republicans like they are covering Gore, I'd have no problem with this not being covered. Anytime humans try to adhere to a higher standard, some level of hypocracy results, since humans, especially humans in leadership positions, are going to fall short; because "leadership" means trying to push beyond what everyone else is doing.

Gore wants to be an "environmentalist", but he falls well short. He happens to fall well short of even the "Evil George Bush". It would seem that anyone that is in the "story business" would find a story that the "supposed non-environmentalist horrible President" actually does BETTER in his personal life environmentally than the "Author, Oscar Winning and Nobel Prize winning" ex-VP Gore. Naturally, those that believe that "the press is unbiased" will see no difficulty at all with this.

The following is from an e-mail being passed around ...

House #1
A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by
natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the Sout

House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from sho! wers, s inks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Mental Health?

You have to love the Democrats. Just when Kucinich is in the news as "questioning Bush's mental health", it comes out that he saw a "large triangular UFO at Sirley McClaines house", gets asked about it in a debate, and indicates "yes, he has seen a UFO".

http://www.onthewriteside.org/2007/10/kucinich-hears-directions-from-ufos-and.html

Today he has initiated impeachment proceedings against Cheney. He is a busy man, I think the obvious question in his case wouldn't be if he has SEEN a UFO, but rather if he has PILOTED one! It only makes sense, how else would the Representative from Pluto get back and forth to his consituency?

PC Magazine 'Leopard is “by far the best operating system ever written'

In his 4.5-star (out of 5) review of Leopard, Edward Mendelson (pcmag.com) maintains that Leopard is “by far the best operating system ever written for the vast majority of consumers, with dozens of new features that have real practical value.” Mendelson “found Leopard to be startlingly fast, brilliantly streamlined, and packed with conveniences an

read more | digg story

ReaganLot

Many Democrats took until Bill Clinton to get over the fantasy of the Kennedy "Camelot" that never was. For liberals to create a fantasy and then try to hold reality to that fantasy is somewhat expected, but it is too easy to forget that conservatives are humans too. All too human; the beautification of Reagan seems to have really gotten into high gear on the right with the disenchantment of many with W, or maybe it just takes 20 years or so to create a good fantasy.

Here we have the supposed realist Patrick Buchanan waxing nostalgic - I'll spare a lot of copying, it really isn't worth reading, but have to bring in one paragraph:

Reagan defined conservatism for his time. And the issues upon which we agreed were anti-communism, a national defense second to none, lower tax rates to unleash the engines of economic progress, fiscal responsibility, a strict-constructionist Supreme Court, law and order, the right-to-life from conception on and a resolute defense of family values under assault from the cultural revolution that hit America with hurricane force in the 1960s

Eeek! Yes, the "good old days"! Lower tax rates? Certainly not relative to Social Security--nor even purely on general, Pat must have lost the budget deal of '86. Fiscal Responsibility? Huge deficits were a hallmark of the Reagan years. Strict Constructionist court? Does the name Sandra Day O'Connor ring a bell? Actually, I give Kennedy even lower marks, he signed on with the left on Kelo, and when private property goes, the very foundation of any rights are gone. Kelo is right in the running with Roe for worst abdication of the role of supporting the constitution in history, and we have a Reagan appointee with the majority on Kelo, and a Reagan appointee as the swing vote supporting Roe.

Abortion? Yes, the words were nice, but there wasn't even an attempt to actually move on anything. W got rid of partial birth, it shows a certain dis ingeniousness on Pat's part to not remember that Reagan did precisely NOTHING on that issue. "Family values"? Again, words are nice, but I'm not sure that I see anything of reality to point to as Reagan being any stronger than GW for example.

Republicans USED to be known as "the party of fiscal conservatism", but it was REAGAN more than anyone else that destroyed that issue for the party. I'm not saying that I "completely disagree"--it is VERY hard to win anything being "the party that says no", but making a decision and then claiming you never did takes "honesty and consistency" off the conservative table and then what you have left is called liberalism. I don't really think Pat wants to go there.

