Remembering 9/11, Nine Years On

Check out this memory of 9/11, written by my sis-in-law, and watch the Youtube video below.

Never forget.

Also, "Allahpundit's" remembrance of his experience on 9/11 is brilliant.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

"I Have A Che T-Shirt And I Don't Know Why"

Lots of people wear the t-shirt while knowing nothing about the man. Some actually know about him and still admire him or think that on balance, he was a romantic communist.

I've seen more of the former in the United States and more of the latter in the United Kingdom.

Both groups disgust me. As do people who sport the Soviet hammer & sickle--whether out of admiration of communism or for stylistic purposes. I cannot abide either the ignorance in most cases or the moral relativism in the rest.

While talking about the so-called Che t-shirt phenomenon with friend, Branden B., he directed my attention to a couple of posts at The Volokh Conspiracy by Ilya Somin. Check them out here:

The Real Che Guevara

Is the Cult of Che Guevara On It's Way Out?

Together, they effectively highlight Guevara's atrocities, his t-shirt wearing fans' ignorance, and his apologists' moral relativism/equivalence (& idiocy).

America is a free country and people have the right to sport whatever ridiculous garb they please. I also have a right to point out when they are useful idiots--"fronting" for a mass murderer.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

From The Goldberg File

This great graph, from the recently-begun The Goldberg File (click to subscribe), was brought to my attention by my brother Matt, natch:

I kind of see the American electorate the same way. We were promised all of this fancy-pants great stuff from the Democrats. Their agenda wasn't going to be left or right, but smart, and pragmatic, and intellectually elegant. It was going to be French! The progs talked endlessly about how we were finally going to have a European-style welfare state while keeping all of our economic dynamism and job growth. The technocrats could pick just the right policies, the way one might select this delicate canapé or that insouciant amuse-bouche.

As Matt wrote, "[what Jonah wrote] agrees nicely and says snarkily what we’ve been saying for a while now.

And by "we" he means all those of us who prefer liberty to the technocrats' centrally planned dystopia.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Ryan Decker: Obama & Trade

Friend of the blog, Ryan Decker, has a good piece in the latest edition of the BYU Political Review.

In it, he highlights the hypocrisies of President Obama's foreign policy--more particularly, his pledges to change course from the supposedly unilateralist approach of President Bush and move towards a foreign policy that would make him (& presumably the US) the koolest kid on the planet.

during the presidential campaign, Obama’s foreign policy promises were inherently contradictory. On the one hand, he promised a less unilateralist and belligerent foreign policy, supposedly in opposition to Bush. On the other, he promised to renegotiate NAFTA and slow pending trade agreements, prompting public concern from U.S. trading partners. For anyone who understands that trade policy is foreign policy, these promises were clearly crises waiting to happen. Closely related to the campaign was Obama’s bestselling book, in which he admitted that labor unions had been crucial to his political career and therefore deserve special treatment from him (page 119).

The other item of context is Obama’s careful behavior at international forums for addressing the financial crisis. At the G-20 and other venues, Obama and his deputies urged countries to avoid damaging trade protectionism. The lessons of Smoot-Hawley were fresh in the minds of officials concerned that protectionism could spark a race to the bottom.

Given his campaign rhetoric and history with unions, there was always a chance Obama would be an anti-trade president. This concern has been magnified by his foot-dragging on the Colombian free trade agreement (and others), crucial to Washington’s relationship with the regionally besieged Latin American country, but angering to unions. Many had hoped, however, that Obama’s campaign rhetoric about careful foreign policy and his promises at the G-20 would prevent a U.S.-initiated, belligerent trade war.

Any countries that trusted Obama’s trade policies—and therefore foreign policies—have now been proven wrong.

Click the link to read it all; it's worth your time.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Obama's Nobel: I Saw This And Thought It Was A Joke (UPDATED)

But then I remembered that they also gave one to Jimmy Carter.

And Al Gore.

And Yasser Arafat.

And I said to myself, "yeah, makes sense."

