Lemmingville

The Chicken Little clamor in relation to the credit crunch is beyond annoying. So many commentators, including many of those who proclaim themselves free-market supporters, have joined the Greek chorus of doomsayers. Where is their skepticism? The usual suspects have said that if the financial markets are not bailed out by federal taxpayers (which, btw, only comprise about 60% of the adult population), the nation's economy will come crashing down around our ears, 21st-century Hoovervilles will spring up across the landscape and there will be no end to our woes. But about 200 economists from universities all across the United States, and from various schools of thought, signed a letter opposing the bailout. I guess they know less than the talking heads on radio and television. One of the economists' reasons for opposing the so-called "rescue" is particularly insightful: "If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted."

The idea that "something must be done" is the kind of thinking that "informed" FDR's administrations, and while the leftist educational theocracy makes FDR a saint, the simple fact is that his interventionist policies only lengthened the Great Depression.

Lonely voices of reason

The mainstream media has been much worse, even, than usual in this so-called economic crisis. Supposed journalists have mindlessly parroted their government sources as they repeat the mantra that "something had to be done," meaning the federal government had to intervene in a way not seen since the Great Depression. Of course, the Depression was only lengthened and deepened by government intervention, which every thinking person knows.
Some voices in the opinion pages, at least, have had more sense than the self-anointed "journalists." Among those has been, remarkably, the Chicago Tribune's editorial page.
My friends, simply ask yourself this: Do you really trust the federal government to successfully handle your life savings? And if, incredibly, you answer "yes," please tell me: based on its previous successful handling of what, exactly?

Cold, Dead Fingers

It is almost comical to hear Joe Biden talk to rural Virginians about his running mate not being able to take away his shotguns. Biden has been scored a consistent F by the NRA on pro-gun-rights policies during his 36 years in the Senate. As for Barack Obama: "I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry." (Chicago Tribune, 4/27/04); "I think it’s a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the 'assault weapons' ban." (Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04); "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby." ("The Audacity of Hope," by Barack Obama, 2006); "I think that local jurisdictions have the capability to institute their own gun laws." (BaltimoreSun.com, 2/15/08)
Again, words matter.

Economic ignorance

While John McCain is not exactly Friedrich Von Hayek, Barack Obama displays a kindergartner's grasp of economics. Which may explain his appeal to so many young people. He actually seems to believe that taxes on corporations and high earners are not simply passed along to the great majority of consumers in the form of higher prices and lower employment. His Carterian call for a so-called windfall profits tax on "Big Oil" is a prime example of such muddle-headed foolishness. Yes, Barack, that's right, the evil corporations will meekly hand over cash that would have been part of their after-tax net profits to Uncle Sam. They would never consider building the extra tax into their price structure, or cutting costs (read, jobs) to make up the difference if their industry should suffer from price inelasticity. And you claim that your administration would "create" good jobs in America for Americans. I can only imagine what classes you took at Occidental College or Columbia University, but I would bet none of them included "The Road to Serfdom" or "Capitalism and Freedom" as required reading. What, after all, could two dead white guys have to offer?

The Obama (One) Worldview

Barack Obama says, during the recent 9/11 forum put on by Time magazine at his alma mater, Columbia U.:
"But, you know, what has built this country is people sense through voluntary associations but also through public service and government that we have commitments that extend beyond our immediate self-interest, that aren’t always motivated by profit, that aren’t simply short-term, that we’re thinking long term to the next generation.
"And every bit of progress that we’ve made historically is because of that kind of active citizenship (emphasis added). And as president, what I want to do is restore that sense of common, mutual responsibility — and I think the American people are ready for it."

I may be naive, but I believe Obama when he says this. Not, of course, that what he says is correct or true, but that he believes it to be true. Think about that. Use your knowledge of American history and analyze it logically.

In reality, his negative view of the profit motive and supreme belief in communitarianism, which he expresses at every turn, is fundamentally at odds with what really built this nation and made it great.

