President's Day - Best and Worst Presidents

I've posted this each President's Day for quite some time but have found no reason to adjust the rankings.

It's not a real President's birthday (Lincoln's was the 12th, Washington's is the 22nd), but everyone wants a day off, so sorry Abe and George, but we're taking it today.  But in the spirit intended for the holiday, let me offer up Borepatch's bestest and worstest lists for Presidents.

Top Five:

#5: Calvin Coolidge

Nothing To Report is a fine epitaph for a President, in this day of unbridled expansion of Leviathan.

#4. Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson is perhaps the last (and first) President who exercised extra-Constitutional power in a manner that was unambiguously beneficial for the Republic (the Louisiana Purchase).  He repealed Adam's noxious Alien and Sedition Acts and pardoned those convicted under them.

#3. Grover Cleveland. 

He didn't like the pomp and circumstance of the office, and he hated the payoffs so common then and now.  He was so famously incorruptable that he continually vetoed pork spending (including for veterans of the War Between the States), so much so that he was defeated for re-election, but unusually won a second term later.  This quote is priceless (would that Latter Day Presidents rise so high), on vetoing a farm relief bill: "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character."  I highly recommend his biography Man Of Iron.

#2. Ronald Reagan

He at least tried to slow down the growth of Leviathan, the first President to do so in over half a century (see entry #5, above).  He would have reduced it further, except that his opposition to the Soviet fascist state and determination to end it cost boatloads of cash.  It also caused outrage among the home grown fascists in the Media and Universities, but was wildly popular among the general population which was (and hopefully still remains) sane.

#1. George Washington

Could have been King.  Wasn't.  Q.E.D. 

Bottom Five:

#5. John Adams.

There's no way to read the Alien and Sedition Acts as anything other than a blatant violation of the First Amendment.  It's a sad statement that the first violation of a Presidential Oath of Office was with President #2. 

#4. Woodrow Wilson.

Not only did he revive the spirit of Adams' Sedition Acts, he caused a Presidential opponent to be imprisoned under the terms of his grotesque Sedition Act of 1918.  He was Progressivism incarnate: he lied us into war, he jailed the anti-war opposition, he instituted a draft, re-instituted segregation in the Civil Service, and he was entirely soft-headed when it came to foreign policy.  The fact that Progressives love him (and hate George W. Bush) says all you need to know about them.

#3 Lyndon Johnson.

An able legislator who was able to get bills passed without having any real idea what they would do once enacted, he is responsible for more Americans living in poverty and despair than any occupant of the White House, and that says a lot.

#2. Franklin Roosevelt.

America's Mussolini - ruling extra-Constitutionally fixing wages and prices, packing the Supreme Court, and transforming the country into a bunch of takers who would sell their votes for a trifle.  He also rounded up a bunch of Americans and sent them to Concentration Camps.  But they were nice Concentration Camps - well, we're told that by his admirers.  At least Mussolini met an honorable end.


#1. Abraham Lincoln.

There's no doubt that the Constitution never would have been ratified if the States hadn't thought they could leave if they needed to.  Lincoln saw to it that 5% of the military-age male population was killed or wounded preventing that in an extra-Constitutional debacle unequaled in the Republic's history.  Along the way, he suspended Habeas Corpus, instituted the first ever draft on these shores, and jailed political opponents as he saw fit.  Needless to say, Progressives adore him.

So happy President's Day.  Thankfully, the recent occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue haven't gotten this bad.  Yet. 

A Libertarian Valentine's Day

LOL.

LOLOLOLOL. 

The EPA makes everything worse, vol CXVI

In this case, marine diesel engines which used to be famously long lived.  The Detroit Diesel engines of old were famous for running 20,000 or 30,000 hours before a four day rebuild at the dock set them up for another 20,000 or 30,000 hours.  You couldn't kill these engines.  Rather, you would leave them to your kids in your will.

That's over now, and it's because of the EPA.  Over a span of 15 or 20 years, they ratcheted up the emission requirements for these engines to the point that Detroit Diesel would be fined millions and millions of dollars for selling their old (famously reliable) design.

And so now you have to rebuild after 10,000 hours, and you have to replace three times as many parts.  Plan on a month, rather than four days.

This is a very interesting video on the subject.  While I'm not an expert on diesel engines, it certainly seems solid from an engineering perspective. 

Here are the main points.

1. Pressures have gone from 10,000 psi to 30,000 PSI for a bunch of EPA-imposed constraints.  This shortens the lifespan of parts used in the engines.

