Good morning.

1. Grist for the solipsist.
2. Well there you go, the “best case (straw man) argument against gay marriage is unsustainable.” Who’d have thought that straw man arguments were so weak.
3. Why the “H” sound in Greek is just a diacritical mark at the start of the word.
4. The real question is why liberals self label as the “reality based party”.
5. A first question here … try this experiment. Go to a gym with a heavy bag. Start punching. See how much and how hard you have to punch … until you get a quarter inch cut on your knuckles. Then consider that bag was man and the damage you just did to it. Now … requite for me how you can figure the laceration on his hands were trivial.
6. Don’t try this at home.
7. Headscarves.
8. Well, you are correct, you are not supposed to say that. Uhm, so don’t.
9. Almost solipsism. Let’s see, what might “agnostic about the existence of the world” mean? Solipsism would be the akin to “atheism over existence” what then is agnosticism?
10. Mr Scalzi started this, I’d have thought “Feminist Philospher’s” would see the problem, but they didn’t. Here’s a hint … the problem is equating winning/success with money and power and not with happiness.
11. “I don’t know” is often followed by “but I can google.”
12. “What I said” … in contrast with our President who has the advantage of having said the opposite as well.
13. I’m unclear on why the disgust. Isn’t that just a chance for testing and witness?
14. The quicksand’s viscosity just lowered for Ms Warren, see here and here.
15. Dating with a bucket of sand with fleas.
16. A song to finish.

At long last …

1. Texting without sight a method … while driving?
2. Of practicing and preaching.
3. So it it witless flaunting of due process or with cognizance?
4. Of ancient arithmetics and modern computers.
5. My name, sinking into obscurity?
6. Well, it may or may not be indicative of Mr Romney’s future prospects, but it certainly says a lot about Mr Obama’s credibility where budget talks are concerned, batting 0 for 600+.
7. I’m skeptical.
8. More micro economics of ranching.
9. Evil?
10. Mercantilism in the White House.
11. Not the Giligan’s Island tour.

Rarely do you get a pair of situations so similar at the same point in time that allows you to compare and contrast the policies used to deal with it. But we have one with California and New Jersey.

In his January 2011 inaugural address, California Gov. Jerry Brown declared it a "time to honestly assess our financial condition and make the tough choices." Plainly the choices weren’t tough enough: Mr. Brown has just announced that he faces a state budget deficit of $16 billion—nearly twice the $9.2 billion he predicted in January. In Sacramento Monday, he coupled a new round of spending cuts with a call for some hefty new tax hikes.

In his own inaugural address back in January 2010, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also spoke of making tough choices for the people of his state. For his first full budget, Mr. Christie faced a deficit of $10.7 billion—one-third of projected revenues. Not only did Mr. Christie close that deficit without raising taxes, he is now plumping for a 10% across-the-board tax cut.

It’s not just looks that make Mr. Brown Laurel to Mr. Christie’s Hardy. It’s also their political choices.

Each had a huge deficit going in, but New Jersey is coming out of this looking far, far better than California.

Hard economic times bring their own lessons. Though few have been spared the ravages of the last recession and the sluggish recovery, those in states where taxes are light, government lives within its means, and the climate is friendly to investment have learned the value of the arrangement they have. They are not likely to give it up.

Meanwhile, leaders in some struggling states have taken notice. They know the road to fiscal hell is paved with progressive intentions. The question regarding the sensible ones is whether they have the will and wherewithal to impose the reforms they know their states need on the interest groups whose political and economic clout is so closely tied with the public purse.

The same goes for the next presidential election.

Alasadair MacIntyre in his book Whose Justice Whose Rationality demonstrates using ancient political divisions to illustrate how, when meta-ethical differences between groups arise conversation between those groups is difficult. Well, perhaps “difficult” is putting it mildly. We see this today as it unfolds in conversations between those in different sides of the political aisle. Highly paid commenter Boonton on this blog noted recently that the only good arguments concerning SSM are on the pro-SSM side, there are no arguments and only avoidance of the same seen from the right. My response was that the left side of the aisle perceives it this way because they insist on a “small playground”, only debating this issue in the context of their particular meta-ethical context and refusing to step outside. And yes, by analogy, if you assume flat 2-dimensional Euclidean geometry there is no good way to dispute that the the interior angle of a triangle sum to pi. But all geometries are not 2-d Euclidean, in fact the world we live is not. So what follows will be an attempt to bridge that divide, to give a glimpse to the left the basics of the marriage debate as seen from the right. Be warned however, in crossing this bridge there are always hermenuetical difficulties, when speaking across meta-ethical and foundational divisions the same words can be viewed from different context and what is said can easily be misunderstood. That is to say, bear with me … and this gets a little longer than the usual essay … so the rest is below the fold…

Read the rest of this entry

Good morning.

