The Ascent of Money, Niall Ferguson

The subtitle of this work is "A Financial History of the World". GREAT book, one of those gems that one feels lucky to have tripped over and will likely be reading a couple more times in the next few years.

Niall is Scottish, Oxford, Harvard, Stanford, PHD, and an EXCELLENT writer. A real find. Here are his "main summary points" from the introduction:

1. Poverty is not the result of rapacious financiers exploiting the poor. It has much more to do with the LACK of financial institutions, with the abscence of banks, not their presence.
   
2. If the financial system has a defect, it is that it reflects and magnifies what we human beings are like. Money amplifies our tendency to overreact, to swing from exuberance when things are going well to deep depression when they go wrong.
   
3. Few things are harder to predict accurately than the timing and magnitude of financial crises.

He does a great job of supporting these, but I'd argue that they are close to self-evident. When one lacks credit, a safe place to put assets and the ability to exchange value with others (1), it is pretty likely that poverty will be rampant. Finance is just one more "technology". All ANY technology does is "magnify what we are" -- it is completely unsurprising that finance would do the same. Lastly, in the words of Yogi Berra, "predictions are hard to make, especially about the future".

The interaction of "money" and "value" back through history -- gold of course, bonds, "fiat money", etc are all covered with nice stories to help make them memorable. The Medici family, the Rothschild family, and the nexus between Jews, banking, and why. Mainly, interest was called "usury", and the church prevented Christians from charging it -- therefore, the Jews got the role. The use of commodity backed bonds is well covered using the Confederacy and cotton as examples.

Probably the biggest surprise to me was the level of involvement of Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago in the Pinochet administration in Chile and the results. Here is a paragraph from one of the Chilean government officials of the era that might be of slight interest to someone in the US today that is not in the complete thrall of BO:

What had begun as a system of large-scale insurance had simply become a system of taxation, with today's contributions being used to pay today's benefits, rather than to accumulate a fund for future use. This "pay-as-you-go" approach had replaced the principle of thrift with the practice of entitlement ... but this approach is rooted in a false conception of how human beings behave. It destroys at the individual level, the link between contributions and benefits. In other words, between effort and reward. Whenever that happens on a massive scale and for a long period of time, the final result is disaster.

Imagine that!! A welfare system that breaks the connection between effort and reward doesn't work for humans!!! What a concept! He covers it for Japan, Europe (especially Britian) and some for the US, but I'd argue that effectively, we all really understand this. "There is no free lunch" -- everyone would LOVE it for "someone else to pay", but the bottom line is that they aren't going to. You can demand that they do and force them into concentration camps and even kill them in the final analysis, but just like China, the USSR, N Korea, N Vietnam, etc, you find that unless you allow the "profit motive" to have a solid effect, you end up with a disaster where everyone is poorer with the exception of a few folks in the central government.

He covered hedge funds and especially George Soros quite a bit. I'm always amazed at how someone that one would assume that the left would see as "the worst of the worst" -- making money on international currency flows with no concern as to what country, what jobs, or whatever is injured. In 2007, Soros made $2.9 B himself, yet because he gives entirely to left wing causes (ACORN, MoveOn.org, and the Daily Kos) his making of $2.9 billion is just fine, while some other exec that makes a "mere" $50 million or so for running a real company and making real things is considered to be a "robber baron".

The reason is simple -- the majority see the government as "providing" for them rather than the people that produce the wealth. The producers are bad -- they don't pay enough, they need to work harder. Long live the re-distributors!

The book is an excellent read -- derivatives, credit default swaps, sub-prime loans and a host of other things are covered in a relatively easy to understand and narritive manner. The bottom line is what one might expect. "Value" is based on what people are willing to pay, and "risk" is changeable and not computeable. Not only is there " no free lunch", there is also no "safe haven". There ARE principles that would seem to work well in even the medium term, and nearly certainly in the long term, but in the short term, "markets fluctuate" -- sometimes violently.

In the big picture, that is GOOD, but ONLY if the governments let the process of "creative destruction" take place -- if unions are no longer competitive, then they lose. If cars need to change, then the companies that build the new kinds of cars fast enough survive and those that don't die.

