tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83536800623201792562024-03-19T04:07:31.273-07:00Shaving LeviathanThe problem is that we are just shaving Leviathan when we need to start draining its lifeblood until it's too anemic to do much harm. Right now, it's the one holding the straight razor and slashing throats right and left.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.comBlogger737125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-62808142250505470572021-08-18T12:25:00.000-07:002021-08-18T12:25:00.914-07:00My article on Orwellian-named Net Neutrality Published at Big Journalism:<br />
<br />
http://bigjournalism.com/jperren/2010/09/07/re-net-neutrality-let-the-free-market-reign.<br />
<br />
Your comments there will help me win a free trip to Iceland to study medieval anarchism. Ok, that's not true (thankfully). But they would be welcomed anyway.<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
JeffJeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-65516327011635428722011-09-16T08:44:00.001-07:002011-09-16T08:44:51.907-07:00UK MP Hannan Gets It RightDaniel Hannan of the UK tells the House of Commons the truth about the EU - that it's a failure because the ideas on which it is based are false.
<p>
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9hivQvtR66U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-35389359591982736642011-09-07T13:04:00.001-07:002011-09-07T13:04:34.878-07:00Stanford Scientists Create the FutureLargely out of the public eye, scientists continue to create the future. In this instance, a team at Stanford has <a href="http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-New-Magnetic-Superconducting-Material-Holds-Many-Possibilities-090711.aspx?xmlmenuid=51" target="_blank">discovered some novel and unexpected properties of superconducting materials</a>.<br />
<br />
If only we had such an innovative political culture. Imagine the hundreds of new applications for protecting individual rights, voluntary trade, and property in novel ways.<br />
<br />
<br />
By the way, I'm in Bogota for a few months so anyone one interested in what life is like in Colombia let me know…Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-76262198294950634552011-08-11T10:51:00.000-07:002011-08-12T05:59:40.356-07:00The Credit Downgrade That Didn't HappenFollowing is a post by Dr. Burt Folsom, author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416592377?tag=burtfolcom-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1416592377&adid=05F663AKEZEEY666P0DX&" target="_blank">New Deal or Raw Deal?</a>* and professor of history at Hillsdale College. It is reprinted in its entirety from <a href="http://www.burtfolsom.com/" target="_blank">Prof. Folsom's blog</a> by his kind permission.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The Credit Downgrade That Didn’t Happen<br />
by Dr. Burt Folsom<br />
<br />
Ninety years ago, in 1921, the U. S. was poised for a recession, high unemployment, and a possible credit downgrade. <br />
<br />
Why? <br />
<br />
Because World War I had ended, the troops had come home, but 11.7% unemployment darkened the country. Our veterans could not find work. To solve these problems, some leaders recommended, in effect, a stimulus package–give the veterans jobs to build roads, bridges, and some buildings. <br />
<br />
But President Harding (who died in office) and President Coolidge said no. Instead, these two presidents recommended cutting federal spending and cutting tax rates. <br />
<br />
The cutting of federal spending was critical because the U. S. national debt had increased from $1.2 billion to $24.3 billion from 1916 to 1920. <br />
<br />
We complain today about 9.1% unemployment and a doubling of our national debt in the last eight years; from 1916 to 1920, however, we had a 20-fold increase in the national debt and 11.7% unemployment. <br />
<br />
But in early 1920s, the U.S. never had a credit downgrade or a prolonged recession because the cutting of federal spending and of tax rates jump-started the economy and produced budget surpluses every year during the 1920s. <br />
<br />
During that decade we slashed more than one-fourth of our entire national debt, and increased GDP by almost 25%. American entrepreneurs eagerly began producing radios, talking movies, and air conditioning–three inventions, among others, that changed our nation and the world.<br />
<br />
What is encouraging here is that Americans can still chart their own future. We did that in 1921, and we can do so today. We are not pre-destined to be a declining nation–we have a choice in that and we will help make that choice as a nation when we vote next year for the leaders who will shape public policy. <br />
<br />
If we select someone with Coolidge’s free-market philosophy, then the freedom that comes with that will allow Americans to invent and create more goods and services to provide the jobs and prosperity to get America moving again. <br />
<br />
Woodrow Wilson, the president who Harding and Coolidge replaced, promoted the first income tax and under Wilson the top rates went from 7% to 15% to 65%, and finally to 73%. <br />
<br />
Under those rates, we were making the decision to chase wealth out of the country and stagnate as a nation. Harding and Coolidge reversed that decision and sent tax rates tumbling to 25% on top incomes. <br />
<br />
American entrepreneurs arose and dominated the world. Revenue actually increased and budget surpluses became the hallmark of the 1920s. What choices will we make ninety years later?</blockquote>*Dr. Folsom is also the author of <a "="" href="http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons-Business-America/dp/0963020315/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313084126&sr=1-1" target=":_blank">The Myth of the Robber Barons</a>. He has a new book on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/FDR-Goes-War-Executive-Restricted/dp/1439183201/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313084020&sr=1-2" target="_blank">FDR during WWII</a> coming out in October!<br />
Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-34519219835151544972011-07-28T09:27:00.000-07:002011-07-28T09:36:00.409-07:00Obama Once Embraced Fiscal Sanity?<blockquote>“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.<br />
<br />
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' <br />
<br />
Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”<br />
<br />
-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006</blockquote>Of course, it's almost a given now that everything Obama says has an expiration date, and this statement was no doubt made then only for the purpose of opposing Republicans. Still, it was true then and it's even more true now.<br />
<br />