2. The higher pressure means that engines are much more vulnerable to bad diesel fuel: water particles or tiny flakes of rust now essentially sandblast the pistons, valves, and cylinders.  This didn't used to take place at the old lower pressure.  This sandblasting effect shortens part life even more, which makes engine rebuild and cost even higher.

3. Because parts will fail much more often now, manufacturers put all sorts of sensors in place.  The sensors themselves can fail - the high seas is a notoriously unforgiving environment and salt water will get into the engine room.  This causes corrosion, which triggers sensor faults.  The engine's computer (itself a new thing, with software of questionable quality) will detect the fault and sometimes put the engine into "Limp Home Mode" - not allowing it to go above, say, 1000 RPM.  A ship in a storm may find its engine dangerously under powered, putting at risk the lives on board and the safety of the ship itself.  If a ship sinks in a storm under these circumstances, the fuel oil in the tanks will pollute the environment.

4. Not pointed out in the video, ocean-going vessels do not have to worry about emissions.  From a pure regulatory perspective, that is.  However, finding a new engine with all the design "upgrades" discussed here is the challenge.  I don't know what EU regulations are, so maybe a MAN engine doesn't have to deal with this.  But I'm nasty and suspicious and think that EU regulations could be even worse than EPA's.

Thanks a whole lot of nothing, EPA.  You're supposed to protect the environment. Oh, and not get Americans killed.

The only thing I think is unfair about the video is the title.  Engine manufactures design their engines to fail after 10 years because the EPA forces them to. 

You could roll back all the environmental regulations since 1990 and shutter the EPA and this Republic would be a whole lot better off. 

Ahhhhhh

The air conditioning is working again, after almost 2 weeks of (partial) outage.  Makes me think we'd solve half the Republic's problems by banning air conditioning in Washington, D.C. 

This actually makes a lot of sense

Via Sal the Agorist.

Ten years ago, but this time funny

This always made me laugh.  You probably want to click through to the Czar of Muscovy's old post to see what kicked this off.  Oh, and it may be that in the picture my Lautrec is Toulouse ...

Originally posted 16 February 2011

Gettin' my Wookie Seurat on

The Czar of Muscovy describes me as a "non-boulevardier", which is true.  But it wasn't always.  These days, I'm more comfortable hanging out at the shooting range, but Back In The Day, I used to haunt the First Arrondissement, hanging out with Georgie Seurat and the crowd.  L'hotel La Sanguine was just down the street from the church of La Madeleine, which was cheek-by-jowl to the Place de la Concorde.

As you can imagine, the difficulty was my Wookie Suit.  Even though this was a particularly classy one - made of Carmague musk rat fur - some of the crowd thought it was too over the top.  Gaugain in particular, although he didn't like anything except for naked Polynesian girls.

But Georgie thought it was tres magnifique, and even snuck me into one of his paintings.  See if you can spot me - although I always thought he made my butt look too big.

Photoshop courtesy of #1 Son.  Did himself proud on this one. 

Both sides are not equally at fault in the gun control debate

It's not often that I disagree with Peter, but this just isn't right:

What is "true" is what conforms to how they think the world should be - whether or not the world really is that way.  If it's not the way they want the world to be then, even if it's factually true, it's not "the truth" - which, of course, only they possess.

You can see that right now in the clamor for more gun control in the wake of the three mass shootings last week.  Factual discussion of whether or not their proposals will actually work is neither here nor there - in fact, it's a waste of time.  The extremists on both sides - those who want more gun control, and those who insist that not one more gun law is acceptable - all want it their way, and they want it now, and they refuse to even consider any alternative.

The moonbats on the left are as guilty of this as the wingnuts on the right.

This isn't remotely right.  The claim of moral equivalence simply doesn't fit, for two reasons:

1. Gun controllers are trying to take rights away from gun owners.  Gun owners are simply trying not to lose their existing rights.  Morally, these are entirely different categories.

2. Gun controllers have a long and sordid history of pushing lies to further their goals.  The government agencies charged with enforcing the laws as written have a long and sordid history of blatantly breaking those laws.  Gun owners are likely the most law abiding group of citizens you can find, although that may be breaking down (very large majorities of gun owners in New York and New Jersey have simply refused to register their AR pattern rifles).

One group simply wants to be left alone.  The other uses falsehoods, misrepresentations, hiding contrary facts, and lawlessness by the Organs of the State.  There's no moral equivalence between these groups.  None.