Like Ace said, somewhere (h/t Matt L.):

High school kids want to be popular. Nations want to be prosperous, secure and in America's case, a force for good in the world.

And like Bob & Tom said on the radio this morning (also, h/t Matt L.):

isn't this a bit like awarding super bowl MVP right now?

&

The Europeans are so mad that they weren't the ones to elect Barack Obama.

Or, like My Old Man said:

Is today April 1? This shows what a joke this [the Nobel Peace Prize] is.

But wait, there's more: I just got an invite to join someone's Facebook group (yup, I'm popular too): Help Barack Obama win the Heisman Trophy!

Then, of course, there's this: Nobel Peace Prize For Awesomeness

This is so utterly ridiculous, I almost wonder if this is a send-up of Obama. But then I remember how seriously these Nobel folks take themselves and realized that no, it is not a joke.

This is so outrageous, I almost feel bad for President Obama--I mean, this makes two weeks in a row that the Europeans (who are more in love with him, even, than the leftists) have made a clown of our President.

For shame. Does the office of the President of the United States mean nothing to these people?

UPDATE 10 October 1:09am BDT: Jansen G. does me one better and writes something intelligent about Obama's Prize:

So, Obama got awarded a peace prize for yet another promise, this time for promising a nuclear free world. After having added this venerable achievement to his trophy case, I have to say, Obama has done quite well making promises. US Senator? Check. President of the United States? Check. Nobel Peace Prize? Check. Though, all this makes me wonder: are any of these promises contractually enforceable? Because I'm not seeing much, if any, performance.

As for the substance (if you can call it that) of this Nobel Peace Prize, Obama promised reconciliation in the M-E, climate change, and a world free of nuclear weapons. Has there been any performance of any of these promises? No! Obama's speech in Egypt has had little affect on the contentious realities in the M-E, largely b/c it failed to address the real source of conflict (US involvement in anything related to or impacting M-E oil flow).
Performance on climate change? The conference on climate change doesn't start until December and its a virtually guaranteed failure given the interests of BRIC et. al.

And while Obama may believe in the ideal of a nuclear free world, he knows just how dangerous in addition to impractical an ideal it is. No one in their right mind believes disarming nuclear arsenals will do anything but create even stronger incentives for horizontal proliferation, further destabilizing already pressing crises. And that's just the catch. Obama either (A) disingenuously attempts a halfhearted, impractical endeavor to dismantle nuclear arms resulting in planned failure that potentially destabilizes a system that's fenced-in the powerful incentives of the prisoner's proliferating dilemma, or (B) he abandons the thought of an attempt to rid the world of weapons and goes down as one of the world's most undeserved Nobel Peace Prize winners. The obvious and preferable option is B, to continue to indulge in the proven double standard of the "powers-that-be." But one has to think that eventually these myriad of catch-22's that Obama promises his way into will expose him for the 'serial breachor' of promises he is.

Obama is an archetype with which, thanks to teen movies, we are all familiar: the popular kool kid who only hangs out with the leftist dork when no one else is around. And then, because the dork has a crush on the kool kid, he/she endlessly makes excuses for Obama.

Obama's apologists will always have a reason for why he was/is unable to deliver on his sweet nothings.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Checking In With Tim Pawlenty

All you guys who hate social conservatives (Mike Huckabee), conservatives whose positions have changed/evolved over the years (Mitt Romney) and otherwise smart people who occasionally say dumb things (Sarah Palin--but you still love Average-Joe Biden!), are going to love Tim Pawlenty.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been quietly assembling the blueprint of a presidential campaign and will announce Thursday the support of a group of high-level political strategists and donors, complemented by a handful of top new media consultants, POLITICO has learned.

Pawlenty, under the radar of D.C.’s political community, has locked up some of the key operatives who engineered then-President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign — a significant feat for a little-known Midwestern politician.

The moves underscore, and will lend credence to, the emerging belief among many establishment Republicans that Pawlenty is becoming the sole viable alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican primary rival. The Minnesota governor has even gone so far as to contact some of Romney’s former supporters.