Esentially we have turned to the socialist direction that has failed miserably across the globe over and over because it is human nature to want to remove risk and to get a lot more for a lot less effort. Both are very good impulses if being pursued by creativity, hard work and lots of mental effort in a competitive environment. Both are huge disasters if being pursued by government officials trying to force the markets to be calm and business to be stable by fiat.

This knowledge isn't new ... Shakesphere had it down pretty well:

Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

Glendower:
Why, I can teach you, cousin, to command
The devil

Hotspur:
And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devil—
By telling the truth. Tell truth and shame the devil.

BO seems to be doing a lot of calling.

BO May Be Human

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/07/obama-steals-a-glance-in-reuters-photograph.html

One of the occupational hazards of being male and being photographed all the time. Since Jesus is fully God and fully man, my take would be that the "glance of admiration" would be automatic enough that his humanity would take notice of an interesting female form as well.

Of maybe his worshipfulness BO is just "acting human" ... I'll give him high marks for doing a good job of it!

Explaining Hitler, Ron Rosenbaum

I've never read much about Hitler, but the adoring masses screaming for BO have me wondering. Fortunately, my mind can be at ease -- the big issue with Hitler may have been either the reality or just the potential of Jewish blood due to the illegitimate birth of his paternal grandfather and rumors that is 42 year old great grandmother was impregnated by a Jew. Thank God that BO is pure black!!! Well, he at least THINKS of himself as pure black -- he only brought up the Malcom X idea of "filtering out the white blood" in passing in his "Dreams" book! We white folks are safe!

The book is excellent as a coverage of all the different theories as to "what went wrong" with Hitler. While the author touches on "Stalin", he completely misses Mao, Pol Pot and who knows -- would we even really know if Kim Jong was killing millions? I think we kind of expect that he effectively is by at least starvation, so he could be on the list as well.

So why is Hitler so hard to understand? Well, because he singled out JEWS ... as opposed to say anyone that didn't worship Mao, buy into the communist manifesto (Stalin), wasn't illiterate (Pol Pot) ... or I guess was "just in the wrong Korea at the wrong time" ... Kim. We have a nice thick book here going into a whole bunch of theories about the mixed blood, Hitler having one testicle, maybe getting VD from a Jewish prostitute, maybe somehow being scared out of his wits by a Jew in some sort of odd religious dress in Vieanna as a boy -- and on and on.

Certainly the Holecaust is a horrible thing -- but why are 6 million Jews of greater concern than 40+ million in the USSR, at least that many in China under Mao, 6 million or so under Pol Pot?? Is starving in a larger region where you have been sent to die somehow better than dying in a gas chamber? I'm not sure.

The book leaves me believing that more mass deaths are always possible as long as humans choose to put faith in individual leaders rather than tried and true systems which are designed to transcend any specific leader -- the Church, the Constitutional US System being primary example.

Will BO kill people? I have no idea. I only know that many folks and the media in this country are giving him the kind of power to enable it. While the MSM and Democrats loved to make comparisons between Bush and Hitler, Bush clearly lacked the level of popular support and ability to emotionally inflame the masses the way that Hitler and BO did and do.

It isn't really "Hitler" that needs to be understood. ANY leader that manages to acquire total contol has the potential for mass killing. If they are the kinds of speakers that can get those cheering mobs standing and screaming, then the potential is even greater. Then, all they need is a scapegoat -- Jews, Christians, The Wealthy, Big Business -- maybe even Republicans. It doesn't really matter -- they just have to be blamed and the idea that they are "responsible" -- the masses aren't, and "we will all be better" if "they" are somehow removed.

It is really just a simple thing. It is human nature to be taken in by a charismatic leader, and it is human nature to desire to blame others for our problems. Killing them is pretty nasty, but taxing those we hate is on the same road -- or giving someone else preference over them for a job, or calling out their beliefs as "hate speech", or preventing them from following their religion in public, teaching their children what they believe, etc. All are on the "path to the holocaust, and all the listed elements other than the killing are currently targeted at wealthier white Christians.