1. Words, authors, and locations.
2. Comin’ at ya.
3. In the wrong black book, recall that one thesis I’m exploring is happiness and individual/wealth based societies vs family/shame based one. Chalk this one up for the family crowd.
4. The budget limit zombie rises again.
5. Let’s see … is it ethical? Is it ethical to drive a model of car that, by comparison, gets better mileage, offers better control, and is substantially cheaper. Is it ethical to not do so?
6. One prediction put down for the record (by a conservative who advocates voting for the sitting President no less).
7. Harvard Law’s minority member.
8. Not a good sign when your model looks quite embarrassed to be there.
9. Will there be an apologetic response from the left?
10. Which one should be coy about admitting belonging?
11. In which little substance is code for full of lies and BS.
12. Food for thought.
13. Bureaucrats, credentialed or not, aren’t the inventors, developers, scientists, and engineers who have (or don’t have) the credentials that actually matter.
14. A glass floor in an unusual setting.
15. On that texting-while-driving crises.

In Europe, it is supposedly "austerity" measures that are killing their economy. Now, let me ask you this, does this look like austerity to you?

No, me neither. And yet ballot after ballot in Europe is turning out those who pushed for fiscal responsibility. When you’re in a hole, especially a financial one, stop digging. Call Dave Ramsey and cut up your credit card. But experiments with socialism always sound like the Pied Piper, until the bill comes due. By then, everyone is addicted to the "freebies" and there’s no turning back.

Austerity is the answer, but liberal economists always seem to think that government spending is the answer, not the problem, and that austerity leads to all sorts of problems. Except that, when the United States tried it, against the liberal naysayers’ warnings, it worked.

This is what austerity looks like.

After the huge spending during World War II, the US got seriously austere, with regards to government spending. What happened?

Superstar economist and devout Keynesian Paul Samuelson—later to become the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics—predicted such shock austerity would cause “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.” That dire, disastrous prediction was widely held by his fellow Keynesians, with one even predicting an “epidemic of violence.”

Except the doomsayers were wrong, even though Washington obviously ignored Samuelson’s call for gradual spending reductions. Despite cuts which dwarfed those seen in the EU today—not to mention those Republicans are calling for here at home—the U.S. economy thrived. There was no mass unemployment despite rapid demobilization of the armed forces.

(Yeah, another Keynesian, Nobel-prize-winning economist predicted doom. How much more of a parallel with Paul Krugman do you need?)

Don’t say that austerity won’t work, when you haven’t really tried it, and it’s worked in the past.

Good morning.

1. Same sex marriage and cricket races … or gosh why are the polls always so wrong (and for political science types … apparently “because polls are astoundingly inaccurate instruments” is not the answer. It’s why we call them cricket races after all.).
2. Mr Krugman beats his wife less these days. Oh, wait that was supposed to be this link. I think however the logical fallacy is the same.
3. Domino effects.
4. A Greek popular singer and a change of lifestyle.
5. The atheist worldview and similarities to fatalism.
6. In our money based culture … putting a value on the homemaker.
7. Of guns, control, and revolution.
8. Soteriology.
9. Income inequality.
10. Trade and a book.
11. How to effectively help the third world.
12. Headlines and unintended consequences (predicted).
13. Heh.

Four days later, and this item is old news, but Obama coming out of the closet and no longer hiding (what we all knew was) his stance on same-sex marriage is going to have political ramifications. I daresay that was the intent. But his religious reasons for his view seem to me to be very flimsy, more of a fig leaf to try to keep goodwill with the majority of Christians and Jews who believe this is wrong.

Here are some of his reasons:

[Michelle and I] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.

"Christ sacrificed Himself. We should treat others the way we want to be treated. Therefore, same-sex marriage is good." With that sort of "deep" theological thought, one could rationalize any number of behaviors that the Bible is rather clear on. But once more for emphasis:

Genesis 2:24 – For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Pretty clear to me. And again, as I have noted before,

• Every time the Bible mentions homosexuality, it is speaking against it.
• Every time the Bible mentions marriage, it is heterosexual.
• Thousands of years of Christian and Jewish thought understand this.