Congratulations to Liz Mair, a friend of this blog, who has joined Gov. Pawlenty's PAC.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

My Friend Branden B. On President Obama's New York Times Op-Ed

The main contributors to this blog are yours truly (lybberty) and my brother, matt. From time to time, I post submissions from guest contributors whose principles align with the principles of OL&L.

This is one of those times.

Longtime friend & friend of the blog, Branden B., weighs in with some insightful analysis of President Obama's health care op-ed which ran in Sunday's New York Times. I recommend it for your review.

I read Obama's editorial this morning on health care in the NY Times. A few things jumped out at me because they seemed incredible. I don't completely understand the issue nor do I pretend to; however, I did learn a thing or two in school along with everyone else who took Econ 110 and they could shoot holes through his argument as easily as I could.

First, it's obvious that the President is putting the majority of his effort into demonizing insurance companies. For those who have read Atlas Shrugged, it is phenomenal how similar his language is to the looters in Rand's book. I am not saying that insurance companies are perfect entities or that Rand's philosophy is even mostly correct. It just blew me away that he was lifting their language so exactly:

...in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.

...we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies.

...reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.

...A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans

Secondly, take a few moments and read the following paragraph, think for a bit, and then tell me why this will not work.

We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses.

Again, I understand that there are real people affected by the problems he outlined above. That said, what does he think is going to happen to the insurance premiums for everyone (including those that are sick) if companies are required to turn a blind eye to just about everything they use now in determine (insurance) premiums? He doesn't even acknowledge that your premiums are going to at least double and possibly triple or quadruple. At that point, the government will then step in and say that insurance companies can't raise premiums (as it was in Atlas). Insurance companies will then go bankrupt and the government will conveniently step in with their fixed plan, paid for with your tax dollars.

Finally, what does this last sentence mean?

If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need.

The first "we" is Obama, a government bureaucrat. We could rewrite that to say:

If you have health insurance, we [government bureaucrats] will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need.

I don't normally do these sorts of rants but I could not believe that the President peddled these fallacies so blatantly in the morning newspaper.

[ed. note: Branden, this is what you get for reading the NYT Op-Ed page.]

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Compare & Contrast: Democrat Treatment Of Sonia Sotomayor & Miguel Estrada

You may have already read this meme elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere: Democrats rejected Miguel Estrada, a supremely qualified, hispanic jurist, as an Appeals Court nominee in 2001, because they didn't want Republicans being the first party to nominate a hispanic to the Supreme Court. Their treatment of Estrada was of a piece with their treatment of Clarence Thomas when he was nominated for the Supreme Court.

Though both men are racial minorities, they happen to be conservative minorities and as a result, incurred the wrath of liberals.

All of this brings me to one of my favorite games to play with the Democrat party--compare & contrast. Jansen G. emailed me an analysis of this hypocrisy that is better & clearer than any I've read elsewhere:

Does the name Miguel Estrada ring a bell? I came across this insightful article discussing the Democrats voracious opposition to confirming Estrada, a Hispanic lawyer, to the Federal Court of Appeals in 2001. The Democrats opposition was uncharacteristically strong, lasting 28 months and including a 6 month filibuster. As one would expect, part of the issue had to do with Estrada's conservatism. What's so relevant about this story, however, is that Estrada had an even greater rags-to-riches tale than Sotomayor. The irony here is tangible: many of the same Democrats that currently find Sotomayor's tale so compelling, belligerently fought against an equally qualified hispanic nominee with as compelling of a story (and no red flags). Of course, the reasoning for such strong opposition, as the article points out, is that the Democrats wanted to deny the GOP the potential political sway it would recieve among Hispanic voters for placing a Latino on the bench. The point I exrapolate from these two stories is that the Democrats are far more excited about retaining their Hispanic constituents than they're genuinely intrigue by Sotomayor's story. Politics can unfortuantely be so sobering, can't it?

Democrats response to both nominees reflects their opinion of minorities: They are for you so long as you embrace liberal politics. Reject their accepted wisdom and they will reject you--no matter how qualified you may be.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Cramer, Obama, Liberals, &c.