Hitler is really no harder to explain than a whole bunch of folks once one realizes that ALL centralized and totalitarian power is LEFT. The only reason that Hitler is "odd" is the idea that somehow he is the lone "deviant" on the "right". Remove that false distinction and suddenly he falls right in with all the despots of history.

Settled Economics

Op-Ed Columnist - The Stimulus Trap - NYTimes.com

As soon as the Obama administration-in-waiting announced its stimulus
plan — this was before Inauguration Day — some of us worried that the
plan would prove inadequate. And we also worried that it might be hard,
as a political matter, to come back for another round.

Much like global warming being "settled science", the "fact" that all is required for jobs and economic growth is for the government to spend massive amounts of money is now "settled economics" on the left. I mean, they always thought it was good and now BO has done a bunch of it, so there is no way it won't work -- one just just needs more of it, or NOTHING would have worked.

It is like blood letting used to be. Patient shows up sick, take some blood, if he gets better, proof that bloodletting works. If he doesn't get better, take some more blood until he gets better -- if he dies, then clearly nothing would have worked. He was either just too sick, or the bloodletting was started too late or too conservatively. Exactly as "foolproof" a position as Krugman's.

But there’s a difference between defending what you’ve done so far and
being defensive. It was disturbing when President Obama walked back Mr.
Biden’s admission that the administration “misread” the economy,
declaring that “there’s nothing we would have done differently.” There
was a whiff of the Bush infallibility complex in that remark, a hint
that the current administration might share some of its predecessor’s
inability to admit mistakes. And that’s an attitude neither Mr. Obama
nor the country can afford.

See, look how far we have advanced since the evil Bush.

Paul is an "Economist" -- what he is doing is "science", so he himself has no issues with the "Bush infallibility complex" -- I mean it isn't as if he doesn't KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that massive government spending is all that it takes to have a growing economy. (remember the success of the USSR? "we have seen the future and it works"!! The lefties knew it was nirvana all along)

Thankfully, there is no way that Krugman (nor BO if he follows Paul's perfect wisdom) would EVER have to admit any mistakes if they keep spending, because they BY DEFINITION can't be wrong!! If Trillions more in spending just result in more debt, misallocation of economic resources and a sliding economy for a long time to come as they did in the 30's and 70's, then clearly "nothing would have worked". No matter how bad it gets, it "would have been worse" had we not spent the Trillions we have spent already ... and now the Trillions more that Paul would like.

How thankful we should all be to be free from that horrible "unscientific arrogance" of the evil Bush years!!

How Deeply Do They Hate Thee

Op-Ed Columnist - Sarah’s Secret Diary - NYTimes.com

I loved Palin's acceptance speech, given the time we have got to know her better, most of that information has made her less desirable to me as a Presidential candidate than I had hoped she would be. OTOH, neither Bush was every very desirable, and Clinton was a known womanizer, serial liar and complete blowhard with whacked out conspiracy theorist of a wife before he won -- twice!

What we see here clearly is the absence of any  "sisterhood" among the supposedly disenfranchised and downtrodden females. One might guess that since we are talking about a female governor of Alaska and ex-VP candidate and a regular columnist for the NYT makes the idea of "discrimination" seem like it would be laughed off the stage, but since "gender issues" are part of the liberal elite's view of the world, such is not the case. Abortion is the sacrament of feminism, and for Palin to be against it, and WORSE to choose to carry a Downs baby to term is "beyond the pale" ... the priestesses of the "real women" like Mareen can't allow that to go unpunished.

So we get parody as commentary. I especially liked this:

It’s just like when Obama, the One Who Must Be Obeyed, said his family
was off-limits so everyone left them alone. But they never left mine
alone. Thank goodness for that though because we hate being out of the
limelight! It was a blast to see Bristol with my grandbaby Tripp on the
cover of People as the ambassadress of abstinence!

Notice anything strange there? As nearly as I can see, Michelle and the girls have very much enjoyed being gushed over in People and a whole bunch of fashion magazines, AND, it IS true that the media have ONLY given the kids positive coverage! I remember during the Clinton years, Limbaugh made some comment about how "plain" Chelsea looked, and he was lambasted -- and rightfully so. Has there been ANY interest in treating the Palin family with ANY respect at all? NONE -- we aren't talking about "plain" here ... we are talking about jokes about a 14 year old getting "knocked up" during a major league baseball game.

