Category: Uncategorized

“Free Speech for me, but not for thee” is the mantra of the modern “liberal”. How, one wonders, can anyone seriously attempt to claim to simultaneously champion free speech and yet clamor for the abolition of “hate speech”?

My sister Ellen started a Facebook group called Impeach Barack Obama, which has gotten a lot of media attention. Someone else started a Facebook group called “We Should Do Something to Ellen Finnigan,” which now has 175 members. It says “we should still have a 0 tolerance for people who talk bad or talk down on our president.” The founder has changed the description to be more mellow, but the implication is clear. This is liberal fascism at its worst. I think it deserves maximum attention, as it shows the ugly side of Obama crazies. “We want change, and if you don’t go along with it, better watch out!”

If you think the Obamanations are crazy now, just wait until he begins the ritual back-stabbing as soon as he’s in office! He’s already signaled this quite clearly with his initial appointments. I won’t be surprised if more than a few of those who are now heaping odium on Ellen find themselves joining her Facebook group by the end of his first term.

Personally, I’m quite looking forward to the cognitive dissonance; Obama promises to be even more entertaining than Bush the Younger. But then, I am a Cruelty Artist.

Thanks largely to Beezle, today’s column takes a look at Paul Krugman’s advice to president-elect Obama. In light of his analysis, it’s interesting to note that the states appear to be on the verge of widescale spending reductions combined with tax increases:

Rising unemployment and sharp drops in tax revenue are forcing states to face service cuts, hiring freezes, tax increases, or all of these.

Second verse, same as the first. Yes, the article notes that the states are “trying” to avoid raising taxes, but I wouldn’t be too optimistic about them being successful in doing so.

While there’s been a fair amount of chatter about the possibility of the current contraction turning into a full-blown depression comparable to the Great Depression for some time now, I haven’t seen too many explications of what that would mean in statistical terms. And while I’m extremely skeptical of the statistical approach to economics given the incredible number of assumptions and estimates involved, it’s an interesting exercise.

From the high point of the economy in 1929, it took four years for the economy to contract 45.6 percent. That was an average of roughly 11 percent per year, although it was the second and third year that bore the brunt of the contraction. The economy began growing again at a 17 percent rate (!) in 1934, but it still took 12 years to get back to the 1929 peak.

If 2008 marks the beginning of a comparable depression – and if there’s going to be a depression, the size of the boom would appear to indicate that it’s going to be a comparable one at a minimum – that would mean that the US economy is due to contract from 13.7 trillion in 2007 to 7.5 trillion in 2012. GDP per capita would decline from $45,850 to around $24,064 if population growth continues at the present rate.

This would reduce the average US living standard to one that is similar to current Israel, Greece, and Portugal. That’s obviously not a good thing, but it’s hardly the Dust Bowl of yore. The problem, of course, is if the wealth calculations are no more accurate than derivative risk management, it could be worse.

At present, real GDP is forecast to contract only 0.3 percent in Q3 2008. So, obviously the contraction appears to be off to a slow start. The panic demonstrated by world leaders, however, tends to cause one to suspect that either the statistics are unreliable or they’ll start looking much worse in the near future. In any event, it’s probably not a bad idea to plan out what you would need to do in order to live on one-half your present income.

If you haven’t tried OpenOffice 3.0 yet, I really encourage you to join the millions using it:

Confirming recent comments by Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer, an independent study released Friday found OpenOffice.org’s free office suite to be five times more popular among adult U.S. internet users than Google Docs.

Microsoft Office remains dominant, with 51% of American internet users over age 18 using it, according to a 6-month study conducted by market researcher ClickStream Technologies. OpenOffice.org was used by 5% of people, versus Google Docs’ 1%, according to the survey of 2,400 users on their home PCs conducted between May and November of this year.

I’ve written my last three books on OpenOffice. It’s gotten so good and so reliable that I haven’t even bothered to install a backup copy of Word on my last two computers. I have but one regret: no one has written a macro for Impress that allows random slide shows as did the one I used in Powerpoint.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that some people get upset when I point out that incoming migration necessarily causes a fundamental change in society, but no one gets their panties in a bunch when those on the left notice precisely the same thing:

Look closely at the Florida exit polls for 2008 vs 2004. you see why the gop is in deep trouble. you won white people by exactly the same margins as you beat kerry, but got killed by latinos…. It’s like you’re playing with a deck with only white cards in it—harder and harder to find an Ace of Ivory when the the other side keeps adding black, brown, and yellow cards to its hand.

Note that this is cited as a reason that the Republican Party must move leftmodernize or face continued electoral decline. So, how is this substantively different from my observations? It also seems to escape these keen observers that there is an obvious alternative to simply accepting left-wing multicultural rule for the foreseeable future.

And given that socionomics predicts increased ethnic conflict during economic contractions, it’s probably too soon to assume that there will be no migrational ebb tide.

I have to admit that I’m impressed at how people are hanging a tougher this time despite the apparent increased level of difficulty when compared with the scores of the first Voxiversity. 250 people took the second quiz, a dropoff of only thirty percent from the original 357 opposed to the 50 percent decline last time. However, we’re starting to get into the particulars now so I wouldn’t be surprised if it becomes somewhat more difficult for those who have been skimming over the material or are coasting on their previous knowledge of Austrian theory.