It is true that Republicans can see themselves as "victims of their success" relative to the loss of the USSR as the all-purpose enemy. It is apparent that Terrorism just isn't ideologically satisfying enough for guys like Pat, but it can take a few decades to fully develop a really good villain for some. Pat may need a few more 9-11s before he sees them as worthy of attention at a purist level, unfortunately after we take the HillBama plunge in '08, I expect that the Terrorists will help Pat see that the new evil can kill a few millions too, once you get "incompetent" folks like W and Cheney out of the way.

I'm not sure it makes any difference who is the Republican front runner. The navel gazing and wishing for the past seems like the prevalent Republican sentiment. I suspect after 4-8 years of 100% Democrat rule a few will start to realize that purity, navels and history are all nice but the real world tends to be more messy and tends to "intrude" on introspection and wishes after a bit. I don't believe in living by relativism, but only a fool thinks it isn't a factor. We tend to operate by "compared to what" and the frog boiling is always an issue.

Having said all of the above, I very much believe in Reagan and consider him EASILY the greatest President of the 20th century. The REAL Reagan, not an imaginary one. To buy into a fantasy Reagan reflects badly on the real meaning of what Reagan stood for.

Pat and many Republicans are comparing today with a vision of Reagan that never was. When they have the opportunity to compare the real experience of a number of years of HillBama, etc with the crop of Republicans running in the future, the bar will be at a different place and the tune will change. Words and ideas are powerful, but many times it takes experience before true understanding is gained.

McCain Blogger Interview

Good short summary of a McCain interview. The Powerline argument on waterboarding (which is in opposition to McCain) is pretty hard to argue with. Anyone that doesn't give the US the "moral high ground" compared to al Quaeda is probably enough a relativist that any moral high ground they might aspire to is pretty much a swamp.

read more | digg story

Media myths about the Jena 6

A local Jena Journalist gives another side of the MSM story of racism. Is this side all true? I have no way of knowing, but on NPR and CNN, this was a story for which there was "no other side". I'm always suspicious when a story only has one side. Much like the Duke Lacrosse team which was finally exonerated, the MSM isn't likely to go back and point out that the story isn't nearly as one dimensional as they indicated in their sensational reporting of the "racist side".

read more | digg story

Sharp drop seen in US deaths in Iraq

BAGHDAD - October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists.This is AP, so not one of the more "right wing" sources. Reading the whole article is worthwhile-lots of military and Iraqi discussion on WHY the surge is working and how we can get to overall success. Expect this news to be generally buried in the MSM as it has during the whole surge process and resulting improvement in Iraq. The MSM and the Democrats decided "Iraq is hopeless", and it isn't likely that they will give up on that track since anything like success could be quite positive for Bush and therefore negative for Democrat prospects in '08. I expect their general control over the sheep is too great, and we are still headed to a Democrat landslide and the most damaging withdrawal they can arrange. Seeing Iraq as a "Fiasco" is central to their thinking, and having facts get in the way has never been a weakness of the Democrats or MSM. When one is a liberal it is NEVER either too early or too late to declare hopelessness and defeat in any endeavor!We all have emotions, one of the cleavages between left and right is if we believe that the world MUST match our emotions. Those of the left tend say "absolutely"-the world owes them behavior that matches what they feel, both positive and negative. Those that they hate need to fail, and the one that they love the most (self) needs to always be seen as "good or victim". Those that they "love" are those that make their world view seem more real. Those on the right, believing that the highest functions are logical rational have desires, but understand that these may or not be met. Results that match with desire often require lots of effort, time, thought, flexibility and just plain old "luck". Success is never assured for anything worthwhile, and failure is always within reach by just quitting. Such is the world, Iraq is a great example of the difference between the two types of people.

read more | digg story

Power Line: Best line of the campaign so far

"In case you missed it, a few days ago Senator Clinton tried to spend one million dollars on the Woodstock concert museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time."I'm not a McCain person, but it is very hard to beat this for humor in politics!

read more | digg story