It is clear that Maureen's hatred of Sarah knows no bounds -- the column is self proving as an MSM hit piece.

Fund On Palin Exit

Why Palin Quit - WSJ.com

I'd guess this is pretty much right on.

The Knowing Class

RealClearPolitics - The McNamara Mentality

Will hits a home run here. McNamara and BO have a lot in common -- they are both arrogant and intelligent guys that lack that hallmark of wisdom, "epistemological humility". Humility about what is even knowable by anyone that draws breath. Of course McNamara had a lot more experience than BO before he flamed out and helped Kennedy and LBJ get us into 50K+ deaths in Vietnam where we turned tail and ran with no progress. Bob headed Ford, BO made a good shot at getting some asbestos out of an apartment building and only came up a little short.

Here is George's take:

Today, something unsettlingly similar to McNamara's eerie assuredness pervades the Washington in which he died. The spirit is: Have confidence, everybody, because we have, or soon will have, everything -- really everything -- under control.

The apogee of McNamara's professional life, in the first half of the 1960s, coincided, not coincidentally, with the apogee of the belief that behavioralism had finally made possible a science of politics. Behavioralism held -- holds; it is a hardy perennial -- that the social and natural sciences are not so different, both being devoted to the discovery of law-like regularities that govern the behavior of atoms, hamsters, humans, whatever.

Once God is dead, then the hope is that man, via "science" can "settle things" -- as in "settled science" (an oxymoron) for Global Warming, "Quantization of risk" in the markets and all manner of other "science" in every pursuit of mankind. It used to be that when things failed, it was "God's will" -- in today's randomized atheist world, the answer of the profane to the divine seems to be "Shit happens". We have come a "long way".

So paradoxically, we live in an unordered, purposeless, random universe, yet through some fantastic accident, we are "blessed" with the masterful brilliance of BO who somehow possesses all the right "answers" to the unordered "questions" of our troubled world.

McNamara, like many who leave high office, never left the capital of this nation that believes people learn from history, and that therefore history is linear and progressive. But the capital, gripped once again by the audacious hope of mastering everything, would be wise to entertain a shadow of a doubt about that.

Do the masters of the randomly created ordered universe have doubts? How could they? If they did, there might possibly be a God beyond them, and that just won't do at any cost!

Feeling Stimulated?

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Stuttering Stimulus

If the stimulus passed, the White House vowed, unemployment would peak at 8%. Today, it's 9.5% — and rising.

"The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy," said
Biden. He used that phrase — "the truth is," or something similar — at
least three times in a talk with ABC's George Stephanopolous. But the
"truth is" something quite different.

Many voices — including ours — were raised in opposition to the
stimulus when it was debated. We didn't "misread" the economy. We knew
from history that, left alone, it would get better without government
meddling.

How many times did we hear that the Surge was a failure before a single extra soldier had been sent over? Hundreds at least. How much do we hear from the MSM about the "stimulus" being a failure? Virtually nothing, and when we do, the statements are usually that "it probably wasn't big enough, we need another one".

Gee, "EVERYONE misread the economy" ... no, they didn't -- BO and the MSM misread the economy.

One Can't Use Bootstraps to Fly?

RealClearMarkets - Get Ready for 14 Percent Unemployment

Say it isn't so! This guy seems to claim that when the government wants to sell trillions in debt, somebody has to buy it! Wow, what a concept! It is really odd to me how when deficits were down in mere 100's of billions with Republicans in the WH, one heard a ton about how the government debt "crowded out" economic development, and how it was "unsustainable". There was some truth to that, but the reason it was never as bad as the MSM liked to make it at that time was the simple issue of SCALE!

If I tell you that I just spent $10K, the only way that number has any real meaning relative to how "serious" that is if you have some idea of my income/wealth. If I'm a college student with little income and little or no assets, then it is HUGE -- if I'm a 50 year old with a decent job, income, savings, it is "real money", but not "lifestyle changing" -- If I'm Warren Buffett, the relative financial impact is less than if you or I decide to buy a penny gumball (if there was such a thing anymore). The old $300B deficits on a $10T economy were about like the 50 year old case -- serious money, but not life changing. High Multi Trillion deficits on a now shrinking GDP are like the college student case -- code red, we are dead!!