With 'plans' on the table that actually cut no spending at all - they're all just reductions in projected (i.e. fantasy) spending increases in the future - we'll continue with the status quo... until the whole house of cards <a href="http://netrightdaily.com/2011/07/debt-owed-to-the-public/" target="_blank">collapses in about 10 years</a>.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-20847382825083897122011-07-26T11:53:00.000-07:002011-07-26T12:43:05.264-07:00Coal Mine Owner ShrugsA coal mine owner in Alabama has <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/right-out-of-atlas-shrugged-hear-an-exasperated-alabama-businessman-tell-the-feds-im-just-quitting/" target="
_blank">decided to go Galt</a>. He's had enough.<br />
<blockquote>“Nearly every day without fail…men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. <br />
<br />
And as I stand here today, I just…you know…what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
What’s the use? 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. <br />
<br />
So…basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.”</blockquote>I applaud his decision. After thinking it over for two years, I've reluctantly concluded that it's time for the entire country to do that. I honestly can not see any other way, short of actual civil war, to get the state and Federal governments to back off.<br />
<br />
The latest round of ridiculous 'negotiations' in D.C. was one of the last tumblers to fall into place. I applaud the Republicans for trying, but even the most 'extreme' plans represent at best 1/10th of what needs to happen, economically.<br />
<br />
The regulatory burden, many times greater, isn't even being discussed. While I fully expect things to get a whole lot better for a while after January 2013 - if Obama, Reid, and crew haven't completely destroyed any chance of recovery by then - it won't be nearly enough.<br />
<br />
No one hopes more than I that I'm wrong, that this is just (temporary) and unfounded pessimism. But I genuinely can not see how you pay down several trillion dollars of debt without serious changes to entitlement programs and even the Republicans are only nibbling at the edges. I can't see how you prevent a continued economic slide without removing vast swaths of irrational regulations. I can't fathom how any of this will even begin without a moral and cultural revolution, which doesn't appear to be in the offing. Even the Tea Party is a very weak brew.<br />
<br />
Still, I've been wrong before. Maybe I will be again.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-86850913932689746242011-07-19T09:30:00.000-07:002011-07-19T09:30:57.832-07:00Guest Post - Entitlement Mess: Who's Responsible?Following is a <b>guest post</b> by <i><b>Brad Puryear</i></b>.<br />
<br />
Recently, I received an email from a friend which said, in part:<br />
<blockquote>Isn't Congress just wonderful! Entitlement? I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!! <br />
<br />
Congressional benefits, aka. free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my retirement, an "entitlement" !!!!!!.....</blockquote>The outrage is well placed and understandable, but the situation is ENTIRELY the fault of the electorate.<br />
<br />
Where was the outrage when Congress voted to adopt baseline budgeting, which had the following effects.<br />
<ul>1. All taxes, regardless of what they are called, regardless what their original intent and regardless of any promises past, present or future congresses have made or will make, are simply revenue streams to the government. These taxes all go into one pool and are spent as Congress and the President sees fit to fund any and all programs, including Social Security and Medicare.</ul><ul>2. There is no Social Security Trust Fund. Politicians talk about the trust fund all the time, but it is empty rhetoric devoid of meaning which is designed purely to appeal to the electorate’s base emotions. The Social Security IOU’s are also a joke! They have no meaning in a baseline budgeting system. It has as much meaning as would you were you to over spend the funds in your checking account, writing yourself an IOU to pay yourself back. Silly!</ul><ul>3. Ditto Medicare!</ul><ul>4. If you have failed to plan for your own retirement, both income and medical care, the best you can hope for is politicians who will chose fund these programs before they fund other programs. This will especially become important when the crap hits the proverbial fan and our government is forced to only spend what it takes in.</ul><ul>5. For points 1, 2 and 3 above, before you get all morally outraged and say what I wrote is a lie, know this. The Supreme Court of the US has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor" target="_blank">already ruled</a> that the Social Security and Medicare taxes that all of us pay are simply revenue generators for the Federal Government.
<p>Worse, they ruled that any and all past promises with regard to these two programs carry no legal weight. In essence, none of us who have paid in to these two funds our entire working lives have a "legal" right to benefit from them at any point in our life. In fact, both programs have been entitlements since the day the Feds adopted baseline budgeting.</ul>Those of you who think/thought privatizing the portion of the Social Security tax employees pay is/was a bad idea, what say you now? Would you rather have an account worth half a million dollars at retirement that is in your name and out of the reach of politicians, or an entitlement transfer of wealth payment from the biggest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on mankind? (The problem with Ponzi schemes and, yes, Social Security is that eventually you run out of money from rube A to pay rube B!)<br />
<br />
What our politicians have done is a moral outrage and were they private citizens doing same, would have found their butts in jail. There is, however, a difference between what is moral and what is legal. I'm sorry to tell you that Congress could vote to stop paying Social Security benefits tomorrow and your only two recourses would be to vote the bastards out of office or pick up arms, march on DC and by force, take back control and hold a Constitutional Convention. Sadly, the courts are not on our side and offer no justice on this front!<br />
<br />
Finally, a word about the mentality that brought this about.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, anyone who thinks they have a right to someone else’s production is to blame for the mess we are in. If you think the rich don't pay their fair share, you're part of the problem. If you think we are morally obligated to administer welfare programs, you're part of the problem. If you think we are entitled to own homes regardless of our ability to pay for them, you're part of the problem. If you think we are obligated to send money to other governments, you're part of the problem. If you think we are entitled to public education, you're part of the problem. If you think the government should fund research in to anything, regardless what it is, you are part of the problem.<br />