Ever since I first noticed the phenomenon, I've looked for the right opportunity to put it into practice. What might it be, you ask? Why, quoting myself, of course.

It was prompted by an email I received from Matt P. Given that I hadn't heard from him in awhile, I jumped at the chance.

Matt wrote:

So low taxes are good in bad economic times so people can get rich, but when the economy is good we can soak the rich and damn the poor? I can't understand how he can't see the fault in his logic. Even when he's right, he's still wrong.

From his post yesterday:

"To be totally out of the closet, I actually embrace every part of Obama's agenda, right down to the increase on personal taxes and the mortgage deduction. I am a fierce environmentalist who has donated multiple acres to the state of New Jersey to keep forever wild. I believe in cap and trade. I favor playing hardball with drug companies that hold up the U.S. government with me-too products.

"... I believe his agenda is crushing nest eggs around the nation in loud ways, like the decline in the averages, and in soft but dangerous ways, like in the annuities that can't be paid and the insurance benefits that will be challenging to deliver on.

"So I will fight the fight against that agenda. I will stand up for what I believe and for what I have always believed: Every person has a right to be rich in this country and I want to help them get there. And when they get there, if times are good, we can have them give back or pay higher taxes. Until they get there, I don't want them shackled or scared or paralyzed. That's what I see now."

I'm all for "giving back," but shouldn't that be my choice?

To which I responded as follows:

Cramer is a liberal Democrat & an idiot [ed. note: but I repeated myself]. I guess, from him, we should be glad when he criticizes Obama at all, as he has done recently.

Obviously, I am in wholehearted agreement with what you say.

To liberals, your money is not really your money. It's the money you got by exploiting people, probably, and you don't deserve it. Plus, they know how to use it better than you do. It's all about power & control--that's the conservative vs. liberal argument at it's core:

Conservatives want everyone to have as much control over their lives as possible. They understand that some people are going to screw up, and that sucks, but that most people will do best whatever makes them happy.

Liberals want to control everyone's lives in every possible way because they think they know how to make everyone equally happy, or, as happens to be the case back in a little place I like to call reality, they know how to make everyone's life suck equally (except, of course, for the American version of the Politburo and their friends who get the green dacha's* in the countryside.)

This is the new reality: In a country where market forces aren't left to themselves to pick winners and losers; in a country where trillion dollar budgets and spenduli are used to shower billions of dollars on campaign supporters (read: ACORN, Unions, etc.); in a country where government picks the winners and the losers, you better hope that, at the very least, you aren't on Obama's naughty list.


*In Soviet Russia, supposedly everyone had access to homes in the countryside surrounding Moscow & other Russian cities. In reality, the only ones who stayed there, ate black market food, owned cars that ran, took hot showers, etc., etc. were the leading Communist party members & their friends.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'Count It Off'

Longtime friend & partner in crime, Michael J. Mouncer, emailed me the happy news last night that he had produced another music video.

The song is called, as the title of this blog post suggests, "Count It Off." According to MJ, it was made an official selection in the Music Video category at South by Southwest 2009. Congrats, Mike.


"Count It Off" - The Saturday Knights from Lincoln Leopard Films on Vimeo.

Check out MJ's write up in Seattle Weekly & Direct Link.

One year ago this week, Michael's video for The Blakes played on MTV's Subterranean. You can see his new website and the link to that video by clicking here.

My policy here at OL&L is always to support friends and readers of the blog. If you have something worthwhile and want me to call attention to it, just email me and I'll see what I can do.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Voter Fraud &c.

This was hardly the first year people questioned the efficacy of our voter system. I mean, just because ACORN signed up more dead and imaginary people than every before doesn't mean this is the first time this has happened.

People, as I recall, were pretty ticked in the aftermath of 2000 with the Florida recount and other stories about voting issues.

JFK famously won the election with the help of tens of thousands of double & dead voters in Chicago. Tammany Hall in NYC was particularly good at this sort of thing and was/is the model for the Chicago machine.