The meaning of deficits is RELATIVE to the GDP of the country. The formerly "huge" deficits were all in the 2-4% range of usually quite healthy GDPs. NOW, we have WWII kinds of 60-80% to God knows where % of GDP without any war to blow up the production with!!! Which means that someone is going to have to BUY the "stuff" that gets bought/stimulated. Except none of this "stimulus" is going to people that buy stuff via less taxes or such, it is going to be spent by the Government for "something". But wait -- how are people going to be employed? In Government make-work jobs? How well do you suppose those will pay?  and how much will those folks buy to stimulate the economy? Like basically zero ...

Now, it would be "nice" if China would just buy all our debt -- but then, we are going to have to be SURE to buy EVERYTHING from them so they have all that money to buy our debt. Therefore, NO JOBS!! The odd thing though is that a lot of the Americans that BO is certain are stupid rubes seem to be figuring that it might be better to just SAVE money!!! That actually IS a good idea for the economy long term, it just doesn't do anything to help short term unemployment. Especially when most of the savings is just going into all the government bonds that BO has to sell -- thus the very apt analogy of taking a bucket of water out of the Hudson river and then putting in back in at a different point. Getting a bigger bucket doesn't really do a hell of a lot.

The idea is to live on less than you make and INVEST the extra in something that goes up in value. Before BO and company decided to start buying up the worst of US industry and destroying the rest, that was usually STOCKS! Now it is most likely government bonds -- but unfortunately, those don't really do much to put people to work. At some point, somebody has to DO SOMETHING -- and that usually means risk/reward/competition/innovation/profits -- all that yucky stuff that BO hates.

So, we just tug on our bootstraps and watch the unemployment numbers rise.

Moon Orbiter

U.S. Shoots for the Moon, This Time to Stay - TIME

Good article, having a booster crash land and flying another satellite through the plume to look for water is an interesting approach! Be cool to finally be able to see the landers sitting on the moon. Let's see -- 40 years ago! So I remember that just fine, it would be like a 50 something when I was 12 remembering back to "the crash of '29" -- egads, '29 seemed like ANCIENT history to me when I was in school -- for that matter, WWII seemed like ancient history!

"The moon will essentially walk around underneath the orbiter," says Garvin. "With the detail we get in the photographs, every picture will be like a mini-landing." That includes photos of the Apollo sites, all half-dozen of which should have their portraits snapped. If NASA gets lucky, Garvin believes the first such images could be in hand by the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, on July 20.

Sarah Palin Resigns

Cutting bait - Mark Steyn - The Corner on National Review Online

I have no idea why she made the move, but the sense of it to me was either what Steyn assumes here -- "fed up", or there is some nasty scandal on the horizon that we are going to hear about "soon". If it is about her running for President, then she is just way out of touch. In my opinion, the odds of her being viable were very low, they are nil now.

I think these three paragraphs capture the essence of one of the many serious problems that beset our nation. It borders on the impossible to get anything like the leadership we need in the envioronment that has been created, and it is difficult to see a way forward for leadership that isn't so deformed by special reasons for wanting to lead that they really ought to be disqualified, but unfortuntatly they are are all that is available.

The idea of the left having any actual compassion is really too much to ask if someone has an "R" next to their name. To the left, that "R" is all that can be seen, and the judgement is swift at total. For the American elite, someone that is willing to identify themselves as a Republican has given up their humanity.

Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it'll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You've got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who's given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.

Most of those who sneer at Sarah Palin have no desire to live her life. But why not try to - what's the word? - "empathize"? If you like Wasilla and hunting and snowmachining and moose stew and politics, is the last worth giving up everything else in the hopes that one day David Letterman and Maureen Dowd might decide Trig and Bristol and the rest are sufficiently non-risible to enable you to prosper in their world? And, putting aside the odds, would you really like to be the person you'd have to turn into under that scenario?