<br />
Now that I've likely gored at least one of your sacred cows, let me explain.<br />
<br />
It is pretty universally accepted in Western Democracies that slavery is an immoral and unjust system for engaging in commerce. One definition of slavery is person A owning the production of person B’s labor without person B’s consent or agreement. In most cases, especially with state sponsored slavery, slavery leaves the victims virtually defenseless and helpless to do anything about it that wouldn’t likely lead to their death. When person A owns person B’s labor, they in fact own person B’s life energy! <br />
<br />
I think we can all agree that this is an immoral system that should not be tolerated?<br />
<br />
When you enter into a contract with an employer, you agree to give up some percent of your time for some level of compensation, usually in the form of cash. Your time is an investment of your life energy, which as noted above, no person other you has a right to without your consent. Therefore, the cash you earn is a proxy for your life energy. <br />
<br />
When the government takes your cash and transfers it to another, they have in fact transferred some portion of your life energy to another human being without your consent! No matter how uncomfortable you might be feeling right now; this immoral system of transfer of your life energy makes you a slave. <br />
<br />
Since we have already established the fact that slavery is immoral and unethical, all of the programs listed above, and most of everything else our government currently engages in is immoral as it is, in fact, slavery.<br />
<br />
I know this position won't be popular; if it were we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. That being said, I would gladly entertain any serious challenges to my reasoning.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-70708354999167477492011-07-16T15:53:00.000-07:002011-07-16T15:53:16.161-07:00Comte on AltruismAnyone still muddled over the actual nature of altruism would do well to read the man who coined the term.<br />
<br />
Here, August Comte makes it completely clear that when he talks about the duty to sacrifice self for the sake of others, he really means it. It's also clear, even from this brief passage, that it is incompatible with liberty.<br />
<blockquote>“[The] social point of view . . . cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. <br />
<br />
After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service. . . . <br />
<br />
This [to live for others], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] humanity, whose we are entirely.” <br />
[Catéchisme Positivist, 1852]</blockquote>Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-71143660712506814172011-07-02T15:59:00.000-07:002011-07-02T15:59:17.459-07:00Obama Gets It: It's the Morality, StupidOne reason Obama, like most shrewd Democrats, usually wipes the floors with Republicans is that he unashamedly defends his positions from a moral point of view.<br />
<br />
In another <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-debt-ceiling-20110702,0,6647968.story" target="_blank">biased editorial</a> masquerading as a news report, the LA Times lays out this gem:<blockquote>"This is not just a numbers debate," Obama said Thursday in Philadelphia. "This is a values debate."</blockquote>Would that the Republican leadership understood that – and had the courage to fight back the right way.<br />
<br />
Instead of endlessly talking about jobs, haggling over deficit reduction numbers and the like, Republicans should be talking about what the Federal government should and should not be doing.<br />
<br />
They'll only make substantial progress when they're willing to declare, as even the generally head-and-shoulders above Rep. Ryan does not, an important moral truth: Social Security and Medicare aren't just absurdly expensive, they're morally wrong. <br />
<br />
No rational moral argument could justify taking from some citizens to support others, particularly at the Federal level. No taxpayer in Illinois has the moral obligation to support another in Idaho, no matter how much I might need it.<br />
<br />
While they sometimes lose debates over economics, Progressives have been winning the culture war for a long time, and will continue to because of this. Only if — and it's a very big if — Republicans will confidently come out in favor of self-reliance as a moral imperative and charity as a marginal and personal matter, will the welfare state get significantly shrunk.<br />
<br />
No, I'm not holding my breath, either.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-67026900161920883692011-06-27T17:18:00.000-07:002011-06-27T17:31:05.365-07:00More Lies From the LA TimesThe <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/michele-bachmann-confuses-john-wayne-gacy-with-the-duke.html" target="_blank">headline</a> on Google News reads:<blockquote>Michele Bachmann confuses John Wayne Gacy with The Duke</blockquote>I don't even need to read the story to know this is a lie. It's possible, I speculate, that Rep. Bachmann forgot the murderer's real last name. She may have any number of details wrong. But I'd bet the Managing Editor of the LAT dinner at his favorite restaurant that Michelle Bachmann absolutely knows who is the film actor John Wayne and that he is not the infamous murderer.<br />
<br />
Which leads me to wonder, as I have so often in the past: Why can't Progressives any longer make up even semi-plausible lies when they try to smear a conservative?<br />
<br />
P.S. Ok, I just scanned it. Here's what she said: "Well what I want them to know is just like John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That's the kind of spirit that I have, too," Bachmann told a Fox News reporter.<br />
<br />
Here's the LA Times making hay out of the smallest of errors:<blockquote>One small detail: John Wayne Gacy, the infamous mass murderer is from Waterloo. The Duke, although his parents met in Waterloo, is from Iowa, but from Winterset, nearly three hours away by car.</blockquote>Shocking!<br />
<br />
I'll best she doesn't know the difference between <a href="http://www.escapeartist.com/Live_In_Guyana_French-Guiana_Suriname/" target="_blank">Guiana and Guyana</a>, either. Clearly unfit to be President!<br />
<br />