It won't surprise any of you to know that these are all Democrat party machines.

It also won't surprise any of you to know that they are the ones who, year after year, oppose efforts to standardize voting requirements to bring a modicum of legitimacy to our electoral system. Heaven forbid we actually require a picture ID when someone votes.

After following this pretty regularly for the last couple of months and posting Morgan H.'s experience voting in LA, reader Victor S. emailed me the link to his new blog where he wrote a bit of a counterpoint to my many attacks. He's a good guy and his blog is worth a read.

He writes, in part:

The point I'm driving towards is this: the elections are as fair, in my view, as humanly possible. No, they are not perfect. Yes, there are sometimes minor errors, but the elections are fair, and those involved try to do the best job possible.

Yes, Victor, I've no doubt they are as fair as humanly possible. I'd like to make them as fair as inhumanly possible. That is to say, I'd like to subtract, as much as possible, the possibility for human caused error and fraud.

Requiring photo ID in every state would be a good start.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More On Rahm Emmanuel & Free Trade

Longtime friend, Dan K., an econ PhD student at Cambridge, provided a very instructive response to my earlier post about the prospects of free trade under an Obama administration.

Just a few things regarding your concerns about free trade.

1. Clinton promised to renegotiate NAFTA to include strong labor and environmental measures. And he did, which took an extra year to get to congress. In reality, those measures deliberately had zero enforcement power. The Clinton negotiators wanted it that way. And the Mexican and Canadian negotiators laughed at the lack of enforcement power, particularly with labor. The book "How the Deal was Done" by Cameron and Tomlin documents this well. The lesson seems to be that while the democrats signal an awareness of labor and environmental concerns with trade agreements, it's not really a credible threat. It's largely because all of that involves the creation and enforcement of international labor and environmental laws which are close to impossible to create and enforce. They do pander to labor unions. But that's because they can't get elected without them. But the end result is the same. So if empty rhetoric and promises are what it takes to calm down the labor groups, then so be it. We now have one President who is exceptionally good at it. I think Obama knows that playbook.

2. No trade economist (that I know of) think it is possible that Obama would unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA. Why? Because it sets a dangerous precedent of unilateral renegotiation on regional and multilateral FTA's for other countries who feel 'cheated' by such agreements. As you know, while the overall benefits of free trade is positive, there are bound to be losers within a domestic setting. Unskilled labor is the loser of NAFTA (economical jargon: less abundant production factor). Every free trade agreement has losers, thus domestic pressure for reform. The precednet for Unilateral negotiation means that many free trade agreements could unravel, to say nothing of the WTO. So, unilateral renegotiations of NAFTA is not an option for Obama, and he knows that. (Let it go Jake. He did what he had to beat Hilary, which I don't mind at all.) He may not be a complete free trader, but he also does not want the blame of dismantling the world free trade network.

3. Have a look at the current tarriff rates of the United States. Almost every product is close to zero (large exception being agriculture). There are not that much more trade benefits to be had with more FTA's. The South Korean FTA is more of a gesture to strengthen political ties anyway. The only (real) thing left now is to promote global efficiency by concentrating on the WTO. There's significant evidence to suggest that bilateral FTA's hurt that goal. By definition, FTA's create preferential treatment. This diverts trade from efficient to inefficient producers (equals dead weight losses). So, if you really want to be a free trader, argue about granting fast-track authority to the Obama administration and pushing through the Doha round. Because the other FTA's are not going to create much benefit (in fact it may create losses in the long run). I say this because you can be a free trader (like myself) and oppose the Columbia and South Korean FTA's (provided for a strong support for WTO). The WTO is the battle ground where the big boys (Brazil India China Russia and EU) play their economic games. I don't mind the least bit if Obama scores some political capital by opposing regional and bilateral FTA's and gets the job done at the WTO.

