The kids are all right

I was out gallivanting around on the bike and stopped at the local pub.  It's my "local" because I know most of the people and most of the people know me.  Don't know if that's a problem or not ...



But the cute barmaid's boyfriend was there, and we struck up a conversation.  He's WAY libertarian, and has a business selling these:

More anon, but I like the cut of this fellow's jib.  He might even do a t-shirt of this:

Like I said, I like the cut of this fellow's jib.  That barmaid can do a lot worse than him.

Choose the form of the Destructor

Santorum's out, and Newt hasn't a prayer, so now it really is down to Mittens vs. TheOne.  Yeah, yeah, R0N P4uL!!!! Like I said, it's Mittens or TheOne.

Decision time.

Here are some things to keep in mind as you choose the form of the Destructor:

1. The Economy won't get much better, no matter which of these doofuses plants his seat in the Oval Office.  It's regulation that's killing this country's economy, and Mittens is a not-quite-as-big-government as Barry.  A Romney administration will preside over a continued sputtering and no job growth, and all the "green shoots" that the Press so hopefully reports on will oddly disappear next January 20 if Mitt wins.

2. For most people, the issue is jobs.  If Romney wins, the Press will be nothing but "Jobless Recovery" (remember that from 2004?) for the next 4 years.  Without job growth, that will stick, and we very well may see Romney turned out after four years.

3. A Romney administration is no chip shot for Supreme Court nominees.  Ignore that given a chance he's likely to show his true G. H.W. Bush colors and appoint another Souter; if it looks like he might lose, the liberal justices might just stagger on for another four.  A Democratic successor to Romney might appoint as many as five Justices in his first term.  That would be a record since George Washington's time.

4. Mush from the wimp. Stick a fork in him, he's done.  The Obama campaign is ruthless, and what people have so far been interpreting as Mitt's steadiness is in reality ripe to be exploited by the Democrats.  Turn out the lights, the party's over ...

5. The action that counts is in the House and Senate races, but the action that really counts is almost over - running challengers against the too-comfortable Republican fat cats that don't care about what happens to the country as long as they get their chairmanships and earmarks.  Right now, confidence is not high.

And so, we only await The Sign.



Oops, somebody just chose Romney ...



Me, I'm sticking to my original plan.

Or maybe Cthulhu.  If I vote for him, maybe he'll devour me first.

UPDATE 11 April 2012 16:55: Robb says it with pictures.  Heh.

Napoleon's Sponge

The most confusing chart ever created

Retreating this day and the next,
We wonder'd when 's our battle, vext;
The veterans talk'd upset:
"What then? we 're off to winter dorms?
Go the commanders by new norms;
Daren't they rip foreign uniforms
On Russian bayonet?"

- Mikhail Lermontov, Borodino

Americans have a rather provincial view of the War of 1812.  We think of Ft. McHenry and the rocket's red glare, and the more honest of us recall the burning of the White House - an act for which we've been strangely negligent in thanking Great Britain.  While all that was going on, nearly three quarters of a million men were locked in hand to hand combat on the Russian steppe.

Napoleon had made himself master of Europe, with only two exceptions.  Nelson and the Royal Navy had stymied his plans to invade that nation of shopkeepers in the west.  To the east, the Czar refused to be cowed.  And so l'Empereur assembled nearly half a million men to break the last of the resistance under his heel.

Crossing the river Neman on 24 June, Napoleon's army reached - and occupied - Moscow less than 100 days later, having covered the distance on foot.  Hitler's panzers took five months to make that same journey, a century later.  The French seemed unstoppable, an irresistible force of nature, the wave of the future.  Napoleon didn't see that the entire campaign was leading his Grande Armeé into utter collapse.

