Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
No Europeanization HereBy Europeanization I mean that we Americansare not European in makeup or outlook. Europe is a huge area that was, until recently, a collection of culturally and racially homogeneous countries that hated each other with passions so deep that most modern Americans do not understand them. They kept killing each other on such a vicious and massive scale that they took the step of outlawing war itself, with the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928. After WWII they really started to take the idea of central government power as the "cure" to the outbreak of warfare seriously. They began providing welfare on a massive scale, and even tried to outlaw nations, instead constructing an undemocratic super state called European Union. They even outlawed sovereign currencies (with some notable exceptions).
All that seems to have failed, mostly because they seem to have forgotten that humans would be involved in their brave new world. They still seethe with nationalist hatreds there, they still have their moments of warfare and "ethnic cleansing," but they have granted their governments a level of power that is anathema to most Americans. Their governments use twice as much of their GDP and vitality, and their people have little of the personal liberty that Americans have.
I mention Europeanization in response to the idea that since European governments have succeeded in taking far higher levels of taxing and spending power than the U.S. has, that we are not taxed enough. I submit that there is no chance that we will go down the route that Europe has, mostly because all Americans believe that they can, one day and with enough hard work and luck, become the next Bill Gates or Barack Obama. We are used to the idea of personal freedom, and we have not had a war on our territory in living memory.
In short (very short - too short) it appears that our flirtation with European ideas of overbearing government is coming to an end, or is at least running out of steam. People are beginning to push back against the political juggernaut of ever expanding government. We will make our stand on taxing authority. The elites - an oligarchy of politicians, academics, and big corporations, is not powerful enough to beat an idea - the idea that we are a free people. Members of that elite might reject all of this. On November 6, 2012, you they well find themselves within the minority.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Letter to a DemocratDear Democrat,
It pains me to inform you that the quandry this great nation faces can not be solved by increasing taxes on "The Rich." It is not taxes that we need to raise - we need to bring spending down to a level commensurate with our means.
I hear what you say, over and over. Republicans are devils and all bad is caused by them, and democrats are angels and all good comes from them. Wake up. The taxes paid by Americans to all governmental entities have always been less than a quarter of income (GDP). Nothing the government has ever figured out, rates, deductions, and reforms, have ever been able to get more revenue from the American citizens. Politicians of all stripes play rhetorical games, all designed to pander to their electoral bases, but the only way to end deficits is to stop spending so much. Clinton has a "surplus" (which was nothing of the sort, but he gets credit for one) because the economy was roaring, so tax collections went up with income.
Because our last few roaring economies were mostly caused by government inflating a bubble, and the bubbles got ever larger, we are now at a point where they can no longer inflate another bubble. While it is possible for private citizens to spend less, we are told that government cannot. Therefore they have spent trillions in "stimulus" and two trillion dollar rounds of "quantitative easing" which is merely printing trillions of dollars, and things still suck.
Every government that has ever had the power to print money has debased their currency, going back to the ancient Romans, who added lead to their gold coins. Our government is currently doing the same thing to the dollar. This does not end well.
We either reduce spending or we will see a great and real tragedy. Professional pols have their reason to pretend that no crisis looms, but there is no reason for citizens to parrot political talking points designed to fool the rubes, when we are the rubes being fooled. Politicians are insulated from the tragedy they are causing, so long as they can get themselves reelected. If you are not an elected official or a member of their patronage circle, you have got to wake up.
A concerned citizen, neither a democrat nor a republican. A citizen who actually cares about his country, not any political party.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
The "Anti-Science" TropeEverywhere I go, I see that those who resist the global warming movement are always called "anti-science." I object to the sobriquet, a reversal of reality actually, of "anti-science." I was a physics major, and have followed climate and weather for fifty years. The science is in, and we have no idea what drives our climate, because there is no consensus among scientists.
There is a bunch of so-called "climate scientists" who make their living by ginning up hysteria, but in the real, peer-reviewed world of science, there is no agreement. The planet (the biosphere really) may or may not be warming, but it is historically colder than long term proxy studies suggest is normal for an interglacial period, and no warming has factually been seen for over a decade. We have much better ways to observe these things now, and the better we get at it, the less "warming" can be detected.
IF there is warming, and that's a big IF, there is no scientific consensus of what might be causing it.
If humans are causing it by carbon dioxide emissions, no possible way to reduce these emissions currently exists.
No matter which political stripe you come from, no matter how many times you scream "Bullshit!" (as Al Gore did last week) these are the scientific facts. Anyone who says differently is misinformed.
Now, that being said, there is some validity to adopting clean air and water policy. The hysterical claims of Gore et al make sensible environmental regulation almost impossible, as pols try to ride the hysteria to even bigger budgets and ever more power.
The "anti-science" group is the warming alarmists who claim that policy can alter weather and climate, and that is incontrovertible fact. The republicans like Rick Perry who see that there is no consensus, and no actual understanding of the drivers of climate changes, are the ones who follow the science where it has led us.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Further Thoughts, the Following MorningWhile many of us will vote for the republican nominee no matter what, that will not do the trick on election day. Obama will be a formidable candidate. It is demoralizing to see that the only sparkling candidate in last night's panel was Gingrich, who can never get the nomination IMO, nor should he - way too much baggage. In the politics of personal destruction the liberals are gonna use, baggage is far worse than silly positions.
Rick Perry was a democrat, being an Al Gore guy in 1988, He delivers the evangelicals big time. While the libs will attack the religion of any candidate, mainstream Christian is a far better place to be than Mormon under that type of fire.
No doubt Perry has a plethora of things in his record that we'd rather he did not. It is easy to choose the prize behind the curtain over the prizes we can see. The curtain is about to be revealed on Perry. I hope that he can stand up under the glare the liberals will put him under. Ever watch MSNBC? The hate there is ferocious.
In any event, I look forward to the campaign. No matter the nominee, ferocious libs getting crazy over their decline from power, especially after their big win in 2008 and their predictions of a long term dominance of the political scene, will be delicious to watch.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Tonight's Republican Debate, IMHOAllow me to veer from pure Zero Base thinking, into my personal opinions of what happened tonight in the debate broadcast On Fox News from Ames Iowa:
Today's news carried some item that Texas Governor Perry was soft on Shariah, and certain quarters of the interwebs called him out on that. After tonight's debate, He'd have to convert to Islam before he would look worse that the crew we watched. Ron Paul was old and tired, no matter how great his ideas. Bachmann looked flighty, defending the indefensible on debt and government spending. Romney looked damn presidential, if only you didn't listen too hard to what he was really saying. Pawlenty, my favorite, looked plain small and indecisive. Santorum is a sweet man, but his train left the station when he failed to win reelection in Pennsylvania. Cain, wow what a president he would be. The only problem is that he would need some votes before they will let him be one, and tonight he didn't earn any. Gingrich looked fresh and uncanned, but he has already disqualified himself a couple months ago. Why proceed with a nominee with such baggage?
Unless you believe that a ham sandwich can beat Obama, we better hope that Perry has more pizzazz than this group!