Last night, Hannity and Colmes was graced by the presence of a professor named Caroline Heldman.  Like many of her ilk, she is a lefty who apologizes for Barack Obama.  While this state of affairs isn't anything newsworthy, I realized something as she condescendingly smirked at Michael Steele's comments.  She's coward - her and many of her academic, good-time buddies.

 

Three Observations. 

1: few - if any - of these pinheads have ever lived out their philosophy except their in little academic bubble where results are obscured by tenure.  They hide behind a lectern from which they are safe from almost any consequence of their ideas. 

 

2: If they really believe that America is foundationally unjust because of its economic structure and political institutions, they shouldn't work for any institution that is funded by people who are wealthy because of the existing 'social institutions' and economic 'superstructure'.  Indeed, such well-to-do people are exactly who sends their children to such places as Occidental and other elite, private schools.

 

3: Were she, or any other socialistic academic - to live out their ideas, what would such a life look like?  Enter Billy-boy Ayers.  He lived out his ideas through 'direct-action' against the 'establishment', he tried to bring down his enemies through blood and violence.  Since those days, he's sold-out too.  But, he was one of the few who followed these ideas out to their logical conclusions.  If Caroline and her ilk weren't so busy hiding behind a certificats and podiums, she'd get out there and do what her code commands of her!

Recently, congressional democrats have been looking at a drastic overhaul of the retirement system; in particular, they want to do away with any tax relief for private, retirement investment (401K, IRA, etc).  Proponents claim that the federal government oughtn't 'subsidize' people's private investments.  
This should make every hard-working person as mad as I am for this reason: tax breaks are not a subsidy!  These pinheads claim they are giving investors money because the federal government is taking it from them!  This is the same line of argument used to decry the 'subsidies' to big oil and the like.

But the real fury should be reserved for the premise underpinning this argument: that you only have any money because the government allows you to keep it.  Against this idea, there are too many arguments from principle and pragmatism to list.

Naturally, Rush Limbaugh's hypothesis that Powell endorsed Obama because of racial preference is drawing ire from many corners.  This wouldn't be notable; but, the criticisms have revolved around Rush's character, not his argument.  People are calling Rush a racist, idiot, fringe-right-winger, all the usual nominatives.  Indeed, these sorts of unpleasant names seem to be the extent of the counter-argument.  Call me old-fashioned, but it seems like the way to go about slamming someone's argument is to slam their argument.  So why aren't they doing this?

Could it be that facts support the plausibility of Rush's idea?  For example, 95-6% of blacks will votes for Obama; just by odds alone, it seems unlikely that Powell is part of the 4-5% who won't for Obama.  In addition, it doesn't appear that Powell has ever endorsed a white politician who shares Obama's modestly spoken radical ideas.  Lastly, Powell offered no substanitive reasons for his decision - me merely said that BHO is transformation, of the next generation, etc.  The only meaninful point he made had to do with Supreme Court nominations - which is also dubious since he doesn't seem to have a history of public concern on these matters.  Take these facts as an aggregate, don't they at least confirm Limbaugh's argument?

 

Like many, I began to doubt Mccain's ability to win late last week.  Two things really set this into motion: 1) Mccain's lack-luster performance in the second Presidential debate and 2) Mccain's rebuking of attendees at his rally.  He had opportunities bring William Ayers up in that debate; on this point, his campaign seemed confused and paralyzed.  With regards to correcting rally-goers, there is a much more constructive way to do it.  Think about how funny it would have been:  The woman says "I'm afraid of Barack Obama because he's a Muslim." Mccain says, "I don't know about that, but I'm sure that he'll terrorize small business, declare holy-war on markets, and explode the tax-rate!" 

 

After all of these blunders, Rush still said it wasn't over; he said we must "drag Mccain across the finish-line."  He said that we have to have heart, not be depressed by the polls, and keep talking to people - we had to keep believing.  My God, he was right!

This is the reason that Rush is an icon!  God Bless Him.

This morning while I was driving to work, the sun was creeping over the horizon, beginning to illuminate the sky.  It was the best part of having to wake up early on a Saturday morning; but, not as good others.  I'm sure many people woke up - conservatives especially - today wondering how our world has changed as of yesterday afternoon.  Indeed, it seems almost surreal that two words could have such a profound effect on the future of this country: "It passed."

With those words all the speeches spoken, articles written, and arms twisted resolved into a decisive defeat.  Indeed, the favorite in the battle emerged the clear victor.  Nevertheless, all week I hoped against hope for this bill to fail. Wouldn't it have made a great underdog story? Can you see the headlines: "House Fails Again." Toward this effort, some valiant, courageous men toiled: Neil Cavuto, Mike Huckabee, Mark Sanford (our Governor in SC), and Jim DeMint.  To be sure there are more, but these are the men that argued not only once, but twice.  Not only did they do when it was popular, they did when people were scared after Monday's drop in the market.  What's more, they did it for the right reasons: Regardless of the consequences, free-markets are ultimately better than socialism.  Not only in outcomes, but for the character of every single adult that toils for his keep, strives for those things he values in life, struggles for a little slice of the world that he can claim unequivocally, without fear of force or fraud taking this away from him.

Indeed, it's the ultimate in paradox: that man needs struggle to improve character, but most seek rest whenever possible.  From this paradox, we can see how capitalism necessarily provides that which makes men better.