Sheesh.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-39370449755063635832011-06-21T01:00:00.000-07:002011-06-21T01:00:00.811-07:00Don Boudreax's Open Letter to Paul KrugmanDon Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek gives <a href="http://cafehayek.com/2011/06/open-letter-to-paul-krugman-2.html/comment-page-1" target="_blank">an excellent smackdown of Paul Krugman</a> (albeit far more polite than he deserves). Krugman writes:<br />
<blockquote><i> if you ask a liberal or a saltwater economist, “What would somebody on the other side of this divide say here? What would their version of it be?” A liberal can do that. A liberal can talk coherently about what the conservative view is because people like me actually do listen. We don’t think it’s right, but we pay enough attention to see what the other person is trying to get at. <br />
<p>The reverse is not true. You try to get someone who is fiercely anti-Keynesian to even explain what a Keynesian economic argument is, they can’t do it. They can’t get it remotely right. Or if you ask a conservative,”What do liberals want?” <br />
<p>You get this bizarre stuff – for example, that liberals want everybody to ride trains, because it makes people more susceptible to collectivism. You just have to look at the realities of the way each side talks and what they know. One side of the picture is open-minded and sceptical. We have views that are different, but they’re arrived at through paying attention. The other side has dogmatic views.</i></blockquote>To which Dr. Bordeaux replies:<blockquote>I’d be obliged to conclude that you in fact, contrary your claim, do not carefully engage the works of non-”liberal” scholars if you insist that “liberal” scholarship is ignored by conservative and libertarian thinkers such as James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, Ronald Coase, Armen Alchian, Harold Demsetz, Anna Schwartz, Gary Becker, Vernon Smith, Leland Yeager, Henry Manne, Deirdre McCloskey, Allan Meltzer, Richard Epstein, Tyler Cowen, Arnold Kling, George Selgin, Lawrence H. White, and James Q. Wilson, to name only a few.</blockquote>The whole thing, while short, is well worth reading in its entirety, as are many of the comments.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-20943341904426175692011-06-20T01:00:00.000-07:002011-06-20T01:00:00.449-07:00The Odious Dr. LiuI'm late commenting on it — for reasons I'll explain soon — but we really dodged a bullet when Republicans blocked the nomination of Dr. Gordon Liu for the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. Apart from the damage he would have done there, that job is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. If you wonder just how big the bullet was, <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/if-you-liked-obamacare-youll-love-goodwin-liu/" target="_blank">this 2006 quote</a> of his from the Yale Law Journal is enough:<br />
<blockquote>On my account of the Constitution’s citizenship guarantee, federal responsibility logically extends to areas beyond education. Importantly, however, the duty of government cannot be reduced to simply providing the basic necessities of life…<br />
<br />
Beyond a minimal safety net, the legislative agenda of equal citizenship should extend to systems of support and opportunity that, like education, provide a foundation for political and economic autonomy and participation. The main pillars of the agenda would include basic employment supports such as expanded health insurance, child care, transportation subsidies, job training, and a robust earned income tax credit.</blockquote>It's a pity, actually, that Dr. Liu is allowed to teach at U.C. Berkeley's law school, where he may be doing more long-term damage than if he were on the Ninth Circuit.<br />
<br />
If we're to reclaim this country from Progressives two things must happen: (1) the State-sponsored educational system must be privatized and returned to reason, and (2) all Progressive judges must be expunged from the courts.<br />
<br />
We're still in considerable danger from both those influences, but at least we can claim this one (temporary) victory.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-43196231173672496352011-06-19T15:54:00.000-07:002011-06-19T15:54:21.666-07:00Obama Ignores Inconvenient LawsSeveral pundits <a href="http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/18/obama-and-his-lawyers" target="_blank">have commented recently</a> on Obama's soup-thin rationalization for his illegal war in Libya. I share their disgust but I have to say it's utterly unsurprising.<br />
<br />
Time after time, the Rationalizer-in-Chief has shown he's completely comfortable ignoring the law when it opposes his wishes.<br />
<br />
Early on there was the violation of the GM bondholder's legal rights, a matter of long-established priority in bankruptcy cases. Then there was Holder's racially-motivated refusal to pursue the thugs of the New Black Panther Party. The HHS has issued hundreds of ObamaCare waivers based chiefly on political payback or the Secretary's whims. Recently, the NRLB — itself an illegitimate agency founded on the basis of an unconstitutional labor law — has tried to dictate where Boeing can locate a plant.<br />
<br />
The list goes on and on, in every case showing Obama has exactly zero respect for the law when it would constrain what he wants to do. His actions go far beyond pursuing harmful policy with which a rational person might disagree. The man is a plain criminal with nice manners, and nothing in this country is going to go right again until he and his gang are removed from power.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-19520827982859466762011-06-19T15:40:00.000-07:002011-06-19T15:40:10.796-07:00Chilean Volcano Eruption PhotosI don't want to post them out of respect for the copyright owner, but check out these <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/06/chiles-puyehue-volcano-erupts/100081/" target="_blank">amazing photos</a> of the recent (June 4) Puyehue volcano eruption in Chile. <br />
<br />
Even more spectacular than the ones of Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland last year. The ash cloud from the one in Chile spread south so far and so thick that flights from Australia to New Zealand were grounded, stranding the renowned Peter Cresswell of <a href="pc.blogspot.com" target="_blank">Not PC</a> fame. (Serves him right for going all that way for a mere sporting event. :)Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-89124440119821865442011-06-17T15:43:00.000-07:002011-06-17T15:43:07.208-07:00Introducing the Center for Individual Freedom<a href="http://cfif.org/v/" target="_blank">CFIF</a> has some superb writers.<br />
<br />
Ashton Ellis has penned a number of fine essays in the past couple of months, and his <a href="http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1028-rick-perry-the-texas-tea-party-governor" target="_blank">latest on Rick Perry</a> is in that vein.<br />