National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving emirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain) and dynastic heirs (Bush). Our loss.

Senator Ann Coulter Gives Republican's 60 Votes

Franken 'thrilled' after court declares his Senate victory - CNN.com

Suppose the MSM would like my headline? I've read both Ann's and Al's books and they are both bomb throwers of the same vitriol and partisanship, the only difference being which side they are on. The MSM essentially went crazy when the Republicans had both houses of congress and the presidency in 2002-2006. The Democrats had the kind of majority they have now in the '30s and the '60s. As I've said before, it took from '29 - '53 before the DOW went back above it's '29 highs, and it took from '65-'83 before it broke above the level of '65. Welcome to disaster.

Sadly, the Democrats were not near as far left those times as they are now, and I'm not sure we have ever had anyone in the Senate that was as amoral, partisan, and just plain nasty as Al Franken. Even though I live here, MN can now give up all pretensions to "MN Nice". What a crock.

I think Republicans and just reasonable people in general need to realize that there ought to be limits. The problem is that there AREN'T!! What little is left of what used to be America is so far off the road to the left that we put the left wing equivalent of Ann Coulter in the Senate and it gives the Democrats 60 votes! If this shoe was on the other foot, the MSM and the left would be screaming so loud that it would crush all else!!!

Maybe it is time for the "reasonable" to get UNreasonable!!!

Proof of Amorality

Remind me: Which political party is "decadent" and "sick"? | Salon

It is the LEFT that points out the "high standards" of the right as being "hypocritical", and Clinton is always trotted out as the poster child for "see, his affair was not so bad". Of course the issue for Slick really wasn't the "affair" (and only some perverse lefty would call staining a dress an "affair"), it was the fact that he was under investigation for sexual harassment AND he was having a "sexual relationship" with a current employee. McDonald's managers are fired for having sex with employees at work. a) the job description doesn't include sex at work and b). it's illegal under federal harassment statutes that BILL CLINTON signed into law!!!

The other major league Democrat is of course Teddy Kennedy. Now he KILLED his date, and last I checked, he was STILL in the Senate, and murder was worse than "having an affair". Teddy even came close to getting the Democrat Presidential nod AFTER killing his date, personally, I don't think Sanford has much chance of being elected as a Republican again. John Edwards? The media knew all about his affair for a long time, and since he is a "D", it was a non-story until it was obvious that he was not going to be the nominee.

So does Christianity guarantee freedom from sin? Nope, unfortunately it doesn't even guarantee that the the Christian is "better" than others from the point of view of "earthly judgment". In the Christian view, the important issue is eternity, not the heartbeat spent in this veil of tears anyway. Does that mean "sin boldly"? Absolutely not, but it does mean that we have to TRY for Gods standards and accept that we are sinners -- something that the left generally finds completely abhorrent.

So Gingrich has "retained his position"? Huh? Was he Speaker up until the Republicans lost the majority? Not in my universe. As far as I know, the Ensign affair is just out. Will he survive? I don't know -- I suspect that will be up to the voters. Did anyone say that Senators ought to lose their jobs for affairs?

I guess I would question how he "knows" that Spitzer or Edwards will "never be candidates again"? Is he saying that it IS a good idea to hold up having affairs or paying prostitutes as a "lifetime loss of viability"? But then what about Teddy? or Barney Frank for that matter? Is the Democrat party now setting up a standard by which they WOULD say that Slick Willie and Teddy ought to lose their jobs over sexual dalliances or murder?? I guess if we really do have a change of tune here and are not competing on which party HOLDS to the highest standards, then it is a whole new ballgame.

By the way, while Vitter, Ensign, Gingrich and perhaps Sanford have been able to retain their positions and political viability, the same cannot be said for the most recent offenders on the progressive side. Neither Eliot Spitzer nor John Edwards, each among the most promising figures in the Democratic Party, will ever be a candidate for public office again, although their misbehavior was no worse than what their Republican counterparts did.

If they looked honestly at themselves, religious conservatives might notice that they are morally lax, socially permissive and casually tolerant of moral deviancy -- just like the liberals they despise. So as they wonder aloud why the same salacious nightmare haunts them, year after year, the best advice they can get happens to come from that old sinner Clinton. As he so often says, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome.