His philosophy led to overreach, to the point where the fall was so sudden and so far that it changed the course of European history for a generation.  The Russians burned everything behind them in their retreat, leaving nothing for the French to eat.  Of the nearly half a million men he led into Russia in June, only 27,000 followed him back across the border in November - the width of the lines in the picture above represents the size of the army as it crossed Russia and back.  A Europe crushed and demoralized by French force of arms was suddenly in open revolt as subject kingdoms in Germany and Austria saw the weakening of their hated overlord.  Even Paris itself rose in a coup d'état.  Sixteen months after he invaded Mother Russia, the Battle of Nations ended Napoleon's dreams of a Europe safe for French culture.

The ancient Greeks knew that hubris led to nemesis.  So with Napoleon, who thought he had the subject kingdoms cowed.  Early victories - especially those where victory was not truly consolidated - led to a false sense of superiority, and a resulting disaster.  Disaster which can come astonishingly quickly.

The Progressive agenda has been ascendent for a century, carrying all before it in western societies.  It has seemingly marched from victory to victory, and Emperor Barack Obama led what was to have been the final assault on what little remained of resistance to the Progressive Cause.  Obama is encountering what Napoleon did - a scorched earth where territory "won" benefits the victors not at all.  This has been going on for some time, and is accelerating.  Consider the "victories" of the Progressives:

• Roe v. Wade.  Most States were already relaxing bans on abortion when a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court decision removed this topic from the political arena, deciding that it could not even be discussed by the elected representatives of the People.  Ever since, Progressives have lived as under siege, always feeling that they were but a single SCOTUS nominee from defeat.  They may be right, since more Americans self-identify as "pro-life" than as "pro-choice".
• Taxes.  Americans don't like them, never have, and aren't showing any inclination to change that view.  A majority want spending cuts, not higher taxes.  Only Progressives would be shocked at this.
• The Death of Environmentalism.  Cap and Trade is dead, and not even the Lightbringer could reanimate its corpse.  People oppose higher gasoline taxes, and strongly support the Keystone pipeline.  After a generation of pro-environment messages from a very liberal media, a majority of Americans do not self-identify as "environmentalists".
• Growing opposition to public employee unions. People don't really care, until it's a choice of higher taxes or union give backs.  Guess which wins?
• Gun Control.  Stick a fork in it.  Even Maryland courts won't uphold it, and even the Maryland Legislature won't vote for it.
• Affirmative Action.  Blacks and Hispanics like it, whites don't.  Color me shocked.  Blacks and Hispanics make up 25% of the population.
• The Rise of Libertarianism among the youth.  It's been said that if you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart.  R0n P4uL! would beg to differ.

Obamacare was the high water mark of the Progressive dream, equivalent to Napoleon's inconclusive "victory" at Borodino, where a quarter million men faced each other with grapeshot and bayonet, and 70,000 ended their campaign for good. Today Obama seems like Napoleon, looking upon the devastation that was Moscow and wondering how he can keep his army alive over the winter. 

He can't, and they're all deserting.  2010 saw the Democratic Party refuse to run on the "success" that was their biggest entitlement victory in a generation, because America increasingly hates it - to the point that 90% oppose the mandate to buy insurance.  That's not "50% plus one" where you can either convince people later or sweep it under the rug.  That's the time you start wondering if your party is the 1%.

The problem for Progressives is that Obama has let the mask slip.  He ran as a moderate who would reach across the aisle to get things done for America.  He's governed as a radical who is intentionally inflaming class warfare.  And so the Democratic Party finds itself in a crisis of legitimacy so profound that even the Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg can't avoid it:

But in smaller, more probing focus groups, voters show they are fairly cynical about Democratic politicians’ stands. They tune out the politicians’ fine speeches and plans and express sentiments like these: “It’s just words.” “There’s just such a control of government by the wealthy that whatever happens, it’s not working for all the people; it’s working for a few of the people.” “We don’t have a representative government anymore.”

But none of this has slowed the Administration, pushing stealth gun control via the ATF "Fast and Furious" operation, preventing oil drilling on public land or in the Gulf, or using the IRS to harass Tea Party organizations.  As Maréchal Ney said to Napoleon after Borodino, "Never let a crisis go to waste, even if you have to make the crisis."  (Err, I think I read that in a history book somewhere.)

