I hope we can see it soon.
Category Archives: Political Commentary
From Norway To Hell
Walter Russell Mead is channeling Bill Joy:
The inescapable reality is that the very forces creating our affluent, modern and democratic world also generate violent antagonism. Breivik, like Al-Qaeda and like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, is the shadow of progress. When conditions are right, the lone psychopath becomes a cult leader; in a perfect storm when everything breaks his way, the psychopath becomes Fuehrer.
That would be bad enough, but there’s one more turn of the screw. The same technological progress that helps create violent alienation and rage also empowers individuals and groups. 200 years ago a Breivik could not have done so much damage. 100 years ago Al-Qaeda could not have hijacked a plane. Modern society is more vulnerable than ever before to acts of terror, and developments in weaponry place ever greater power in the hands of ever smaller numbers of people.
This is still in early stages. Fortunately Breivik was a traditionalist and relatively low tech mass murderer; he did not hack vital computer systems to wreak murderous havoc with a rail or air traffic control system. He did not poison the reservoirs with weaponized biologicals. He did not even pump poison gas into a subway system.
We can be reasonably confident that an increasingly chaotic and stressful 21st century will generate more bitter nutjobs and place more destructive power in their hands. Democracy and affluence won’t cure it; the same forces that raise those golden arches build bombs to knock them down.
I have to say that Breivik and McVeigh are in an entirely different category than bin Laden. The latter is part of a totalitarian religious movement, with the support of millions, while no one is cheering the former in the streets, and in fact they are being roundly condemned by their own group members (that is, those with whom they share a genetic heritage). I am particularly disgusted by the media’s attempts to paint both as “Christians” when I’ve seen no evidence that either is, and McVeigh actively disavowed a belief in God. But they have to do so to feed the moral relativistic narrative in defense of Islam.
But here’s where I just don’t get his argument at all:
The only conclusion that makes sense to me is that human beings are stuck in a condition of radical uncertainty. Something big and earth shaking is going on around us, but the information we have does not allow us to predict where it all goes.
In my view, this is one of the reasons that belief in a transcendent power beyond the human mind is intellectually necessary to grapple successfully with the realities of our time. When the determinist progressives threw God under the bus, they threw away the possibility of an integrated world view that has room both for scientific and rational analysis on the one hand and a honest, unsparing appraisal of the radical uncertainty around us on the other.
We still live in the Age of Apocalypse that opened in World War Two when Hiroshima and the Holocaust delineated the essential problems of the new and possibly last era of human civilization. Mankind has long had the potential for radical, desolating evil; today we still have that potential among us, and we have united it to the power to end all life on earth. We live with one foot in the shadows and another on the high and sunny uplands of democratic and affluent society. We have one foot in Norway and the other in Hell and nobody knows where we step next.
One of the reasons to bother God in our century is the hope that in turn he will bother about us. Whatever is coming, we will face it more honestly and live it more richly with him.
This presupposes that he exists, but that we are just ignoring him. Well, that may be, but I have no sense of it, which is why I’m a non-believer, and furthermore, I feel no need for him for me to intellectually grasp what’s happening. While I admire Professor Mead, I think that he is projecting his own apparent intellectual inadequacies on the rest of us.
Time To Raise Taxes
Distressingly, neither the president nor the Democrats offer any rigorous account of the optimal level of tax progressivity. Rather, the president seems to think that no matter how high the current marginal tax rates, the correct social policy is to move them upward. As such, he cannot explain why the top marginal tax rate for the rich should not approach 100 percent as they accumulate more and more wealth. After all, why not push the limits if efforts to redistribute wealth do not at some point impede its creation?
My view is the polar opposite of Obama’s. I believe, now more than ever, that the optimal level of progressivity in the system is zero, so that today’s marginal adjustments in taxes should increase taxes on those on the bottom half of the income distribution. To explain why, let us start with the premise that the defenders of any progressive tax have to give some principled account of the optimal degree of tax progressivity. They have to identify which of the infinite number of progressive tax schedules they embrace, and then explain why it is best.