<br />
But <a href="http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1029-pawlentys-bigger-failing" target="_blank">Quin Hillyer's recent discussion</a> of Tim Pawlenty's misstep in not pressing Romney during the recent GOP debates is - to use a word I rarely write - awesome.<br />
<br />
And, for a final incentive, I offer CFIF's Question of the Week:<br />
<br />
"How many Members of Congress have been expelled from office?"<br />
<br />
Sadly, the options from which to choose (9, 20, 52, 103) does not contain the correct answer: <b>Too damn few!</b>Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-1272680908261373552011-05-28T09:43:00.000-07:002011-05-28T09:43:39.426-07:00Mill on Personal Freedom<blockquote>"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it." J.S. Mill</blockquote>I have many objections to Mill's philosophy, and even the quote above is problematic. But one could do worse than brand this view on one's soul. If this aphorism were our current society's watchword, virtually none of the fascism we're currently fighting would even be considered.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-84717215016699111422011-05-27T11:15:00.000-07:002011-05-29T10:26:49.371-07:00Cass Sunstein Outdoes Orwell<a _blank"="" href="http://shavingleviathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/cass-sunstein-most-dangerous-man-in.html%27%20target=">Cass Sunstein</a> unveiled the Federal government's plans for (cough) 'regulatory overhaul'.<br />
<blockquote>Sunstein said that the reform proposals, which are now available for public review as they head to become final rules in roughly 80 days, <b>“underline and italicize the words freedom of choice.”</b> [emphasis added]</blockquote>Coming from this Administration - and Sunstein in particular - that is a statement I regard as roughly equivalent to the Nazi slogan Arbeit Macht Frei [Work Makes You Free] used at the entrance to Auschwitz concentration camp.<br />
<br />
By the way, as of two days ago, none of those sections allegedly designed for <a href="http://blog.american.com/2011/05/white-house-share-your-feedback-on-regulatory-reform-plans-some-other-time-maybe/" target="_blank">public feedback</a> were operational and there were no comments.<br />
<br />
<br />
P.S. If the partial list provided at AEI is any indication, none of these changes touch anything serious. (Yes, I'm not surprised, either.) For example,<br />
<blockquote>- Creating a system of hazard labels that conforms to “international harmonization.”<br />
<br />
- Making sure federal regulatory code doesn’t refer to nations that no longer exist.</blockquote>Color me underwhelmed.<br />
<br />
[Update] IBD does <a href="http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/573602/201105271832/So-Many-Rules-That-Its-Cruel.aspx" target="_blank">a good job</a> of showing why, even if Sunstein and crew were sincere, this would still be a drop in a leaky bucket.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-70933225023853845762011-05-27T01:00:00.000-07:002011-05-27T01:00:03.540-07:00Caving to the LeftSince the publication of William Voegeli's book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Never-Enough-Americas-Limitless-Welfare/dp/1594033765/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306431690&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Never Enough</a> a few conservatives have <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029085.php" target="_blank">signed on</a> to the idea that the welfare state is ineradicable. They propose that we 'accept reality', compromise, and call a truce with Progressives (or at least moderates). They suggest, in essence, that we lie back and enjoy it, hoping for at least a little petroleum jelly to ease the pain.<br />
<br />
What they are suggesting is not a truce but a suicide pact.<br />
<br />
Every aspect of the welfare state is immoral, impractical, and unconstitutional, and therefore completely illegitimate. It violates everyone's rights, including the recipients, to steal from Peter to pay Paul. Calling it "charity" or "good citizenship" or any other pleasant sounding description only adds insult to injury.<br />
<br />
It's hardly a metaphysical given that welfare programs - along with every other Progressive policy - can not be eliminated. Progressives are influential - because of their outsized representation in education and the media - but they still number only about 20% of the population.<br />
<br />
Persuade the other 50%+ not yet clear on the issue, those who don't yet realize how destructive to their own long-term interests the welfare state is, and we'll have won the intellectual battle, and therefore avoided any necessity for a physical one.<br />
<br />
Now is no time to preemptively surrender. Progressives are on the ropes. Keep up the blows for another 10 years and this country might actually survive in some recognizable form. <br />
<br />
Alternatively, accept an Obama-like return to America's '1967 borders' as the best you can do and you have agreed to jump off the cliff into a full European social democracy. Become Denmark circa 1990? No thanks. Even the Danes have backed away from that precipice. That road leads to Spain circa 2010.<br />
<br />
The welfare state can not be saved by compromise, nor should it. Whether it will fade or consume us, time will tell. One thing is for sure; we should never cease to oppose it with vigor.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-30914989146975165252011-05-26T10:34:00.000-07:002011-05-26T10:34:15.237-07:00David Brooks, Liberal FascistThe following was quoted by Ed Crane of Cato, talking about David Brooks:<br />
<blockquote>Neoconservative superstar David Brooks wrote in the New York Times just this past March, "Citizenship, after all, is built on an awareness that we are not all that special but are, instead, enmeshed in a common enterprise. <br />
<br />
Our lives are given meaning by the service we supply to the nation. I wonder if Americans are unwilling to support the sacrifices that will be required to avert fiscal catastrophe in part because they are less conscious of themselves as components of a national project."</blockquote>I long ago took the measure of David Brooks, but this revolting statement surprised even me. <br />
<br />
If Brooks believes one's life gains meaning only through service to the nation, he should make clear he speaks for himself. Thankfully, there are still a fair number of individualist Americans for whom that idea is anathema.<br />
<br />
