What are Republicans today, anyway? George Will: As much socialists as Democrats these days.

George Will had an excellent column today:

Rent-Seekers Run Amuck

Is fiscal conservatism really so dead in America today?

Just remember some of his examples the next time you hear about some new tax being “temporary”, or “only for a particular purpose”.  How many times have those words turned out to be true?

I voted for Barr in the election.  Not because I had any misconception about his chances, but because enough votes for those with fiscally conservative views will hopefully help influence the national discussion.  Supporting Ron Paul.  Voting for Barr.

At this point I would even be ok with Obama raising taxes, as long as he went Clinton’s path towards balancing the budget.  Even with big spending, if we can get closer to the point where we are realizing the actual cost of all of these programs and foreign interventionism then at least we can have an honest discussion about fiscal policy.  But as long as costs can be deferred, or hidden, then it is almost impossible to have honest discussion.

I’ve never been a Republican.  I went from being a Democrat to being a libertarian, because that stage where people used to become Republicans never took–the fiscal principles that used to pull the youth as they grew older into Republicans has vanished.  Compare Clinton to either Bush, and it’s no wonder the current generation likely sees Democrats as, if not flat-out fisally more responsible, more honest and knowledgeable about what things cost and how you have to find funding for what you want to do.

Conservatives can say all they want that tax revenues rise when you lower tax rates.  But if you’re spending billions upon billions in new government programs and foreign interventionist policies, and now government bailouts, that doesn’t wash.  Republicans have to become much more rational about spending, and that includes what we are able to do internationally.

[/soapbox]  You go, George Will.  Tell it like it is.

For crying out loud, get over a potential Obama Presidency already! There’s nothing to be SCARED of!

I am quite sick of seeing rednecks, bigots, conspiracy theorists, blind partisans and white trash talk about being “scared” of an Obama Presidency.

There isn’t anything more to be scared of than there is that George Bush is going to declare martial law and establish himself as some kind of authoritarian leader under the guise of formulated and largely faked national chaos.  Quite frankly, I imagine that had George Bush ever seriously entertained the idea, it wouldn’t have lasted in his head for five second before being blown to smithereens by, oh I don’t know, totally selfish self-interest.  Here is a guy whose ticket is written, for as long as he’s alive.  He doesn’t have to work another day in his life if he doesn’t want to.  Medical care, security, fame, influence . . . being a former President may not be the easiest job in the world, but I suspect that is because of the type of personality that usually ends up being President–the type of personality that can’t be happy just relaxing.  But really, does Bush strike anyone at this point as the type of guy who is looking forward to doing anything more than taking the next few years off?  I suspect they’ll establish a semi-permanent security perimeter around his ranch and favorite fishing spot and pretty much not have to move too much until sometime in 2010 or 2011.  Bush may actually contribute to an obesity epidemic in the Secret Service.

He’d give that up for what exactly?

Back to Obama.  He’s being called a socialist, a Marxist, a traitor, a terrorist (or at least someone with such sympathy for terrorists that he would make America’s interests secondary to those of terrorists or other foreign powers), etc., etc., etc.  If he wins the Presidency, teh gayz are going to over-run the country, and Obama is going to start sneaking in Sharia law because, after all, he is a closeted Muslim foreign national, and we’ll offer immediate military surrender to Canada.

Truth:  Obama is a charismatic, but ultimately run-of-the-mill (from a policy perspective), Democrat.  Many of his proposals are moderate by liberal standards.  There is nothing about this election that will cause real change.  The differences are, I guess measurable, but ultimately not terribly significant.  Oh noes, a McCain Presidency will mean the overturning of Roe v. Wade!  No it won’t.  Democrats are shooting for a filibustering majority, and certainly will attain a solid simple majority even if McCain somehow magically pulls through.  McCain would ultimately be forced to nominate a justice that would uphold Roe v. Wade and maintain the status quo.  And here we’re talking about legitimate and expected political opposition, not radical departures.  Obama is actually not going to take away your right to defend yourself with a gun.  The government is not going to unilaterally start seizing property (any more than it currently does, anyway).  We’re not going to give up national sovereignty to join a one world government headed by the UN (or anyone else).

There really isn’t anything that should need to be added to that.  Time to put away the crazy and fold up the foil hat.  The next four years may not be exactly like the last eight years, but they’re gong to be a whole lot on average like the last 30 or 40 years than some bizzaro leaping off point into America becoming like North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or whatever.  Get a grip.

McCain needs some damn Bobby Knight in his blood.

Can McCain really be surprised by this?  Ads run by the RNC, or with McCain’s own endorsement, tangentially or by implication fan the very flames he tries to put out here.  And while he’s trying to find a pail to put water in to douse the fire he’s started, his VP pick isn’t just blowing on the ashes, she’s picking up flaming logs and chucking them all over the place.