When he talks about "building a better life for the next generation," that has not been something done primarily by the government or community organizations. It has been individuals, working under a capitalistic system and motivated by profit, that have made things better for succeeding generations. That is the story of our immigrants. They didn't, by and large, go to work for the government or some community organization, they went to work for money. They started a business, they bought or built a home, they paid for their children to go to college (back when that was considered an individual obligation, since the individual would gain the most from the education, as opposed to an entitlement).
It wasn't a federal program or church group or Sol Alinsky that built this nation's steel industry, oil industry, shipbuilding, automobile, aircraft, computer, biomedical, etc.
But perhaps Obama believes private industry does not represent progress. That is the implication of what he says, and he also says "words matter."

Not letting facts get in the way

CNN "analyst" Jeffrey Toobin, left, a fellow Harvard Law alum along with Barack Obama and a staff member in the prosecution of Ollie North, blithely pronounces on CNN Monday night that "the vast majority" of voters are pro-choice as he questions the alleged desire of the Republican ticket to "reignite the culture wars," which, he adds, revolve around just one issue: abortion rights.

But according to Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, updated May 8-11 of this year, Americans as a whole are only slightly more likely to call themselves "pro-choice" on abortion than "pro-life," 50% to 44% (3-point margin of sampling error). This is nearly identical to where Americans stood on the issue a year ago, and is similar to the close division seen since 1998. That's a "vast majority"?

That same poll, btw, shows 55-year-old-plus voters (the age cohort in which turnout is always highest) describing themselves as 48% "pro-life" vs. 44% "pro-choice." That's OK, Jeff, I realize you're a busy guy and hardly have the time to keep up with news that's not on CNN. What's more bothersome is that you get to say such silly things without being challenged by the so-called newsman, Anderson Cooper, who's running the show.

Beyond that, the real politics of the situation almost certainly don't align with the Toobin view.

MSNBC (MeeklyServingNeophyteBarackChannel)

In questioning the Palin pick, Sen. Whatshername from Minnesota tells Nora O'Donnell that traditionally, presidential candidates have had close relationships with their running mates. Either she's completely ignorant of history (entirely possible) or she's purposely dissembling (more likely). Carter was no great friend of Mondale, Reagan hardly knew or liked G.H.W. Bush, Nixon had no relationship with Agnew and, in fact, completely disdained him. Does she think J.F.K. was pals with Lyndon Johnson? Please. Vice-presidential candidates are chosen purely for political expediency, and always have been. Furthermore, they often come from a wing of the party with which the presidential candidate has poor relations, if not open distaste. (In an effort to "balance the ticket.") See Stevenson-Sparkman in 1952. Sparkman came from that great Democrat tradition of siccing dogs on black folks, while The Egghead was best friends with communist Alger Hiss and probably wiped his hand every time after he shook Sparkman's.
Why do so-called journalists sit there and listen to such nonsense when it just does not match the facts? Because they are not journalists at all.

When You Care Enough to Write a Bill ... (but, apparently, not a check)

While Barack Obama has been praised by many Republicans for his stance, it really is small wonder that in relation to the brouhaha over the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's teen daughter, Obama proclaims that family members should be "off-limits" in the campaign.
After all, one of Obama's rare efforts at legislating since he began his long campaign to lead the Free World is called the Global Poverty Act. Here's a summary:
A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.(emphasis added)
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/7/2007)
--Library of Congress
The bill, much like its author's standing in the polls, has since gone nowhere. Now, leaving aside the idea that it might have been better to call it the Global Anti-Poverty Act, there is the matter of one of Barack's many siblings. As most of the information-consuming class knows:
The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation.
--Telegraph.co.uk
"Penury," for the non-Brits among us, means poverty. That would be just the kind that Sen. Obama, in his bill, professes a desire for American taxpayers to combat, globally. George Hussein Oyango Obama, who apparently lives with a couple of relatives now and studies at a Nairobi-area college, was reported by Vanity Fair as saying that that he lives on FAR less than $1 per day.
Barack Obama has made much of his Christianity of late, but perhaps he missed the part about being your brother's keeper.
Oh, wait, I forgot. Families are off-limits.

Bringing Home the Bacon

Sen. Barack Obama ... won $40.6 million in earmarked funds for his constituents (in 2007). Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), who is also running for president and first won election to the Senate in 1972, garnered $67 million worth of projects.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the lone Republican presidential candidate in the Senate, did not win a single earmark in the spending bills. He has chosen instead to position himself on the hustings as a leading critic of excessive government spending. “He has never requested an earmark,” said McCain spokeswoman Melissa Shuffield.
--The Hill, 11-09-07