And as we view the unfolding collapse of the Progressive vision in general and the Eurozone in particular, the Administration tells Congressional Democrats that they're on their own as far as fund raising is concerned.  Three years after receiving his Nobel Prize, the Emperor is leaving the advanced guard behind.   He's taking a sleigh away from the front lines to save his own chances, while they're expected to fall under Tea Party sabres in the snowy retreat.

Let me just put that last bit in perspective: Obama was the crowning achievement of a century of Progressive agitation by the Press and the Academy.  This was the final push to eliminate the last vestiges of opposition.  And he's leaving his army on the field to die in the 2012 elections.

And make no mistake - die they will.  The cossacks mercilessly butchered retreating French units, and the Tea Party, Republicans, and independents will do the same to the Democrats.  Quite frankly, there won't be any "moderate" Democrats left come November.  Greenberg sees that bloody end:

This distrust of government and politicians is unfolding as a full-blown crisis of legitimacy sidelines Democrats and liberalism. Just a quarter of the country is optimistic about our system of government — the lowest since polls by ABC and others began asking this question in 1974. But a crisis of government legitimacy is a crisis of liberalism. It doesn’t hurt Republicans. If government is seen as useless, what is the point of electing Democrats who aim to use government to advance some public end?

What's the point, indeed.  But you really see the big picture if you substitute "Progressives" for "Democrats".  The People have given the Progressives the chance to prove that big government run by an intellectual elite can deliver the goods.  The People have made up their minds.  Overreach has led to what will be a fall of stunning suddenness and magnitude, changing the political landscape for a generation or two.

And so, I find myself surprisingly optimistic.  Stick a fork in the Progressive vision - it's done.  Marketing professionals will tell you that once someone makes up their mind about something (or someone), it's terribly hard to change it.  Liberals rebranded a generation ago (back to "Progressive"), but Obama's run as a centrist govern as a radical strategy has raised the difficulty level of doing that again - raised it to the breaking point.  Short of a coup, Progressives are out of gas - and I don't for a second think that the military (or the States and the National Guard, or the People in their righteous wrath) would go along with Progressives in the street.

The Republican Party, of course, remains the Stupid Party, to the point where it leaves stupid prints on the carpet when it walks by.  The Tea Party and independents will have to hold their feet to the fire, because even a stupid politician can feel pain.  A lot of people are saying that it took us a long time to get here, and it will take us a long time to unwind this.  But the story has been written, and has solidified in the public's mind: the government is a bumbling idiot and is not to be trusted with more power and money.  There's your winning slogan.

The People believe it, because they've seen it.

What is it, that is best?  To crush your enemy's ideology, to see it driven from the airwaves, and to hear the lamentation of his Professors.  I think that the cossacks said it better in the original Russian*.

(Image source)

Napoleon is a torrent which as yet we are unable to stem. Moscow will be the sponge that will suck him dry.

- Mikhail Kutuzov

* The Czar of Muscovy emails with the original Russian: Что это, что лучше? Сокрушить идеологию моего врага, наблюдать он изгнан из эфира, и слышать причитания его профессоров. Я думаю что казаки сказал вещи лучше в оригинале русский язык. It's all Greek to me, but an Autocrat must know the language of command, nyet?

So what do you do about this Judge?

A bunch of folks are posting about the Judge who seems to think that using precedent from other countries that insulting Islam is a crime, some how isn't an establishment of Religion.  Everyone is pretty exercised with this guy, as they should be.

I left a comment at Old NFO's place saying that this is a Judge who shouldn't be drawing a paycheck from the taxpayers.  I didn't make up that line, I got it here:



The part directly applicable starts at about 5:20, but the whole thing is worth watching.  Newt is inconsistent, and seems undisciplined as often as not.  But when he's on his game - as he is here - he shows that he is the only one who can take the true battle to the opposition: to show not just that their policy is wrong, but that it is fundamentally immoral.

What is it that is best?  To crush your enemy's ideology, to see it driven from the airwaves, and to hear the lamentation of his Professors.