If McCain and his campaign were totally innocent of starting and/or fanning these rumors around, then maybe I could say he’s doing the honorable thing by what he says.  But at the end of the day I just don’t believe that.  Too many ads endorsed by him that dance around these topics with a wink and a nod, and too much of Sarah Palin being out of her depth.  Way out.

Without knowing him personally, I do figure John McCain is probably a pretty decent guy.  Some people (my wife among them) can’t get past the affair (true whether it is Republican (her lean) or Democrat), but with all the mistresses and affairs of world leaders, here and abroad, I’m not going to pass judgment there.  But what I get the feeling is happening here is that instead of setting tones and choosing directions, he is being carried by the current of the river of his party and supporters.

Having gone to IU during the Bob Knight years, I am reminded of an incident I witnessed while attending a game.  Some fans were shouting . . . unpleasantries at the opposing team (could have also been the refs).  During a time out, Knight grabbed a microphone hooked up to the PA system.  He didn’t meekly say “Now, I know the other team’s coach and their players, and, why gosh golly gee, you’d be ok if they were here, on this bench, in place of me and the IU team.”  No, He took that microphone (capitalization intended . . . that’s the kind of presence he was in a room, no matter a closet or a stadium) and said (paraphrased) “CUT THAT CRAP OUT.  STOP GIVING THE UNIVERSITY A BAD NAME, AND ACT LIKE ADULTS.”  It went on for a bit longer than that, but you get the drift.  His personality was the kind that set the tone, it didn’t follow it.

Now Knight had his problems, and his personality while he was at IU was both a blessing and a curse, but when he perceived someone as out of line he set them straight.  If McCain had that in him, that fire, he would have taken that mic back and said to the whole room (paraphrase) “CUT THAT CRAP OUT.  STOP MAKING ALL OF US LOOK LIKE IDIOTS, AND ACT LIKE ADULTS.”  Then he could have said something about an Obama Presidency not being the end of the world (I’m a libertarian, and I don’t even think that) and, you know, actually sound powerful and authoritative.

But what I saw there was someone being pulled along by the current, not picking up his trident and making the water do his bidding.  That to me is a weakness, but I’m not sure where it comes from.  Certainly he is otherwise a strong and able individual, but somehow he’s gone from pulling in a positive direction to being dragged in a negative direction.  Handlers?  Party leaders?  Campaign advisers?  If what we are seeing is part of the Rove playbook, then that paradigm, at least for this election, seems to me to have been broken.

And maybe he can’t win.  Maybe, through no fault of his own, he is the sacrificial lamb that Bush and the economy and the War demand.  That is a possibility.  But if that turns out to be true, then he should take up his post and say with spit and thunder and command “!@(*&-Dammit, if we’re going down, then we’re going down with honor!”  That’s the only kind of spirit that could turn a ship like this around, but I don’t see that happening, and especially not after watching that performance above.

“Prosperity Gospel” makes my blood boil

The Time article “Did God Want You to Get That Mortgage?” is exactly the kind of thing I mentioned in the comments here that disturbs me greatly. Do the pastors that preach this personally take responsibility when things go wrong for their parishioners who take this kind of advice? Of course not. Either the individual wasn’t devoted enough to God (thus their own fault), or God has a plan (thus God’s fault), but never the individual’s fault (who was stupid enough to believe this shit), or the pastor’s/church’s fault (for pushing it).

Just a week or so ago our pastor was pumping for additional donations, and said that God has already blessed him with $120 towards the extra financial commitments he had made to the church for the upcoming events/year. Give the money you don’t even have, because God will give it to you.

Makes me sick, but it is prevalent in Christian theology since the early Church. God blesses the faithful, whether that is military victory, money, land, punishment of enemies . . . it encourages the faithful to take risks they otherwise wouldn’t take on the belief that God will save/support them, unless he doesn’t, in which case they are just wretched sinners anyway and deserved it, but God will beam them to Heaven after death.

If the God of the Bible (or of the Koran, or whatever) exists, and is a just being, then surely he will give a pass to all those who turn away from Him based on the behavior of so many who purport to follow Him. Maybe that’s guilt by association, but you can barely find a church (or other place of worship relating to the associated diety) today that doesn’t preach exclusivity, favoritism, intolerance. Things that drive wedges between individuals and cultures. Until they become like us, that is.

Calmer voices amid scare-tactic fearmongers

Quality commentary on the bailout:

Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer

It makes me sick when people lay the current financial crisis at the feet of deregulation, ignoring government’s hand in the creation of this economic Frankenstein’s monster. From the article:

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here’s why.