The Last Best Hope

The subject book by Joe Scarborough is subtitled "Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise". I like Joe in general and I think the book decently written. He quotes Burke, Russel Kirk's "Conservative Mind", Reagan, and Bill Buckley -- all minds that I respect a lot.

Chapter 9, "The Gipper's Greatest Lesson" is in my view the key "right on" message of the book. If we are going to have a "Conservative/Republican/Libertarian/Constrained" renaissance, then we are going to HAVE to have a solid, simple and POSITIVE message! Lord knows there are PLENTY of basics to build off -- investment vs borrowing, having less than perfectly followed morals vs none, belief in the American People vs remote and massive government, ... the list could go on and on. But if it isn't positive, forget it -- Reagan had that right.

As to the message of the rest of the book -- the facts are right. Way too many entitlements we can't pay, way too much debt from all sources, way too much willingness to put off until tomorrow that which has a strong chance to end our nation. There are good messages there, but I get an uncomfortable feeling that even though Joe has read all the right stuff, at his core he is too much of a compromiser. The line between winning with a smile and giving away the store in the support of comity can be a narrow one. I'm not sure I trust Joe to tap dance down it.

I have no problem with his basic idea that "conservatives conserve", but signing up with the Global Warming team because "that battle is lost" sounds too much like leaving being "reality based" behind and deciding that "truth doesn't matter". That seems like a bridge too far. It is too easy to squander hundreds of billions, whole industries and millions of jobs on government wishful thinking relative to climate. There is a very good reason why all the "progressives" are signed up for it -- it allows them to politicize everything in your life including the odss that your toilet is going to flush (federally mandated reduced flow toilets).

If leaving the truth behind is price to pay for getting in power again, it sounds like Joe is willing to say "go for it" -- I'm not at all sure that I'm there, even if it is obvious that BO is a horrible alternative. I think that is one of the other reasons that I balk -- Joe is pretty willing to castigate the Republican majority and Bush administration for falling prey to the ways of Washington. While they are certainly guilty as charged, if the "Republican 2.0" model comes out as against SUVs and believing in Global Warming isn't that pretty much just a version of "branding over substance"?

Sadly, I think our problems are even deeper than Joe's diagnosis. They didn't start with the Republican majority and Bush, they started with Reagan if not before. Reagan supported the Ponzi scheme of FICA in a big way with massive taxes -- TRUELY the "largest tax increase in history", and one that keeps on growing. It can't save a broken program though, and a party that seeks to be reality based can't ignore that fact.

The road to bankruptcy led through Reagan -- although it is longer than even that. The idea that it was somehow moral to pass massive federal debt on to succeeding generations is one of the core pieces of reality that has to be taken on directly. The truth needs no "rebranding", and neither does reality. I'm not sure that Republicans can be that party, but we desperately need one!

I recommend the book -- it isn't perfect, but it is an easy read that covers some key pieces that people need to know.

Glenn Beck's Common Sense

The subject book is currently on the bestseller lists and driving the left crazy, which means it can't be all bad. There is nothing "wrong" with the book, I just don't particularly like his style, but the message is more or less fine -- in my opinion he may be too hard on politicians! I know that is hard to believe for readers of this blog, but Joe Scarborough's Mom has a good point -- "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar", and I fear that in our mourning over the direction that America has fallen, too many Republicans have switched to vinegar. Let the left be angry, we have too much to be thankful for to be angry! They can kill home, country, friends, family, and fortune, but they can't take faith, so our lot is still better than theirs even in death.

The book covers pretty much the factual litany -- out of control spending, the loss of individual freedoms, the Ponzi scheme we can't pay for of FICA and Medicare, the way the tax code is used to reward cronies and punish political "enemies", investing in dubious pollution ideas over people, the horror of gerrymandering ... etc.

It's all true, it is all sad -- I just don't really see a plan for action in it and worry that Beck is going to create more eneimies than he does converts to the cause. But, I may well be wrong on that, so if you don't think you have a full bead on just how bad things are, it isn't very long and it covers a broad spectrum of the current disaster.