Dan blogs at From One Cambridge To Another.
(better start blogging again, Dan)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Tell The Truth, Let The Chips Fall Where They May (UPDATED)

On Friday I posted links to two articles--dispatches, really--written by freelance writer Michael Yon. For a long time, Yon was the only place I, and many others, could go to get the straight news from the trenches. He took and takes the time to get the feel of a place, the lay of the land, and understand what the troops are thinking and feeling. As I have never served in the military nor been to Iraq & Afghanistan, I find his insight invaluable.

In addition to posting the links and recommending that my readers read Yon's stuff, I sent a message to a buddy of mind currently working intel in Afghanistan. I wanted to get his take on what Yon was reporting. His response is revealing:

I can't say that's what I'm seeing every day. But my fellow soldiers are. When we go out on missions to the different FOB's... we see this stuff. And his writing is right on with what is going on here. The idea that there are so many Taliban around... and that they can just flee into Pakistan to get away from us... it's ridiculous. I love the article though. Thanks for sending it and opening the eyes of those who read this. The bias[ed] media of today has no idea what we go through out here... this is a breath of fresh air. Please pass this article along so that people get a feel for how the war is out here.

(emphasis added)

Per my friend's instructions, here's the links to those articles once again. Make these your Sunday reading.

Death in the Corn: Part I of III
Death in the Corn: Part II of III

UPDATE 8:58pm MDT: Be sure and check out my friend's blog. He writes a little more about his personal experiences in Afghanistan.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

538, Sonk, Evergreen, &c.

UPDATE 14 Sept. 12:30am MDT:

Dear Mark, Diana, Amanda, Kaitlyn, Trinh, & other miscellany UCLA-related friends:

59-0, I rest my case.

Love

Jake

It's Saturday and it's game day for BYU. This week the Cougars are playing another Pac-10 team--this time, UCLA, for the 3rd time in just over a year. As I'll be attending the game and entertaining a visiting fan, blogging will be light this weekend. That said, take a look at a couple of things:

- While at the RNC, I reconnected with an old BYU friend who wrote about her experience shepherding Republican big-wigs in their interactions with the press. Check it out here.

- One point on the Palin's interview w/ Charlie Gibson: If you think she revealed her ignorance of foreign policy w/ re: to her question about the specific application of the Bush Doctrine, then you know less about foreign policy than, well, Sarah Palin. See, specifically, Charles Krauthammer's column about the origin and development of this idea of the Bush Doctrine.

- Great, redemptive news out of 538 for the Evergreen State: McCain is within 2 points (2 points!) of Obama in Washington. All the other numbers look pretty good for McCain, too.

- For those of you who care about such things, the Palgrave Econoblog has a mostly unscientific listing of the Top 50 Economics Blogs. Notably missing is Greg Mankiw. FWIW, I read Mankiw more than all the rest combined.

- Part of me feels bad for Democrats (but not that bad). They reached their popular-appeal-peak months and months ahead of the actual election.

- Revisiting Fannie/Freddie: The Candidate of Change is going to have to answer why he would allow no change or reform of the GSEs. See Decker's post on this at Pendulum Politics.

- Obama & Dems generally have announced time and time again that things will be different this election--that they won't allow themselves to be Swift-boated--you know, sunk by the truth. This is how they hit back (ad link).

When they decided to make fun of McCain's alleged distaste for using computers, did they think that maybe the reason he doesn't use them was because his injuries, suffered while serving his country, made it painful/impossible?

The Obama campaign's get-tough strategy can be summed up thusly: Make Fun of Veterans' Disabilities.

Let's play my fav. game, compare 'n contrast:

Drawbacks on selecting one candidate vs. the other:

McCain doesn't like to write emails/use computers because of the pain and disability resulting from being tortured by the North Vietnamese. He's, like, sooo out of touch with Obama's twentysomethings. How can he be our President?

Senators Obama, Dodd, & Clinton (among others) resisted reform and regulation of Fannie & Freddy, which is partially to blame for the current housing crisis. "Why did they do this," you ask?

Campaign donations. Not just any donations, but donations you can believe in (joke explanation for the stupid and humorless: you know, because the check didn't bounce).