The current
mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal
policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and
Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the
center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these
institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and
Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning
in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century,
Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime
lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise
of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime
lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines.
This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending
practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got
mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

I’ll tie this back into the debate from Friday–I’ve rarely heard so many things of which I need to be fearful. If you swallowed the debate hook, line and sinker you’d probably believe we’re on the brink of another cold war with Russia, that the economy is going to grind to a complete halt, that we should be scared out of our pants over Iran, etc., etc., etc.

Thank goodness there are people keeping a cool head in the midst of the “whatever works” school of campaigning and governing (see, e.g., fear). I know I’m going far afield here but I’ll bring it back quickly. Take a look at September’s Cato Unbound topic on responsible psychoactive drug use (brilliant discussion that I would be happy to drive traffic to). It drives me crazy that people believe it is legitimate for government to provide misleading or inaccurate information for the purpose of achieving a public policy goal.

I think it OK (meaning not unconstitutional and not outrageous if the
majority want it) for the government to promote health and well being
through public health campaigns that seek to change behavior,
particularly when the campaigns are directed toward youth. I generally
prefer for such campaigns to achieve their ends simply by providing
accurate information, but acknowledge that sometimes appealing to
emotions or providing only selective information is more effective at
changing behavior.

Don’t misunderstand the author here . . . “selective” information is merely a euphemism for lying to the public. It’s “spin” (with all the negative connotations that implies) . . . “technical” accuracy leading to inaccurate conclusions based on the knowledge of how people will interpret provided data from a “trusted” source.

Translate that into any topic . . . the economy? The War on Terror? I don’t know that all slippery slopes have the same grade, but when it comes to information we receive from our government, we seem to be pretty far down a pretty slippery slope already. I understand national security, which is to say that it is a legitimate reason to potentially withhold information, but it has been so misused over the last several decades even there it seems there is little reason to trust what we are being told.

So I take these dire warnings from Paulson in late-night meetings to Congressional leaders with much less credibility than perhaps others are. But let’s stop teasing Wall Street with a big government bailout, and let them get about the task of picking up their pieces. It can be done. We’ve seen them do it. But they’re going to drag their feet as long as there is the promise of free money out there. No reason to bite the bullet if you might get a Get Out of Jail Free tomorrow, right?

I hate living in a battleground state,

but it does make for some interesting scientific education about what motivates us:

6 Brainwashing Techniques They’re Using On Your Right Now.

How many of these have you seen lately? (No, I’m not talking about #1 . . . You’ll get that when you get there).

If you hear there will be discussion in front of your school board about “Teaching the Controversy” . . .

this year, or in the next couple of years, it will probably involve materials coming from the Discovery Institute, Christian fundamentalists’ front group for trying to tear down evolution. Here is one example of “Teaching the Controversy” this year from NC, but you know it is happening elsewhere.

In the wake of the Dover Disaster (a disaster for the Discovery Institute specifically and creationists/fundamentalists/evangelicals in general) the Discovery Institute has gone about trying to find ways around textbook requirements in order to get their ideas into public school classrooms. That tactic? “Supplementary materials”. As noted by John Timmer (introduced below), supplementary classroom materials often don’t have to meet the same standards as textbooks.

ArsTechnica recently brought in . . . whatever term you use for someone with the following credentials:

John got a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry (yes, that’s possible) from
Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology
from the University of California, Berkeley. He’s done over a
decade’s worth of research in genetics and developmental biology at
places like Cornell Medical College and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center. In addition to being Ars’ science content wrangler, John
still teaches at Cornell and does freelance writing, editing, and
programming, often with a scientific focus.

to review the Discovery Institute’s new Supplementary Materials.

I would quote the rather damming final summary paragraph, but that would only distract and take the focal point away from the fact that the body of the review is a masterpiece in disembowling of these substandard “educational” materials. Here is a sample:

This presentation can also be considered a “bait and switch”—take a
real scientific controversy, tell your readers that it exists, and then
substitute in the controversy you’d like them to think exists without
comment. This is obvious in the section on the fossil record, where the
Reply section contains a long list of academic discussions of the
limitations in our collections of fossils. That section wraps up by
claiming these limitations, “have led some scientists to doubt that the
fossil record supports the case for common descent.”

Who are those scientists? Well, poor Malcolm Gordon (who actually wrote
in favor of common descent) gets dragged out again, but the rest aren’t
actually scientists, nor are their publications peer-reviewed science.
Instead, there’s a book by an Italian creationist and another by
Discovery Institute Fellows, including some of EE’s authors. The bait of real issues has been switched to a statement that isn’t actually supported by the footnote.

As a libertarian and someone who believes in the principles of federalism, I am generally in favor of decisions relating to educational standards being handled as locally as reasonably possible. However, as a strong believer in the principle of the separation of church and state, I believe there is a valid rational prohibition against either overtly or subtly trying to insert religious instruction into public schools, and that’s exactly the direction, the kind of pandering, that these materials support.