But for Mr. Obama, personal experience trumps all of that.

“I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word ‘marriage’ was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth.

“But I have to tell you that over the course of several years, as I’ve talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in in­cred­ibly committed monogamous same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf, and yet feel constrained even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone because they’re not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

"Some of my best friends are gay. Therefore, same-sex marriage is a good thing." I’m sorry, but quoting the Bible is not the same as following it, especially when it says things in the most definite of terms that are diametrically opposed to what you are suggesting it says.

This may be helping Obama in the short term (he got a surge of donations soon after the pronouncement), but in the long term, this may hurt him with African-American and Latino voters. It’s time to take notice of the actual values of the man you may be voting for.

Good morning.

1. Some of the pictures are very funny.
2. Is it that all government expenditures not created equal?
3. This is interesting … apparently antisemitism is a PR problem for the Jews, nothing at all wrong with those who hold or promote those notions. It’s the Jews fault. Strange, a fellow and his family can go to church for decades and hear not almost nothing about same sex, well, anything. Wonder where these people get those notions? Perhaps its not from inside the church, but external slanders? (Replace “Christian” with “Jew” and “antihomosexual” with, well, whatever antisemites gripe about and see if you think the reaction by Mr Schraub would be place the blame on the Jews).
4. Here is more the sort of thing you actually hear in churches.
5. A spy and his cover. In the Bush admin the left went ballistic over the “outing” of Ms Plame … this undercover operative … do you hear the outrage? Neither do I. Perhaps the outrage was political and not about the loss of cover by leaking data to the press? Odd that.
6. Occupy and their faux outrage against big corporations.
7. Dark shadows, then and now and the missing monsters (or monstrous).
8. Our moral president, always doing right by the people.
9. Boys schools and context for the Romney bully kerfuffle.
10. Social construction and empire.
11. Disabilities and happiness.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, who (supposedly) goes after hate groups, admit, “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.” Once again, it’s all political with the Left. Hate is only hate if it’s right-wing hate.

Life is wasted without Jesus. That’s a pretty benign Christian aphorism. You can agree or disagree, but is it hate speech? It is in Canada.

The Post Office, supposedly, allegedly privatized, is going to cost the taxpayers $34 billion dollars. It could cut costs, but Congress won’t let it.

A 20+ year study proves conclusively that outlawing abortion does not lead to "coat hanger deaths". Bonus: NARAL co-founder admits they made up numbers to garner sympathy for their cause.

Foiled bomb plots: Occupy Wall Street – 1, Tea Party – 0. The same goes for dozens of incidents (enumerated at the link) that, had they happened at a Tea Party rally, would have headlined national news for day. (I know this because charges of racial epithets with no actual proof did just that.)

VP Joe Biden lauds NBC for moving American towards same-sex marriage. How? “I think ‘Will & Grace’ probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody’s ever done so far.” The next time someone tells you "It’s just a TV show" or "Just change the channel" for complaining about TV show content, ask them to get a new writer. The old script is a lie.

And speaking of same-sex marriage, Nancy Pelosi seems to think that her religion provides the reason why she must act against her religion on the matter.

For what it’s worth, "An official from Iran has refuted claims of plans to execute imprisoned pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, who has been imprisoned for almost three years on accusations of apostasy, a crime where one disaffiliates themselves from a religion." This from a country not even holding to its own laws regarding the case.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for Julia.

Extremists? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. And here’s an article I wrote in 1996 regarding another right-wing extremist you’re sure to know.

Looks like Mitt Romney’s school days will be vetted by the media more than Obama’s ever was. Too bad their first attempt failed so badly.

And finally, the recent European elections in perspective. (Click for a larger image.)

Good morning.

1. Epistemic insight into that road to serfdom?
2. By your fruit (or not exactly fruit)?
3. Is this on the up and up?
4. Half our electricity … gone? or gone from mind of the left?
5. Hey! I thought Mr Gowers was done with the entertainment. There’s more fun!
6. Saint von Bingen, here and here.
7. Of art, beauty and flaws.
8. Why the horn?
9. Why bother read the fine print … he isn’t an honest speaker in the first place.
10. A language found.
11. A grease, err, Greece fire?
12. An economic indicator?
13. A top ten list.
14. You sir, might be an idiot, I however am a fool.
15. Tombstone.
16. Wind damage.
17. Flexibility and pessimism (or is it realism).