They can’t. It’s all about “fairness,” not rationality or revenue. Or preventing the country from going into a tipping point of entitlement.
[Update a while later]
Are we having a Gettysburg moment in the long cold civil war?
If so, I hope that the Republicans continue to press their advantage, as Meade didn’t.
No One Tell Tom Friedman
Chinese bullet trains aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.
That’s true of a lot of things in China, I suspect. Including its space program.
The “Adult In The Room”
…has blown up a bi-partisan plan. Because reelection is more important to him than saving the economy, or country.
[Update a few minutes later]
Our petulant and inept president.
It’s a bad combination. And I think that more and more people are starting to recognize it.
[Tuesday morning update]
Is Barack Obama a has been? I think he’s a never was, and people are finally starting to figure it out.
[Update a few minutes later]
Thoughts on the Obama plan:
As the president faced the nation on Monday evening, he knew his economic legacy was on the line. Historians will judge him for his economic stewardship.
The assessment will not be good. Going deep into his presidential term, he presides over a country that suffers from high unemployment, record home foreclosures, and a no-growth economy. But when the most pivotal issue of our decade emerged — a $16.8 trillion debt crisis — where was the “Obama plan”?
The sad truth is there is no Obama plan and there never has been a plan. The president gingerly approached the debt crisis as he has approached other issues: intellectually, coolly, passively, and with great detachment.
Bill Clinton never had a plan to balance the budget, either. It didn’t happen until the Republicans took over. But not having grown up a red-diaper baby, he was more ideologically flexible than Barack Obama.
[Update mid morning]
Remembering the golden age of Clinton. Accurately, unlike the Democrats who think that the boom was a result of tax increases.
Wheels Stop
With the landing of the final Shuttle flight, Jeff Foust has more thoughts on a theme I discussed when it launched, a couple week ago. A fifty-year era is over. Now perhaps we can end the meaningless debate about “exploration,” and get on with the real business of developing space.
The Continuing Insanity Of The Politically Correct Multi-Cultis
An blue-eyed blond Norwegian murders a bunch of blue-eyed blond Norwegians, and as a result of this, mosques are at risk?
Beam me up.
Going Galt
The government’s war against business, energy and jobs continues:
I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I don’t know. I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.
As some have already noted, for some people Atlas Shrugged is a cautionary tale, for others it’s a how-to manual.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Actually, there are parallels on other fronts as well:
“As federal criminal statutes have ballooned, it has become increasingly easy for Americans to end up on the wrong side of the law. Many of the new federal laws also set a lower bar for conviction than in the past: Prosecutors don’t necessarily need to show that the defendant had criminal intent. . . . The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. By the turn of the 20th century, the number of criminal statutes numbered in the dozens. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, according to a 2008 study by retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker. There are also thousands of regulations that carry criminal penalties. Some laws are so complex, scholars debate whether they represent one offense, or scores of offenses. Counting them is impossible. The Justice Department spent two years trying in the 1980s, but produced only an estimate.” Yet we retain the fiction that everyone is supposed to know the law.
From the book: “There’s no way to rule innocent men… When there aren’t enough criminals, one declares so many things to be a crime… that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
We really are living it, and she really was prophetic.
[Update a few minutes later]
This seems related, somehow: the Anglosphere, before the lights went out.
The Hypocrisy Of James Fallows
Thoughts, over at The American Spectator:
So let me get this straight. Even a week after Tucson, after it was absolutely clear that Palin and the right had nothing whatsoever to do with the Giffords shooting, Fallows was still saying that the very “purpose” of journalists is to connect dots and “see if there’s a pattern there,” and that “it is legitimate in our current climate to ask” if the rhetoric on the right had something to do with the shooting. But now that Rubin, VERY shortly after the Norway tragedy, doesn’t just connect nearly invisible dots but actually cites stories quoting jidahists themselves as claiming jihadist “credit” for the terrorism, Fallows says it suddenly is not only a horrible sin for Rubin to take the jihadists’ words themselves for real — these aren’t mere dots, they are what’s known as solid circumstantial evidence — but that is is a mistake bad enough that her employer should apologize to the world.