Romney won't do this.  Ron Paul tries, but can't make it understandable to the mass of the voters.  Santorum doesn't try.  There's your field: inconsistent, missing in action, incoherent, and hors de combat.  But make no mistake - this is a battle of ideologies, not personalities.

Ten years

Predictions are hard, especially about the future.  Ten years from now, I'd be happy if my predictions had weathered the passing of a decade as well as these.  We still won't talk about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.



Newt and Christopher Hitchens on the War on Terror, from July 2002.  Ron Paul should listen to this.  Twice.

This blog kills Fascists

Woodie Guthrie was a Red - he lived in the "Red Hill" district of Los Angeles in the 1930s (a neighborhood notorious for the concentration of radicals), and wrote a column for the Communist Party's Daily Worker newspaper.  He was a reliable Red, willing to be an apologist for the U.S.S.R.'s non-aggression pact with Hitler.

All that changed on June 1, 1941, as Operation Barbarossa saw the Nazi supermen storming across the border into Guthrie's Mother Russia.  He took some paint and wrote on his guitar: This machine kills fascists.

It's probably unfair to blame him for not recognizing that fascists fought on both sides of the Eastern Front.  Stalin paid lip service to the Socialist Dialectic, and the West's Useful Idiots (like Guthrie) let him get away with it, but the U.S.S.R. was fascist in all but name.  Non-Russians were second class citizens (as the population on Ukraine found out to their sorrow), the State controlled everything, and above all was the all-seeing, all-powerful fuhrer (well, General Secretary).

But Woodie knew how to get an idea popularized, and did.

We live today in a political world that people from Woodie's time simply wouldn't recognize.  The growth in the Leviathan State is steam rolling all before it - the War on (some) Drugs is crushing the Fourth Amendment, Kelo v. New London crushed the Fifth Amendment, Medicare is killing the Tenth Amendment.  Obamacare is killing the First Amendment.  The Second Amendment has - for now - fought off a series of restrictions from 1968 through 1994 that sought to kill it.  That battle is still raging.

On one side of those battles stand the People, trying to protect their rights as recognized in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  On the other side are the fascists*, seeking to establish the Leviathan State above all.  Everything within the State; nothing outside it.  Thankfully without all the boxcar and Concentration Camp drama, but fascists nonetheless.

Both Dinosaur political parties are allied in the fascist struggle.  With the exception of the lack of furherprinzip (the embodiment of the People's Will in the person of a strong leader) and the lack of nationalism as an organizing principle (the two parties are somewhat divergent here, but only somewhat), all the fascist principles are prominent:

• Subordination of industry to political direction (Sarbanes-Oxley, Military Industrial Complex, Solyndra)
• Subordination of the People to political direction (public education, TSA, NDAA, No Child Left Behind)
• Subordination of independent organizations to political direction (McCain-Feingold, Obamacare)

The system is not Socialist - the Government does not own the means of production, nor does it want to.  What it wants is for industry to fall into line, doing what it's told in return for favors and avoidance of punishment.  What the Government wants is for us to fall into line, doing what we're told in return for favors and avoidance of punishment.  What the Government wants is for independent organizations to fall into line, doing what they're told in return for favors and avoidance of punishment.

That system is fascist.

I'm afraid that I'm not big on the "compliance" part of this, and so must respectfully** decline our Governmental Overlord's offer.  And so, I'm going Woodie Guthrie.  I'd like to invite all y'all to join me.

This blog kills fascists, by pointing out who they are, what they do, and who it hurts.  This Land is your land and my land - not their land.  We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, despite the best efforts of the fascists to take them away.  And so, here are the fascists:

(via Wikipedia)

Fascist.  Obamacare, gun running to Mexican Drug Lords (to blame American Gun Stores), nationalizing the auto industry, targeting Americans for execution without trial.  In 2008 he was looking like he had that furherprinzip swagger down pat; fortunately, that looks like it's a bit stale.