Good morning.

1. Irrespective of the contents of this particular debate, I think Ms Althouse is spot on in noting that any argument that depends/blends on personal anecode is cheapened and weakened. So why is it so often used?
2. Of tea leaves and primaries.
3. And this primary? What of it?
4. A revenue neutral tax? Hows that work? Sounds like no tax at all. Or a linguistic dodge. You can have a revenue neutral tax policy, which entails manipulations of a number of different taxes raising some and lowering others. But you can’t, for example, enact a revenue new tax and have it not be 0. That’s mathematically impossible.
5. A long way of saying pointing out what should be obvious, that the high wage earning management types … work really hard. The pretense is that they don’t work or work very little. That’s amazingly far from the truth.
6. Our state considers its next encroachments on freedom.
7. Reading this, I was wondering if never-had-cable are considered akin to cable cutters?
8. 900k signatures for recall, 1/3 of which didn’t bother even voting in the primary. Odd that.
9. Wrapping up our maths fun for the last week or so.
10. Oh, stop trying to make sense of political rhetoric.
11. Fashion.

Item 1: North Carolina, as expected, put the definition of "marriage" into their state Constitution, so that judges and legislator alike who seem to have forgotten it could be reminded. When the Left insists on redefining words, don’t be surprised when the Right meets you on that battlefield, with common sense armed and ready.

Item 2: The Tea Party has been tarred with the charge that they are just Republicans mad at having a black, Democratic President. And yet, in Indiana, the Tea-Party-backed candidate for US Senate challenged and handily beat the white, Republican 36-year veteran in the party’s primary. It is not, and has never been, about race or party. It has always been about policy. If it was about party, running the perennial favorite is what they would have done. But Richard Lugar has lost touch with conservatives in Indiana, and with the Tea Party in full swing, they did something about it.

News/Blog items:

Tea Party Senate Candidate Richard Mourdock Wins; Gay Marriage Loses

Mourdock victory = Tea Party victory

A Terrible, No Good, Awful Night for Barack Obama

Six-term Senate veteran Lugar defeated in Indiana primary

N.C. to add marriage amendment to its constitution

The regrettable Mr Edwards, whom the Democrats just recently discovered, is something of a slime-weasel, is in the news as he is accused of campaign finance “irregularities.” Additionally, the left is up and arms over the high court’s rejection of restrictions on corporate contributions to campaigns. Additionally, we have a problem with our deficit. I have a solution for all three.

Let’s get rid of all campaign finance restrictions. Campaign contributions will be considered, in my proposal, as a contribution directly to the person who is running. He can use those funds however he might see fit, for vacations in the South Pacific, an extension on his house, or for campaign ads, campaign gewgaws and literature, or other campaign related activities. This will have several benefits.

1. No silly court related cases like the above.
2. People will think twice about contributing to people of low character.
3. Contributions will be taxed as income (likely as aggressively as lottery income), and as a result, will have a positive impact on our deficit far greater than the “tax-the-rich” proposals on the table.

So, there you go. Campaign finance irregularities. Solved. Everybody can go home happy now.

Or not.

Good morning.

1. Starting on a lighter note …
2. Moving to a patriotic one, albeit not for my country but the sentiments translate (literally).
3. Which leads to my question, not exactly about any particular point made by the linked essay, but on the same topic. So many people, and they might be right for all I know, equate political success directly with campaign spending. How does that work? Just about every ad I’ve seen for candidate A (bought by/paid for by candidate A) shifts me more toward the other side. Every call from candidate A makes me more annoyed with him than not. So how then does spending translate into votes?
4. Love your neighbor dude. Try it.
5. Choice.
6. Can you imagine? Government obstruction? Golly.
7. More here, of a different sort.
8. Ho hum? I didn’t see this in any papers. Have you? How about on your other news sources? Why? Why not?
9. Right on the heels of Mr Obama’s speech announcing victory over al-Qaeda.
10. That pay disparity.
11. And some more maths fun.
12. One way to cool your thirst on a long ride. Not the usual way however.
13. A bookend, back to the light with a contrast of sorts.