This is not so in socialism; this is clear from the very benefit one derives under this system - security of outcome.  If you don't have to worry about thow things will shake-out, then there's no real struggle.

What becomes of a country when her people haven't the ability to care for themselves?  How can she expect those people to preserve her in times of distress? These are the most important questions this bail-out has stirred up.  These questions are the ones overlooked by republicans and supposed capitalists who cast away their principles for a trillion-dollar high - a high that will have the hangover of generations.

One final question: Do any of these people regret the incredible peril in which they placed the character of nation and each individual citizen therein?

 

 

 For those of you who don't live in the fine state of SC, count your blessings this evening.  'Senator' Lindsey Graham was just on playing counterpoint to Sen. John F(-ing) Kerry.  Anytime someone has his lunch eaten by Kerry, they really need to consider a new career - say as a Cashier at McDonald's (if you are a cashier at McDonald's, please don't send me hate-mail...). 

   On at least three occasions, 'Sen' Graham led me to my afore-mentioned conclusion.  First, he stated that earmark reform was absolutely necessary as it is wasteful and leads to the 'corruption' we see in politics.  In reply, Chris Wallace immediately asks him about the multitude of earmarks for which he has asked and received.  When 'Sen' Graham was supposed to respond, it seemed for a moment that someone had replaced him with a wax-sculpture with an exceedingly pale hue. 

   His remarks thereafter lead me to my second point: he eventually decided that 'good earmarks' are okay and 'bad ones' aren't.  No sh!t...  To make matters worse, this was exactly what Kerry suggested - in his almost-coherent, condescending fashion - from the jump.  What's more - this isn't Mccain's position.  Mccain wants no earmarks.

   As not to leave any doubt about his need for a new career, he then equivocated between Biden's and Palin's missteps.  This didn't need to happen.  He could have made a very good case that Biden's screw ups were a lot worse than Palin’s.  Consider that Palin has done a much better job at 'holding the line' in terms of Mccain policy.  Biden's out there telling people that Obama's ads are despicable, contradicting Obama on energy policy, and giving FDR credit for something that Hoover did.

   Yes, those of you who don't reside in SC, it's okay to point and laugh - for those of you in SC, it's okay to cry too... 

Jim DeMint, SC's Jr. Senator, has made some very elegant arguments against the Paulson-Bush bail-out.  He made three points that are worth considering.  First, along with many economists, he questions whether this action is merely a band-aid that will bear ill effects in the long-run(1). 

   Second, he explains how this bail-out is largely politically motivated: he said that the China, the US's biggest banker, contacted the Bush administration and told them that if this crisis continues they will turn the spighot off.  If you take DeMint at his word, this would be quite alarming to many beaurocrats. 

   Third, DeMint proposed another way to stimulate the economy - deeply cut the corporate and capital-gains rate.  To this point, there is much objection; critics say that it's this 'voo-doo', supply-side economics that created this situation in the first place (which is utterly false).  To them, I make one simple point: an investment that yields 3% APR would end up yielding over 25%+ if both taxes were suspended.  Similarly, if an investment was losing 3% of its value per year, that would be conmpletely turned around to the tune of a 19%+ gain.  Imagine what that would do for jobs, expeditures, etc

   Of all our federal representatives, he has been most clear-minded and honest that I've heard on this matter.  This is one man about whom South Carolinians can be proud.

 

 

 

1- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238888884077341.html

For better or worse, the American people seem to be very risk-averse at this point.  Indeed, they see a world changing and not in their favor - more things than ever seem unknown. 

If this is really is the public mindset, it suggests a great way to frame the election.  First - frame Mccain as a known, rock-solid character who people can count on to bring clarity, prosperity, and normalcy back to the their lives.  Second - frame Obama as an unknown - a risk too large too take.  Link him to the uncertainty surrounding oil, housing, retirement, banking, and international temsions. 

By doing this Mccain could capitalize on both America's mood of anxiety and the their desire for certainty.

To move beyond less purchasing power relative to gas, there is also another sense in which many of us will be left with another economic disadvantage.  This disadvantage is a direct result of the bail-out.  Consider the purpose of the bail-out: 1) Take 'bad mortgages' off the books of investment bankers and 2) keep house values from tanking.  The second consequence can be discerned from considering the consequences of not bailing out Fannie, Freddie, AIG; if these companies were forced to liquidate, imagine how cheap the paper on these houses would be. It would have a massive effect on housing prices.  This effect would be really bad for homeowners in the short-term and really great for people who want to buy a home. 

Consider the irony of this: the federal government wanted to let low-income earners buy houses.  Indeed, this whole mess was started for that cause.  Now, if Congress does nothing, low-income earners would be able to buy houses.  Shakespeare couldn't write this sh#t. 

When the government decides to take on a $1T dollar expenditure, they have to print money.  When they print money, they make both your money and mine worth less.  Indeed, even before they put ink to paper - as a bill or a bill - the price of a barrel of crude rose over $25 - Your purchasing power is 25% less than it was just yesterday!  This is a direct effect of this bail-out, not less supply, greater demand, or evil oil companies. 
Yes, you have Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, Jimmy Carter, every person with a mortgage who didn't understand their adjustable-rate mortgage, every person who had a retirment account and knows nothing about personal finance, and too many more.

If the supposed reason for the bail-out is to help the little-guy, it's not off to a good start.