Maybe it’s not hypocrisy so much as the usual grotesque double standard among the media in the service of a leftist ideology.
[Update a few minutes later]
Related thoughts from Jim Treacher:
When something gets blown up, we’re not supposed to even suspect the terrorist is Muslim? It’s a bit late for that, isn’t it? Are you complaining to Reuters and the NYT and all those other right-wing outlets that suspected Muslim involvement? Or are you somehow confused about what the word “suspect” means? Shouldn’t you save some of your spiteful glee for anybody out there who’s still asserting that this crime was motivated by Islam, despite the evidence to the contrary?
If it’s some sort of victory to you that this freak is a Christian and a right-winger, go ahead and revel in it. As Neal Boortz pointed out: “Muslim zealots kill, Muslims celebrate and conservative Christians are angry. Christian zealots kill, liberals gloat. Odd.” Not as odd as it used to be, unfortunately.
Meanwhile, close to 100 people were murdered. I’m not going to whine that the murderer doesn’t represent all Christians, that he doesn’t speak for all right-wingers. Of course he doesn’t, just as Muslim terrorists don’t speak for all Muslims. Only the dumbest, most jaded lefty creeps are saying otherwise, and bickering about it isn’t going to bring any of those dead people back.
I hate that murdering bastard, and if it were up to me, right now he’d be rotting in Hell after death by waterboarding.
He just can’t stop being politically incorrect.
[Mid-morning update]
Apologize for what?
Anders Behring Breivik, the deranged savage who committed mass-murder in Oslo last Friday, is a severe critic of Islam. His targets, though, were not Muslims. They were his fellow Norwegians and Norway’s government. As Mark Steyn keenly observed this morning, it is patently absurd that Breivik’s attitudes about Muslims have come to dominate coverage of a horrific episode that appears to have little or nothing to do with Muslims — such that those actually killed become, as Mark puts it, “mere bit players in their own murder” while the legacy media shrieks about “Islamophobia.” As Bruce Bawer pointed out in his trenchant post this weekend (at Pajamas), we are now looking at “a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has become profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.”
If we are to remain free and secure, that cannot be allowed to happen. And that starts with not apologizing for the entirely rational fear that future terrorist attacks will be fueled by Islamist ideology, just as thousands of past attacks have been. Prominent Muslims are forever making the most unfounded, most offensive pronouncements, and yet they never have to apologize. Right after 9/11, MPAC’s Salam Marayati told a Los Angeles radio interviewer, “If we are going to look at suspects, we should look at groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” Before becoming a top Obama aide and envoy, Rashad Hussain excoriated the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian as a “politically motivated” “travesty of justice” that fit a “common pattern … of politically motivated prosecutions,” by which the U.S. government exaggerates the “threat to American security” — al-Arian later pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge. CAIR has made a career of rushing to the nearest microphone to discredit the investigation of Muslims who are later found guilty of terrorism. The list goes on and on; only the words “I’m sorry, I was wrong” are never uttered — and never demanded.
No,they aren’t. At least not from the likes of James Fallows.
Trouble To The President’s Left
Bernie Sanders says that he needs some primary competition, but I found this an insightful comment:
Obama is a bland take-no-chances-unless-other-people-are-doing-the-hard-work type of guy. He’s not a leader, but just a vessel through which the left thought they could get all their pet projects passed, by endowing Obama with Absolute Moral Authority by virtue of his historic position.
But to get elected, Obama had to have a bland, beta-male personality, and that’s what’s driving the left crazy. People like Bernie knew Obama was lying to swing voters in 2008 about being a moderate; they just thought he was also lying to them about being a beta male. Now that he’s got push back from House Republicans on his and the left’s pet issues, he doesn’t have the stomach to either take on the GOP ideologically by presenting a plan of his own, or to tell his own side to pound sand and move towards a compromise deal the way Clinton did on welfare reform.
They didn’t mind Obama’s lies during the campaign — they expect people to lie, given their projection — they’re just mad at him because he lied to them.