No more gun control laws, period.  The "Universal Background Check" law will lead to backdoor registration, even with the Organs Of The State saying that they won't build a database for sure you guys.  "Red Flag" laws will be weaponized by Antifa and the thugs on the left to disarm their political opponents - and these kooks see half (or two thirds?) of the country as their opponents.  No "Assault Rifle" ban - even the Department of Justice said that the 1994 one didn't keep anyone from (legally) buying one, and they also said that the law had absolutely no impact on crime rates.

How's this for a crazy idea?  How about the government starts enforcing the existing laws on the books?  How about the Air Force starts updating the background check database when they dishonorably discharge someone?  How about the Broward Sheriff's Department figures out that after a couple dozen complaints about a violent student, they send him for a psych exam?  How about the school does this once they expel him, rather than readmit him?  The list of failures by public servants - and the butcher's bill that goes with that - is long indeed.  It's a waste of time to add another law that the Powers That Be will ignore - but which will be used against law abiding citizens, sure as God made little green apples.

And so I'm afraid that I can't agree with Peter on this.  I'm not remotely like the folks on the other side of the debate.  They're on the attack, and it's a dishonest attack.  I'm just sticking up for my rights against that dishonest attack.  I will not consider any "alternatives", because there are no honest alternatives on offer - only more lies and fakes.  No more gun control laws, ever.

The CDC gets blowback on draconian anti-opiod guidelines

In 2016, the CDC published new guidance for doctors on pain medication.  This has resulted in increased difficulty in getting medication by people suffering from chronic pain, and in some cases had led to "cold turkey" withdrawal of the medications - a cruel and quite frankly medically dangerous practice.

Last month saw a letter to the CDC, a letter that documented hundreds of patients suffering the adverse consequences of the CDC's guidance.  The letter was signed by hundreds of doctors and nurses.  And suddenly the CDC is stumbling all over itself to "clarify" their 2016 guidance:

Acknowledging the suffering caused by "misinterpretation" of the opioid prescribing guidelines it published in 2016, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday sought to clarify that it never recommended imposing involuntary dose reductions on chronic pain patients. In a letter to physicians who had objected to that widespread practice, CDC Director Robert Redfield emphasized that his agency "does not endorse mandated or abrupt dose reduction or discontinuation, as these actions can result in patient harm." Redfield described several steps the CDC is taking to research the impact of its guidelines and correct misunderstandings that have led to abrupt withdrawal, undertreated pain, denial of care, and in some cases suicide.

"I have seen many patients harmed by widespread misapplication of the Guideline," said Stefan Kertesz, a University of Alabama at Birmingham pain and addiction specialist who helped organize a March 6 letter on the subject that was signed by hundreds of health professionals. Kertesz welcomed the CDC's response, which came the same day that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning about the risks of involuntary or fast opioid tapering.

It seems that a bunch of folks are giving the CDC attaboys for this.  My take is different.

The people at the CDC (and also it seems at the FDA) who wrote this guidance should be horsewhipped in the public square, and then denied pain medication.  The Reason post linked above contains story after story from people forced to live in agony.  Here's a sample quote from a patient:

"You don't know me, you don't walk in my shoes, you don't have my nerve damage, and you don't have to live with the thought of will today be the day that I kill myself because I can't take the pain anymore"

And the CDC's answer?  "Oops, my bad":

Redfield said the CDC is communicating with providers and health systems to "clarify the content" of its advice, to "emphasize the importance of developing policies consistent with the Guideline's intent," and to "highlight recommendations within the Guideline, including tapering guidance, options for non-opioid treatments for chronic pain, and communicating with patients."

Let's break that down, shall we?  Here's the translation from bureauticrese to English:

the CDC is communicating with providers and health systems to "clarify the content" of its advice 

Our guidance was crappy and too vague, almost certainly because we were covering our ass with politicians breathing down our necks on this "War On Drugs" nonsense and we were a bunch of pussies that caved to the pressure. 

to "emphasize the importance of developing policies consistent with the Guideline's intent" 

It may be vague but we're still pussies worried about those damn politicians.  But we're sorry we got caught and really really want this to get out of the public eye. 

and to "highlight recommendations within the Guideline, including tapering guidance, options for non-opioid treatments for chronic pain, and communicating with patients." 

Holy cow we're still pussies and are afraid of losing our jobs because the Politicians really really want their War On Drugs. 