(via Wikipedia)

Fascist.  Romneycare, politics of personal destruction (negative campaigning), "saved" the Olympics by getting a huge Government bailout.  Buddies with Ted Kennedy.  Also more gay than Twilight, and so might be our first gay fascist President.

(Via Wikipedia)

Fascist.  Couch potato with Nancy Pelosi to get Cap 'n' Tax passed.  Talks a Freedom Agenda but is happy to "go along to get along".  Balanced the budget by cleverly causing the Internet bubble and convincing 50 year old Boomers not to retire.  Kind of too bad, because many of his ideas are strongly compelling from a personal libery perspective.  But actions speak louder than Youtube clips.

(Via Wikipedia)

Fascist.  What, you need it spelled out?  Seriously?  OK, big Government, big spender, wants to meddle in your personal business.  No friend of Fourth or Tenth Amendments, at the very least.

(Via Wikipedia)

Not a fascist.  He may be a Wookie, but he's the only non-fascist on offer here.  Of course that means that he doesn't have a chance as both political parties will unite to crush him.  He doesn't stand much chance, but is doing his part like Woodie Guthrie did, getting the message out.

The Tea Party?  Might be fascist, might not be.  Might get coopted by the fascists in the future.  There's a lot of money in fascist government, if you're the government.  Time will tell.

So what does all this mean?  It means that we need to get the message out, to sing the message from the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream Water.  The chains may sit lightly upon you (for now), but chains they are.  It was Woodrow Wilson (perhaps the first fascist President) who laid it out, starkly:

Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty.

Sorry, no thanks.  Keep your nose out of my business.  I'll keep singing the anti-fascist song, thank you very much.  I'll call them for what they are, as we all need to: Fascists.  Nice fascists (maybe), but fascists nonetheless.  Both  parties.

Feel free to use the image, and sing the song.  This land was made for you and me.

* Before anyone freaks out, I guess I need to point out (again) that you can be a fascist without gassing Jews and that sort of thing. Mussolini (the Father of Fascism) didn't.  Franco didn't.  Peron didn't.  Oh, yeah - FDR didn't, although he did put Japanese-Americans in Concentration Camps.  But they were nice Concentration Camps, and FDR was a God Among Men.  A fuhrer, you might say.  That's what they teach in school. 

** OK, that was sarcasm.  Nothing respectful at all there, actually.

You have no chance to survive. Make your time.

The Czar of Muscovy brings some good points about the election (although I'd like him to show his work a bit more; then again, I'm an amateur quant).  Alas, I'm not sure that I quite agree with his conclusions.  First, to the easy bit:

1. He is entirely correct that Romney would make a much better (not to mention less dangerous) POTUS than Obama II.

2. He is entirely correct that Romney would likely make a better POTUS than either Santorum or Gingrich, although they would either of them be an upgrade from Obama II.

3. He is correct that a Republican Congress will be hard pressed to restrain Obama II, and that Congress may even flip back Democratic in 2014.

Here's the problem: it's not Obama, it's Obama's world view.  He's just particularly ruthless in pushing it aggressively.  Obama isn't alone: he has the entire Intelligentsia on his side, the MSM, the European Elites, the international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).  They're all in the same tribe, which believes that things should be run by them, with a strong, interventionist government in charge (run by them, 'natch), and with the peons givering deference where it's due (to them, 'natch).

Romney's in that tribe.  So's Newt, and probably Santorum.  And 60% of the Republican Party.  Only Ron Paul explicitly rejects that world view.

Essentially, it's the Blue State model - although we need to recognize that all of Europe is deeper Blue than even Massachusetts.  Here's the crisis: the Blue model is collapsing.

It's falling apart all over the world as the State finds that it's spent too much on the wrong things, and that buying off the proles to keep them in line has gone as far as it can.  There has been massive deficit spending for a long time, and now whole chunks of the Progressive Edifice are simply starting to fall off - indeed, Greece will leave the Eurozone in a matter of months, declare a massive default on their government bonds (likely losing 80% of their nominal value), and return to the Drachma.