If our local school board, or the state educational board, started flirting with these materials or the DI, you can be certain I will be circulating this article to them. Just say to no non-science (in this case the similarity to nonsense being intentional) in science class.

More communist than China, more socialist than France

Add this article to the one below:

How We Became the United States of France

I’m starting to wonder whether, in the “first world” of countries, there is anything other than an awful mix of quasi-capitalism, nationalistic fear-mongering, and big government (e.g. massive taxes and tiny freedoms).

Seriously, the United States certainly had its problems back when freedom meant freedom–everything wasn’t sunshine, rainbows and tulips. And our fledgling nation was helped by seemingly endless natural resources. But we are not the nation we were, and neither major political party seems to have any inclination to look back and try to cull the good from the bad. Instead we look to the new role models of the world–China for national security, France for economic advice, Russia for foreign affairs.

It’s just a truly sad state of affairs, to know that you are living in the decline of power. Had we not abused our position, had we not driven down the road to hell with the bestest of intentions, maybe we’d still lead in education and innovation. Maybe we wouldn’t be looking down our economic backs at the pursuit of China and India.

The most interesting thought to me is that for years conspiracy nuts have been talking about things like the “New World Order” or “One World Government” or whatever . . . where the shadow brokers of power consolidate governmental power worldwide into the UN or some similar body to impose the world onto the United States, to destroy our economy and our values.

Did I miss the takeover? With China adopting more free market policies, with the U.S. government taking over entire industries . . . it looks to me as if the material distinctions between major governments are fading away. Maybe we did miss the invasion, while looking to the government to save us from ourselves. Is there some first world government model that is inescapable whether you are a Constitutional Republic or a one-party authoritarian state? Are modern governments trapped into becoming nearly homogeneous because of the power of the rich and the demands of the poor and middle class?

I don’t know the answers, I only think our direction is a sad one. Neither major Presidential candidate strikes me as truly caring one whit about change. Neither truly wants to change the direction of this country. And whether that change would be massive government control, or Chiacgo-school economic reforms, at least I could respect a candidate that really wanted change. That stood up and fought for something other than a slightly more or less mealy than the status quo that we choke down every day. This path is a slow death spiral towards irrelevance. I wonder how soon we will be able to look for the next paradigm shift in government, the next evolution in moving forward? That will at least be an interesting thing to look towards.

What a wonderful world we live in.

CFI: It’s time for science and reason

Hat tip to Pharyngula.  The message this video has to convey is important, and so I’ll let it speak for itself.

Why are our political ideas so entrenched? Science offers clues.

Thought this was a fascinating article on the correlation between fear and politics:

Political views ‘all in the mind’

You hear a lot of people talk about the “politics of fear”, and it turns out there may be something to that when dealing with the Republican base, and I’m saying that more observationally rather than critically (despite the fact that there are critiques to that approach).

What I don’t like about fear is that it isn’t part of a calculated, considered assessment and response. When you react purely out of fear, your almost random action is just as likely to exacerbate a problem as solve it.

Not being afraid is not the same thing is being stupid. For example, you hear about people fearlessly going into wild animal areas at zoos, and generally that kind of stupidity doesn’t end well. But there are people standing outside the zoo cage who aren’t afraid, but nonetheless conclude that it isn’t a great idea to climb into the hippopotamus habitat at their local zoo. I think this point gets lost on some people in political debates. Libertarians with an isolationist bent when it comes to military deployment are often accused of, essentially, pandering to terrorists–that if we aren’t afraid of terrorists to the point where we are willing to expend vast sums of money to go invade and violate the sovereignty of foreign nations then we must be stupid. Or that our calculated decision that these types of military actions aren’t in our best interest will only egg terrorists on because the terrorists will believe their fear tactics are working–that surely we are reacting out of fear and appeasement of terrorism than out of rational analysis.

Of course, fear isn’t always a bad thing. There isn’t always time to make detailed calculations and analysis; sometimes conviction and action in the face of fear provides an invaluable initiative. It’s just as true of humans as it is of flies (hat tip to io9.com for the link). When dealing with a life-or-death situation, or any highly time-sensitive issue, having conviction and making a fast first move based on stereotypes and other preconceived notions can can be the difference between victory and defeat. Fear can trigger this kind of non-thought action. In other words, victory in such a manner under imminent life-or-death circumstances has its own framework of moral justification, but not so much in other circumstances. A certain demographic or segment of the population believe don’t make that distinction–they believe that winning, in and of itself, is all that is important regardless of principle. But the bottom line is that initiative has deep roots in evolutionary biology, it’s just that the thresholds of fear vary significantly across individuals. And apparently have some direct correlations to our political views.

Fascinating stuff.