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Daily One Cosmos: On Marxism

Classic One Cosmos writing about Marx and his troubled relationship with history and economic reality:

the first thing that comes to mind is Marxism, which specifically developed in that gap between the premodern and modern world. It is fundamentally rooted in the myopic fallacy that things were getting worse for the average worker, when the reality was that, for the first time in 10,000 years, they were actually getting dramatically better.

In this regard, Marx was not just economically illiterate, but completely ahistorical, a malady that continues to afflict the left to this day. The free market will eventually solve most problems that leftist solutions will only perpetuate or aggravate. But the leftist relies upon people being riveted only on the now, which then requires some sort of radical solution to redeem the future.

For example, how many Americans realize that gasoline actually reached its peak price in the early 1960s if adjusted for inflation, while it reached its low point in 1998? For the demagogues of the left, it is vital that you not know that, just as it was vital to Marxists that people be unaware of the fact that for the average laborer, the 18th century was almost a straight upward line in terms of increasing affluence.

(h/t: M. Lybbert)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Daily One Cosmos

I read One Cosmos every day. You should too.

I want to emphasize that I am not trying to invoke Godwin's law in demonstrating the parallels between this and the Obamessiah hysteria, but parallels there are (not in the ends, but in the deeper structure of the infrarational mysticism). As we continue this series, I will be very curious to analyze the language and imagery of Obama's acceptance speech at his Nuremburg-like mass-hypnosis rally at Invesco Field before 75,000 adoring "fans" (which is the proper term, since this whole creepy exercise is "infra-poltical" and emotional, devoid of intellectual substance).

I just did a quick google search, and found this typical story, which says that "In a little more than a week, 75,000 lucky ticket-holders will head for Invesco Field, ready to usher in a new era of photos for their Facebook pages.... And eventually, upon the entrance of the Great Half-White Hope, they will be reduced to one giant goosebump.... But it won't just be the arrival of Barack Obama that will send chills down their spines. Obama, no doubt, will enter the stadium to the tune of some inspiring piece of pop music. Whose song will it be?.... Which song will electrify the crowd next Thursday?"

I don't know, WWLD? That is, what would Leni Riefenstahl recommend? A little Wagner? Interestingly, there is no question whatsoever that she was a gifted artist. But look at the mesmerizing effect Hitler had upon her will -- and she is hardly alone in this regard. Van Vrekhem relates story after story of how strong men -- generals, diplomats, artists, and journalists -- were reduced to Jello in his presence. He clearly transmitted a kind of supernatural power to which many individuals attested. Is there an "artist" in Hollywood, or a celebrity journalist, who hasn't fallen under Obama's spell? Yes, a few, but only a few. .

Prescient, no?

[emphasis added]
(h/t: M. Lybbert)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Kelsey's Kitchen

Image link

Are you or have you ever been a fan of the Food Network? If so, be sure to tune into The Next Food Network Star every Sunday evening on, what else, the Food Network. Our friend, Kelsey Nixon, is one of the contestants. You can catch re-runs of last night's show--the first in the series--all week.

Additionally, please take the time to vote for Kelsey as your "favorite finalist." This can be done every day and holds the extra perk of entering you for some cooking implements, or something.

*UPDATE 2:51PST: There's a link to Kelsey's blog--Kelsey's Kitchen--in the right toolbar. Check it out.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Weekend Links

It's not much of a link post--just three articles. But all three are very good.
(edit: 5 articles)
(2nd edit: 6 articles)

- First up, "Why $70 Million Wasn't Enough." This was maybe the most entertaining article we read last year. It's tangible proof of something we've discussed with the guys at Pendulum Politics--specifically, that CEO pay has to compete with the guys in hedge funds and private equity.

- Next, an enlightening article about Bill Cosby and black conservatism. It's good and informative, but reader beware w/regards to the author's interpretation of African American history.

James Q. Wilson has shown that slavery caused by far the greatest damage to the black family. And Thomas Sowell's research has proven that African American families were gaining ground economically on white families prior to Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" and some of the other bad policy to come out of that era.