Of course, then there will be no more deficit spending (who on earth would buy their bonds?) and the Blue Paradigm will join the Aeropagus as obscure Greek history trivia.  Greece, of course, will be joined by others in Europe, and the United States.  What's the over/under on when Illinois defaults on their State bonds?  California?

The problem with the GOP is that they have been junior members of the Blue tribe for the past quarter century.  The crises of the next four years are crises of this Blue model:

• Social spending (entitlements) approaching 80% of government revenue.
• Trillion dollar a year deficits as far as the eye can see.
• Slow business investment due to massive uncertainties (tax policy and the strength of the financial markets will play a major role here).

Most importantly, you will have the Paul Krugmans of the world telling us that the obvious answer is more of what got us to this point, only bigger.  You'll have an Intelligentsia that, while likely less wedded to the success of Obama in 2013 (hey, they got him re-elected, right?) won't be ready to declare the defeat of their Statist world view.

So the question is, who is the best man for the job of POTUS, if our long term goals are (a) change this Blue world view to something sane) and then (b) fix entitlements before we join Greece?

I think that the answer is that we want Barack Obama to be in the Oval Office as the Blue Model comes crashing down.

You see, Romney will roll up his sleeves and try to fix things, but his fixes are likely to be at least a little sane, and so he'll get savaged by the Intelligentsia saying Paul Krugman sez we need a 3 Trillion dollar stimulus!!eleventy!

And so when the bottom inevitably falls out, Romney will take the blame, not Obama.  And we'll go back for another round of Blue Model on steroids, because nobody will want to trim Social Security and everyone will be invested in stupid Romney screwed everything up.

If the O-Man is there another 4, they won't have this - particularly if he rules via regulation, not legislation (as is entirely likely).

And so, we have no chance to survive, until the Left decides that maybe this isn't such a good idea.  If we're lucky, they'll figure this out as Europe and a couple States crater but the rest stagger on.

My view is that we are better off (long term) taking the massive hit that will be another Obama term, getting it over with, and then picking up the pieces of the collapsed Blue (Democrat and GOP) statist model.  We need to make our time, or perhaps Zig for Great Justice.



Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, do not remove tag under penalty of law.

Is Ron Paul angling for a cabinet seat?

It's quite interesting that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are not going after each other - both are directing their fire at Newt.  What's in it for them?

Mitt clearly benefits by not antagonizing Paul's supporters, where passion and loyalty runs high.  In the General election, he's going to need them, and the Tea Partiers, too. Both dislike him, because he's an establishment insider.  But if he gets Paul on board, that sends a powerful signal to both those groups that some sort of change is inevitable.  Paul is in his 70s, and so this would be a chance for him to put his stamp on something in the years left to him.

So which cabinet post would Mitt offer up, hypothetically speaking?  There's quite a balancing act that has to happen:

1. No scaring the establishment, which means that State, Justice, Treasury, Defense, and (sadly) Homeland Security are out.  Too much boat rocking in places where they want the status quo.

2. It has to be important enough to attract Paul and his supporters, which means that Interior and the like are out.  Agencies that have grown quickly and intrusively over the past 10 years in particular seem like they might benefit from a Secretary Paul.

So which might fit the constraints?  Health and Human Services comes to mind, as the Obamacare legislation vests huge power in the Secretary - he could gut the bill like a trout.

Feel free to leave your suggestion in the comments.

Acceptance speeches

Mitt Romney:

My fellow Americans,

This great country, which I love, and which you love, and which we love together; which I love because you love; God Bless America.

Thank you, and good night.

Newt Gingrich:

Here are 19 great ideas that I should have come out with a month ago.  Internet insurgency.  Follow me on Twitter.

Rick Santorum:

Thanks for all your support for my daughter in the hospital [this was very touching - Borepatch].  Here's a bunch of stuff that will leave a bad taste in your mouth.

R0N P4uL!!!1!:

I'm the Howard Dean of the GOP. End the Fed!

I think I got that all about right.

With all due respect to Kevin ...

... I humbly submit my version instead of his.