Clearly, the man is a thoroughgoing collectivist of the Nationalist variety. There's a term for that but Godwin's Law forbids me to use it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Small wonder the Times keeps him on.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-80368591701757621272011-05-26T10:26:00.000-07:002011-05-26T10:26:30.497-07:00Heading to LondonI'm off to London for a long-overdue vacation starting in early June. I'll be there about a week. Anyone know of a superior used book store in the city?Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-35677234817325746902011-05-25T13:01:00.000-07:002011-05-25T13:01:42.988-07:00Conversations with Progressives, Part 36Most of the time I refrain from engaging Progressives. They're so dishonest, not just in content but <a href="http://shavingleviathan.blogspot.com/2009/11/progressives-handbook-of-argument.html" target="_blank">in method</a>, that I judge it a waste of time to try to reason with them. However, from time to time, I respond if I think the audience might find what I have to say useful.<br />
<br />
This is <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/15/the-gop-vs-obamacare" target="_blank">one example</a>.<br />
<blockquote>Progressive: Any attempts at repeal [of ObamaCare] with [sic] negatively affect almost 50 million Americans and I'm sure a good number of these citizens do vote. Repeal is a no go and that is a good thing. Denying care to clients because of lack of money and/or insurance is never a good thing or haven't any of you figured this out or do you even care?</blockquote>Me: You can't back up those numbers, but that's a side issue.<br />
<br />
Denying care to clients because of lack of money or insurance is both moral and practical. Most businesses deny service to clients for lack of money. It's called voluntary trade. Nothing in life is free. Forcing you to pay for my health care is immoral and impractical.<br />
<br />
Attempting to do so only distorts price signals even further and undermines the market system that makes supplying health care services possible. Not least, it's unconstitutional from start to finish. It violates the rights of free trade and individual sovereignty as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.<br />
<br />
If you wish to engage in private charity, by all means devote your resources to supplying health care to anyone you wish. Coercing others to do so is wrong in every way.<br />
<br />
I'm a middle-aged self-employed writer with less than stellar health who makes an absurdly low annual income. I choose not to pay for health insurance and accept the responsibility if my health goes south.<br />
<br />
But whether I suffer through my choices or through no fault of my own, you have no moral or Constitutional obligation to pay for my health care or to provide me health insurance. Your money does not belong to me.<br />
<br />
As to the question "how do you handle that problem?" it's no one's problem to handle but mine. I don't owe you any support and you do not owe me any.<br />
<br />
Life is not free. It costs money to sustain. Those who can not afford it must rely on voluntary charity.<br />
<br />
Even if one granted that government had a role to play in that charity, there's no valid argument whatever for the Federal government to play that role. All American citizens live in some state (or territory). What justification can there be for the taxpayers of Illinois to pay for the health insurance of a resident of Idaho?Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-488684959179862222011-05-09T13:05:00.000-07:002011-05-09T13:05:26.726-07:00Goldberg Chastises Krugman... but for the wrong thing.<br />
<br />
Jonah Goldberg joins the chorus of those <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/266757/americas-least-plausible-populist-jonah-goldberg" target="_blank">chastising some liberal</a> for his 'elitism'.<br />
<br />
Populist conservatives should give the 'elite' charge a rest. There's nothing wrong with being a "member of the elite" if you actually are superior at something worthwhile.<br />
<br />
Einstein was near the top of the elite in physics. James Madison was a superior political philosopher. Admiral McRaven is an elite military man.<br />
<br />
The problem in Krugman's case is (a) the Nobel Prize for Economics is a joke, nowhere near as worthwhile as the one in, say, Chemistry; (b) Krugman's economic theories are all completely false and even a modestly well-educated person can know this; (c) Krugman himself has no superior personal attributes, morally or intellectually and; (d) he works for a company - the New York Times - that is itself laughable in every way: as a business, in its political point of view, and even on the basic scale of honesty and competence.<br />
<br />
If Krugman were anything remotely like, say, Peter Ferrara, I would have no trouble whatever applauding him for being 'elite', because he would have earned that description.<br />
<br />
To be opposed to anything 'elite' is at best to misuse language and at worst to oppose excellence and invite another French Revolution among the mob.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-82554143486348293602011-04-27T07:10:00.000-07:002011-04-27T07:11:27.107-07:00Cartoon Character to Become Defense SecretaryOy vey!<br />
<blockquote>Obama is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28team.html" target="_blank">expected this week</a> to name Leon E. Panetta, the director of central intelligence, as defense secretary.</blockquote>Why not Mickey Mouse? Or, Daffy Duck? Or, if you insist on someone metaphysically real, how about the editor of Al Jazeera TV? Any of them will do as much to safeguard Americans.<br />
<br />
Gates was bad enough, but as usual Obama will always find a way to make things worse. I'm just surprised it took him two years to get around to it.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-51300824059675389952011-04-21T15:54:00.000-07:002011-04-21T15:54:24.855-07:00Atlas Shrugged, the Movie - A Review by Michael Moeller<p><b>Atlas Shrugged: The Movie -- Draining the Motive Power from the Novel</b><br />
<br />
by<br />
<br />
<i>Michael Moeller</i><br />
<br />
Over fifty years after Atlas Shrugged was published, and more then thirty years since work began on the first film script, I felt Etta James’ song “At Last” playing in my head as I drove to the theater. I was abuzz with excitement at the possibility of finding a “thrill to press my cheek to.” But alas, as the movie unfolded, my cheek felt an icy touch as the lifeblood drained from its dramatic body.<br />
<br />
On the philosophical level, the moral outlook of the book was not comprised in any significant way. Hank Rearden states, unapologetically, that his “only goal <i>is</i> to make money”. The filmmakers did not turn the movie into a utilitarian apologia that self-interest also serves the common good. Or worse, with Oliver Stone once-rumored as expressing interest in making the film, one could imagine the protagonists serving up paeans to the “public welfare”. I came away satisfied that the philosophy was not corrupted.<br />