UPDATE – Chapter III “Some Alternative Explanations for Depression: A Critique” for next Saturday.

I figured you could help a “former” pussy liberal who finally woke up… So I’d like to buy my first gun before the Peter (SHTF) hits the fan. I have no interest in blowing someone’s head off with a .40 magnum. I’m thinking a 9mm since that is standard issue around the world and the bullets would be cheap for practice.

Anything you’d recommend? I’m leaning towards a sub-compact because I like the element of surprise. I’m looking at this…

I will be frowned upon by people around me if I at least don’t make sure it has a safety. Otherwise I would just go with a sub-compact Glock.

I figured this might be of some small interest to the regulars here, plus that bit about the big caliber was just too good not to share. But give him credit for being willing to take responsibility for himself and be sure to explain the reasoning behind your recommendation.

If you want to win, don’t listen to the guys who told you how to lose:

For years, New York Times columnist David Brooks has been writing mash notes to John McCain. In November 2007, he quoted an allegedly “smart-alecky” political consultant who exclaimed, in private, “You know, there’s really only one great man running for president this year, and that’s McCain.”

“My friend’s remark,” Brooks somberly intoned, “had the added weight of truth.”

Brooks gushed, “I can tell you there is nobody in politics remotely like him,” and even threw down the gauntlet, saying: “You will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men.”

That took guts at the Times, where McCain is constantly praised by the op-ed columnists and was endorsed by the paper in the Republican primary. Even Frank Rich has hailed McCain as the “most experienced and principled” of the Republicans and said no one in either party “has more experience in matters of war than the Arizona senator” — the biggest rave issued by Rich since “Rent” opened on Broadway.

They adored McCain at the Times! Does anyone here not see a cluster of bright red flags?

In January this year, Brooks boasted of McCain’s ability to attract “independents.”

And then Election Day arrived, and all the liberals who had spent years praising McCain all voted for Obama. Independents voted for Palin or voted against Obama. No one outside of McCain’s immediate family was specifically voting for McCain.

But now Brooks presumes to lecture Republicans about what to do next time. How about: “Don’t take David Brooks’ advice”?

I will never, ever, understand those who think that listening to the other side’s advice makes any sense at all. I mean, it’s not as if Bill Belichick would take it seriously if Mangini told him that the Patriots would stand a better chance of wining next time if instead of throwing the ball to Randy Moss, they have Matt Cassell run the ball up the middle.

Every student of history recognizes that there is always an ebb-and-flux pattern to events. While the Muslim conquest of Spain took less than ten years; the Reconquista required nearly 800, during which time the Christian advance sped up and slowed down, mostly depending upon the characters and abilities of the leaders on the opposing sides.

Unfortunately, modern political observers tend to take an extremely short-term view of things. They are uninterested in what happened last week, let alone last month, and so are incapable of even the most basic observations such as the direct connection between the events in Kosovo and subsequent events in Georgia. But it’s not only the observers who forget, many times the actors fail to take into consideration the probable medium- and long-term consequences of their own actions.

If you keep one thing in mind when considering political events, remember this: the King always dies.

Good kings are succeeded by bad kings. Foreign policy presidents are followed by domestic presidents, and vice-versa. A Marcus Aurelius gives way to a Commodus just as a Caligula is succeeded by a Claudius. We don’t know Obama’s character yet, but there’s no question that the aggressive Bush/Clinton/Bush foreign policies have created a degree of reactionary antipathy among countries that were never well-disposed towards the United States in the first place. So, it should come as no surprise that there are increasing rumbles heard from Russia and China lately:

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev gave his long-awaited first State of the State address (the equivalent of the U.S. president’s State of the Union address) on Nov. 5. The speech was much more than a nationalist appeal liberally sprinkled with Soviet-era rhetoric; it was a declaration of Russia’s return to the ranks of the world’s great powers. In effect, Medvedev not only tossed the gauntlet for Russia’s rivals in the West, but he also is not waiting around to see how they respond….

It was Surkov who recommended that Medvedev’s speech, originally scheduled for Oct. 23, be postponed. Ostensibly, the delay was meant to allow Russia more time to deal with its deepening financial crisis, but in reality, Surkov wanted to know which presidential candidate the Americans were going to elect. The speech was already written. In fact, according to Stratfor sources, two speeches had been written — one for each possible outcome of the U.S. election. In waiting for a clear picture on whom Moscow would be dealing with in Washington, Russia underscored the central role the United States plays in the international system, and that Moscow views Washington as its main counterweight.

Unlike many previous State of the State addresses, Medvedev’s Nov. 5 speech contained few veiled threats or simple proclamations. Instead, it announced hard actions….

And so the ghost of the previous Democratic presidency returns to haunt the president-elect, exacerbated by eight years of short-sighted Bush imperialism. Fortunately, the powerful and healthy US economy, the beneficiary of eight years of wise Republican economic stewardship and the post-Cold War Peace Dividend, will give President Obama an epic advantage in dealing with all foreign foes.