The Government is a stumbling, bumbling idiot that crushes everything it touches.  Remember, kids: it's not "Government Healthcare" or even "Socialized Healthcare".  It's "Politicized Healthcare" and we're seeing it right now, before our very eyes.  Just wait until that's the only thing left to us and the Politicians really start yanking the levers.

Jerks.

So the GOP says that the FBI subverted the FISA Court

These guys are the sharpest tools in the shed.

Y'know, there's a solution to this ...

Interestingly, this would work for all of us nobodies who can't get a secret memo written on our behalf by a Congressional Committee: repeal section 702 and don't replace it.  Just sayin'.

The Temple of Janus is open for business

The Romans are often accused of "stealing" their mythology from the Greeks: Zeus became Jupiter, Ares became Mars, etc.  But one god that was uniquely Roman was Janus, the two-faced god of gateways (and by analogy, of beginnings and endings).  The first month of the year is named after him, and we even get a faint echo of the two faces in the typical New Year's depiction of the old year as an old man and the new year as a baby.

It's not clear at all how the Temple of Janus on the Roman Forum became associated with war and peace, but the ancient tradition was that when the Republic was at war the doors of the temple were kept open; only when the war was over were they closed.

The historian Livy tells us that king Tulles Hostillius opened the doors in around 650 B.C. when he attacked a neighboring city.  The doors remained open for the next 400 years.  The doors were shut at the end of the first war with Carthage, but were only shut for eight years.  Re-opened in 227 B.C. during a war with the Gauls, they remained open until shut by Caesar Augustus in 29 B.C.

So out of a period of 650 years or so, the doors were only shut for a couple of decades.  If you need a one sentence description of the Roman temperament, that's about as good as any.

The Geek With Guns muses on our modern republic:

A recent poll discovered that a strong majority of Americans oppose the endless state of war that the United States is engaged in:

The headline findings show, among other things, that 86.4 percent of those surveyed feel the American military should be used only as a last resort, while 57 percent feel that US military aid to foreign countries is counterproductive. The latter sentiment “increases significantly” when involving countries like Saudi Arabia, with 63.9 percent saying military aid—including money and weapons—should not be provided to such countries.

...

If the plebs had any power to influence politics, the players in the war economy might have cause for concern. Fortunately for them, the plebs have no actual influence over politics. At most they can decide which preselected candidate should occupy an office.

The doors of our temple of Janus remain open.  It's good for business.  We pay the cost in coin of the realm; those on the tip of the spear pay the cost in blood.

The key to the Bastille

It doesn't hang in the Bastille, which was torn down by a Parisian mob in 1789.  It hangs today in Mount Vernon, a gift from the Marquis de Lafayette to his friend and mentor, George Washington.  Washington stood against tyranny, as did Lafayette.

Yesterday, a Federal Judge dismissed charges against Cliven Bundy, "with prejudice" - meaning that the Department of Justice cannot refile the charges.  It seems that the prosecutors in the case hid evidence of governmental wrongdoing from Bundy's lawyers.

In a word, tyranny.  And to the Court's credit, tyranny that the Court ruled will not stand.  Perhaps there is hope for this Republic yet.  As Adam Smith wrote, there's a lot of ruin in a country.

Here is the story of the tyranny, from a post four years ago.  The wheels of Justice grind slowly.

--------------------------------------------------

The Bureau of Land Management's Bastille

Image via La Wik

July 1789 was a tumultuous time in Paris.  Discontent with the Royal regime had been building for decades and had reached the point where the King was forced to call a Constitutional Assembly.  But as the nobles, clergy, and bourgeoisie harangued each other, the people of Paris were growing increasingly restive.

And by "restive" I mean that mobs were spontaneously forming.  The most important of these was the mob that stormed and sacked the notorious Bastille prison on July 14.  The Bastille had an evil reputation and was seen by essentially everyone - educated and uneducated alike - as a symbol of a despotic and tyrannical government.  And so the mob broke the doors down and sacked it.  They paraded the head of its commander on a pike through the streets.

Image via La Wik

What is odd is that the perception was very different from the reality.  The Bastille had almost no prisoners housed in it.  Conditions for the prisoners were actually fairly comfortable, and fine dining among its noble prisoners (most of those incarcerated there) was the norm.  But the air was filled with discontent, and so wildly exaggerated books like Simon-Nicholas Linguet's Memories of the Bastille painted a lurid (if untrue) portrait of the place.  And so it was torn down.  Today's Place de la Concorde is all that remains of the site.

We have just see the US Government's Bureau of Land Management go through an experience similar to Louis XVI.  What was essentially a mob driven by a long-building sense of grievance stared down the King's Men in Nevada.