<br />
On the artistic level, however, the film fails substantially as a drama. As Rand wrote in <i>The Art of Fiction</i>, a plot is a “purposeful progression of events” where each event is <i>logically</i> connected to the preceding event leading up to the climax. The events are not mere exposition, but ideas dramatized in action where the actions leave the reader wondering what will happen next. I.e., they create suspense.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the movie’s progression of events lacks purpose and a coherent direction. The choice of scenes appears scattershot, thus draining the drama and suspense from the novel.<br />
<br />
For instance, the screenwriters decided to include the subplot involving John Galt’s motor. Here, though, Rearden discovers the mysterious motor through (off-screen) investigation, in advance of his car trip with Dagny. Later in the film Rearden and Dagny examine the factory and the motor in-person. This is followed by scenes of them meeting with Ivy Starnes, Eugene Lawson, and William Hastings’ wife, which include multiple superfluous scenes of car traveling back-and-forth on desolate valley roads. <br />
<br />
Not only has the fortuitous discovery of the motor been preempted by Rearden’s preliminary investigation, but the scenes tracking down the motor’s owner add nothing to the back-story of the motor. The viewer knows as much about the motor at the end of their trip as he does after Rearden’s initial investigation. Those scenes simply fill precious screen time. <br />
<br />
Instead, those scenes could have been cut. The dramatic struggle to get the John Galt Line built could have been given more emphasis, which was purportedly the focus of this movie. Instead, the effects of the looters’ polices on the John Galt Line, and the protagonists’ struggles to overcome them, are imbibed along with exposition while critical scenes to the main storyline are cut.<br />
<br />
For instance, as Rearden and Dagny are standing before the tattered old bridge, Dagny states she could use a new one, but doesn’t have the time to build one with only six months left. Rearden responds that she could build a new one with Rearden Metal in only 3 months, and she responds: “Let me check my budget.” She needed it, Rearden says he can do it, and then it appears during the run of the John Galt Line. That’s it. <br />
<br />
This is merely one example of including superfluous scenes while shortchanging the supposed focus of the film: the struggle to build the John Galt Line. We have the Reardens’ anniversary party with no clue as to why it is important, and the bracelet exchange was drained of emotive impact. The viewer gets a brief glimpse of characters before they disappear, such as Owen Kellogg and Robert McNamara, with no background (besides brief narrative) as to why they are important, nor does one see the impact their loss has on the operations of Taggart Transcontinental.<br />
<br />
No Dan Conway and his refusal to sell the rail to James Taggart. No dramatization of Dagny’s struggles to find signals, railroad spikes, locomotives, her work crew abandoning her, etc. No effect of Ben Nealy replacing Robert McNamara. No Eureka! moment from Rearden when he makes the bridge feasible with a radical new innovation – right when his business is being destroyed by the passage of the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, and yet still able to provide a beacon of strength for Dagny. Just to name of few.<br />
<br />
Thus, the prudence, foresight, and ingenuity of Rearden and Dagny are sucked dry from the building of the John Galt Line, and from their characters.<br />
<br />
Many have probably <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8MVFoiw-dw&feature=related"> seen the trailer of Dagny’s confrontation with the union boss</a> who refuses to let his members work on the John Galt Line. After this scene, the movie then cuts to Rearden and Dagny boarding the train and the running of the John Galt Line. The emotive impact of Dagny’s success is lessened by not showing her small triumph when all the Taggart workers volunteer against the wishes of the union boss, so much so that they need a lottery to pick the train crew.<br />
<br />
Imagine signing up for a sightseeing tour of New York City, and being sped through the city on a train running at two hundred miles an hour while the window shades move up-and-down at random. That’s the feel of the pace and one’s grasp of what is happening and why. In this <a href=" http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/the-one-thing-that-would-have-made-atlas-shrugged-a-far-better-film.php" target="_blank">excellent review</a>, the author provides a much more logical and cogent progression of events that develops the main plot and subplots within a reasonable timeframe, and in a manner that adds <i>drama and suspense</i>.<br />
<br />
In <i>The Art of Fiction</i>, Rand also emphasizes bringing the abstraction that is a character to life via concrete actions and dialogue. The characters motives are teased out by these means. And, since art is selectivity, everything said and done denotes something significant about that character that the author thinks is important to convey. <br />
<br />
Now consider the first brush with Ellis Wyatt in the movie, which shows him in Dagny’s office with his feet up on the desk while reading a newspaper. As Dagny enters, he throws the newspaper aside, waves his arms awkwardly as if trying to balance himself on a beam, and then begins to rail against the demise of Dan Conway and this “Anti-dog-eat-dog bullshit.” <br />
<br />
Is this dynamic entrepreneur from the novel — who had a look of “violence” and such a ruthless integrity that he would rather burn down his empire than let it be taken over by the looters? No, his mannerisms and dialogue have all the attributes of a petulant middle-manager who has not gotten his way and feels the need to ream out an underling — right after his coffee break.<br />
<br />
Or consider the filmmakers’ portrayal of James Taggart. He appears in the movie as young, handsome, and well-dressed. In the novel, we first see Taggart with a contorted posture, balding, and the look of middle-age while in his mid-thirties. Miscasting a character based on physical appearance is not a game-breaker and can be redeemed if the essence of the character is skillfully concretized in words and action.<br />
<br />