- Finally, from Commentary magazine, an in depth look at "the anatomy of The Surge."

*UPDATE 11 May 11:58pm MST: (hat tip: S. Lybbert) A friendly reminder for those who still think we should/could exit Iraq and everything would be hunky-dory. Popular historian Arthur Herman wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the lives lost after the US withdrew its support in Cambodia and Vietnam. Democrats can close their eyes and plug their ears but it wasn't pretty.

In other news, we still fail to understand the logic of those who argue for intervention in Darfur, but want the US to immediately withdraw from Iraq. Uh, ok.

**UPDATE 11 May 11:59pm MST: (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) We're not experts, but we are economically literate. Check out this article by David Leonhardt in the New York Times on the future potential of economics to solve social problems. (yes, that New York Times)

***UPDATE 12 May 1:03pm MST (h/t: Matt Lybbert): Which of the three remaining candidates is least populist? We think that award should go to John McCain. You see, McCain remains in favor of Nafta and is one of the few and definitely the most visible politician arguing for the virtues of free trade. Check out this article, another from the NYT.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Total Eclipse Of The Heart

Saturday, 12 April, 8:30pm-1:00am
Noah's in Lindon

Over a month ago, longtime reader of the blog Voice of Raisin (or whatever he was calling himself at that point) suggested we get behind a few causes. He's right, in that particular sense, that we rarely endorse a specific cause. Typically this blog argues for big ideas and large policy. In relatively few instances do we call for reader support of a small-scale cause.

Part of this is due to the fact that there seem to be as many causes as there are people. And causes are the cool thing to do in college. But we think we've hit on a good one. It's good because it's easy and close to home.

A couple of months ago, a friend of ours, Derek Gosman, was involved in a skiing accident. He fell hard and got busted up pretty bad--broken ribs, a femur, and a coma. His recovery has been nothing short of miraculous. But his recovery was aided by lots of highly specialized medical care and this type of medical care is very expensive. After a couple of months spent in hospitals and physical therapy (ongoing) and other recovery facilities, they have racked up large medical bills.

In order to help the family cover these expenses, Derek's employer, Eclipse, and a number of other good hearted businesses and individuals in the Utah County have teamed up to throw a benefit concert and party to help raise money to cover the costs.

Total Eclipse of the Heart
Facebook event link

Local band the D-Loreans will play, some DJ will spin, prizes will be raffled and hopefully a butt-load of money will be raised.

This is where you come in. If you can, come, and buy raffle tickets. Even if you can't come, donate whatever you can. And spread the word.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Sunday Night Links

Image link

(from Drudge: we'd be cool with a VP Rice.)
(ps. at least then the Dems couldn't call us racists.)
(pps. they definitely couldn't call us racist: we like Condi AND we're a member of the NAACP.)

***

Tomorrow, sometime, America's Future Foundation will announce the winner of their inaugural college blogger contest. Our gut feeling is not good.

While we all wait, here are a few links to a few good articles:

- Robert Paarlberg in The New York Post on the charity efforts to feed Africans.

- In the Wall Street Journal, and discussing another issue affecting families--our theme of the week--is Donna Freitas. She talks about the "hook-up" culture that dominates college campuses across the country and the damage it inflicts. (hat tip: S. Lybbert)

- Your weekly dose of Mark Steyn.

- Michael Barone provides electoral analysis of the Democrat civil war. So far the bloodletting in this dust-up has been limited to resignations or, in some cases (gasp), forced resignations. If someone actually dies we'll capitalize "civil war."

- Over at Pendulum Politics, RD surveys national news, buruboi takes a look at religion in election years, and also the limits of rationality.

- Finally, the article of the week which also contains the quote of the week. Drum roll, please..... This week's winner, George Will with "McCain's Housing Restraint." And from that article, this gem on liberal Democrats and the "housing crisis:"

The market, which bewilders and annoys liberals by correcting excesses without the supervision of liberals, is doing that as housing prices fall far enough to stimulate demand.

Cross your fingers and toes, everybody. Thanks a bunch for your comments and support.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.