A number of people have rightly pointed out that Mr. Bundy is no Saint, and that legally he doesn't have a leg to stand on.  That's quite true.  It also isn't the point that is driving events.

What is driving events is something that would have been well understood by M. Linguet.  Mobs do not spontaneously form out of nothing, and the spark that lights the fire may have very little to do with reality.  His memoir was essentially a work of fiction; it was enormously influential nonetheless because the Government then had laid the groundwork building widespread resentment.

As has ours in this day.

All that remains of the Bastille is the key to its main gates, currently hanging on display at Mt. Vernon (it was a gift to George Washington from the Marquis de Lafayette).  That's all that's left of a feared symbol of Royal power - that and an annual national holiday in France.

Our Government has no idea what they have awakened, any more than Louis XVI had.  So far, it has played out without blood flowing in the streets.  I am pessimistic that this will continue for long.

Dilbert on voting machines

It doesn't matter who casts the votes.  It matters a lot who counts them.

Well, at least we can wear kilts

(via)

Damn kids

Silicon Graybeard lays it out.

Get offa my lawn, punks.

A conservative shifts to libertarian

Interesting:

I think conservatives have long been overly trusting of corporate and social power, usually assuming we'd be in control of it, so that we would be protected from any misuse thereof.

I think we are now suddenly discovering that was a terrible assumption to make, and that we should have been asking ourselves, all along: What if this power to gin up the forces of social conformity and legal bullying were not in our hands, but in fact used against us?

Well, if any conservatives were previously unaware of the danger of empowering scolds, busybodies, bureaucrats, and police to Make You Behave As The Group Thinks Is Proper, surely none can still be ignorant.

And a reflection on his transformation:

This is a time for clarity, and this is a time for choosing. This is a time to discover who it is who really supports Liberty and Freedom, and who it is who is really all about Control and Conformity.

For many years, many conservatives have really been more about the latter than the former. I have admitted, and I will continue to admit, I was among them. I have long had pronounced authoritarian and statist tendencies.

I fight against them now, like an alcoholic fights his lust for drink.

A long, but very interesting read.

Quote of the Day, Paris Terrorism Edition

How do you defeat terrorism?  Don't be terrorized.

- Salman Rushdie

I'd think he'd know something of this.  Think on this when you look on the works of Leviathan, and wont to despair.

Four years after l'affair TJIC

Four years ago a storm was brewing in Massachussets:

I've linked several times to posts over at the blog Dispatches from TJICistan.  TJIC is an outspoken (some might say extremely so) advocate of smaller government.  He's also a firearms owner in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.  While he owns guns, it appears that he's no longer allowed to possess any:

ARLINGTON (CBS) – A blog threatening members of Congress in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting has prompted Arlington police to temporarily suspend the firearms license of an Arlington man.

It was the headline “1 down and 534 to go” that caught the attention. “One” refers to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in the rampage, while 534 refers to the other members of the U.S. House and Senate.

Police are investigating the “suitability” of 39-year-old Travis Corcoran to have a firearms license

TJIC's blog is still down after all these years.  The bureaucrats won.

Foseti had a post a month previously that ironically quoted TJIC on the dynamic in play:

TJIC linking to a piece on bureaucracy:

In the long run the rule of aristocracy has been succeeded not by the rule of democracy but by the rule of bureaucracy. Let us examine this pallid aphorism a little more closely. If one does not like aristocracy one is, most probably, a democrat by preference; or the other way around. But one’s exasperation with bureaucracy is a different matter: it is at the same time more superficial and more profound than our dislike for either form of government. The democratic exercise of periodic elections does not compensate people sufficiently against their deep-seated knowledge that they are being ruled by hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats, in every level of government, in every institution, on every level of life.

These bureaucrats are not the trainees of a rigid state apparatus, or of capitalist institutions, as their caricatures during the nineteenth century showed them. They are the interchangeable, suburban men and women of the forever present, willing employees of the monster Progress

Progress!  I mean, you don't want to stand in the way of progress, do you?  Do you?

I want to vote for this guy for President in 2016

He even can discuss Adolf Hitler without triggering Godwin's Law.

It's a fair, err, cop

I guess this makes sense to an Objectivist Anarchist Total-Isolationist Nationalist Moderate ...

See? I'm a moderate

Via Joel, an interesting quiz on your positions.  Glad it labeled be a "moderate", or the DHS Men In Black might have wanted to start sniffing around.