In the novel, however, Rand portrays Taggart as fundamentally weak, constantly evading the necessity to think, and helpless in the face of looming crises, especially when confronted by Dagny. In the movie, the viewer sees a rather poised Taggart that often overshadows a soft-spoken Dagny, played by Taylor Schilling. Dagny’s lack of onscreen presence, of gravitas, does not help the contrast. (If there's a doubt about Schilling’s performance, I urge the viewer to consider whether <i>this Dagny</i> would say as a young woman at a ball: “What men? There wasn’t a man there I couldn’t squash ten of.”)<br />
<br />
But more so than the actor’s onscreen presence, the depth of Taggart’s character is victimized by scene selection. The movie shows the boardroom scene where Taggart takes credit for Dagny pulling all assets from the San Sebastian Line before the Mexican government nationalizes it. However, the movie cut the prior scene with Taggart and his girlfriend, Betty Pope. In that scene, Taggart and Pope express mutual contempt for each other after just having had sex. Taggart begins that scene lethargic and mentally unfocused, but comes to life at the prospect of undermining his sister before the Board. His self-satisfaction is quickly deflated when he receives a phone call telling him the San Sebastian Railroad has been nationalized, and then we next see him praising his own foresight before the Board.<br />
<br />
This scene also provides a stark contrast to the sex scene with Rearden and Dagny after the John Galt Line run. Sex expressing the celebration of life, as opposed to mutual contempt and futility.<br />
<br />
Instead of the Betty Pope scene, the movie depicts the nationalization of the San Sebastian Railroad in a news clip <i>stating</i> that the line has been nationalized and showing soldiers marching under some building with a Mexican flag on top of it. A scene that powerfully conveys Taggart’s motives and goals is replaced with cheap narrative. The net effect on the character of James Taggart is that he is transformed from metaphysically impotent man into a simple Hollywood cutout of a conniving backroom dealer. <br />
<br />
By the same methods, the movie trims down the depth of each character, including the two protagonists. The greatest loss, perhaps, is to Francisco d’Anconia, whom I regard as one of the most compelling characters in all literature.<br />
<br />
The viewer first catches glimpses of Francisco appearing at bars/parties surrounded by an entourage of beautiful women, sometimes with cameras flashing. He has a scruffy three-day beard and semi-shaggy hair down to his eyebrows — the “cool” look one sees displayed on the cover of GQ. In his first encounter with Dagny after the nationalization of the San Sebastian mines, Dagny begins the scene by throwing a drink in his face. Francisco chuckles and flippantly says: “That’s refreshing”.<br />
<br />
<i>This</i> is how the audience is introduced to the aristocratic-looking character described as “the climax of the d’Anconia’s” who’s talents had been “sifted through a fine mesh” from generations of mastery of production. Does this properly capture the man to whom it is impossible “to stand still or move aimlessly?” Is this the man who, as a twelve year old boy, used rudimentary calculus to erect a system of pulleys to hoist an elevator to the top of a rock? Or the man who began as a furnace boy at the age of sixteen and ended owning the factory by age twenty, while educating himself on the stock market to finance the venture?<br />
<br />
Without any of Francisco’s back-story in the movie, nor any display of his unmatched ability, the viewer doesn't experience the disconnect between the productive genius and the playboy now throwing extravagant parties for the brain dead. The air of mystery surrounding his conversion has vanquished. The movie version of Francisco really could be a pop star from the cover of GQ. He certainly looks the part.<br />
<br />
When Francisco confronts Rearden at his anniversary party, one gets the impression he was transported from another film. Not only is the dialogue awkward and stilted, as if parts were pieced together with Scotch tape after the novel’s conversation was put through a paper shredder, but his character appears jarring and incongruous because there has been no buildup illustrating his intellectual perspicacity.<br />
<br />
Amateurism permeates even small touches of detail. The car crisscrossing the country in search of the motor’s mystery is a…<i>Toyota Camry</i>? In the book, it's a sleek Hammond coupe. The producers couldn't rent something like a Bentley Azure or Maserati Gran Tourismo to illustrate the heights Dagny and Rearden have reached?<br />
<br />
Sadly, this encapsulates the movie versus the book. Under Rand’s artistic guidance, one feels the dramatic motor roar to life on each page, yet the progression is expertly controlled. Hairpin plot turns on the cliff’s edge are skillfully navigated, yet invite challenge, thrill, and a suspenseful outcome. In the hands of the filmmakers, the viewer is taken on an ordinary ride from point A to point B, often getting lost along the way.<br />
<br />
My song had changed on the ride home from the theater. Resonating in my soul were B.B. King’s words: “The thrill is gone, the thrill is gone away.”Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353680062320179256.post-29587480711082508032011-04-16T13:17:00.000-07:002011-04-16T13:18:28.873-07:00Obama's Approval Dips... Finally!In the utterly dismal environment that constitutes contemporary politics, there is one small crumb of good: <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/147140/Obama-Job-Approval-Tying-Low.aspx" target="_blank">Obama's approval ratings are falling</a>.<blockquote>The latest Gallup Daily tracking three-day average shows 41% of Americans approving of the job Barack Obama is doing. That ties his low as president, which he registered three times previously -- twice in August 2010 and once in October 2010. </blockquote>Apparently, even <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-14/budget-showdown-democrats-disgust-with-obama/?om_rid=CYHTPO&om_mid=_BNqDzSB8aU6dCX#" target="_blank">the Democrats are miffed</a> at the atrocious CR budget compromise.<br />
<br />
It's far too little – his approval should be in the 20% range, about equal to the number of immovable Progressives — and who knows if it's too late. And, it's shocking that there are still a large percentage of Americans who do NOT yet believe that Obama is even worse than Wilson and only slightly better than Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Though not for lack of trying to be both. (So, far as I know Wilson never committed <a 2ref="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/264724/doj-source-obama-political-appointees-squashed-indictment-cair-leader-and-other-islami" target="_blank">treason</a>). But, in the present circumstances, it's healthy to be grateful for even small favors.Jeffrey Perrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.com3