Going Galt - The Ayn Rand Factor and the Atlas Shrugged Movie

Robert Tracinski is one of the best Objectivist writers on the scene so I was very interested when I recieved this 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' movie review from him in my inbox. In short, he is glad the film was made but thought it should have been of higher quality.

I have seen the film, at an advanced screening arranged by the producers, and I am afraid that it is a pale shadow of the book. A friend of mine calls it "a Roman copy of a Greek original," a reference to the Roman empire's penchant for copying Greek sculptures of gods and heroes--but when you compare the copy and the original side by side, you inevitably find that the energy in the limbs has gone slack and the life has gone out of the eyes. The details are reproduced, but the animating spirit has been lost.

This same combination--vaporous leftist "idealism" and cynical looting by gangster government, all of it wrapped up in appeals to "sacrifice"--might remind you of an important political leader in today's environment.

The movie's greatest signifance, according to Tracinski, is its relationship with the TEA Party.

The Tea Party movement began, in last 2008 and early 2009, during a huge surge in interest in Ayn Rand's masterwork, when talk of "going Galt"--a reference to one of the novel's heroes--sent Atlas Shrugged back onto the best-seller lists after more than 50 years. The two phenomena are connected. The financial crisis and the giant government bailouts sparked a renewed interest in Ayn Rand's intellectual and literary defense of capitalism, and in turn Atlas Shrugged helped give ideological confidence to the nascent Tea Party movement. Now the Tea Parties and their supporters have repaid the favor by winning a 300-theater opening for the small, unheralded film version of the novel. [emphasis mine]

[For the hopelessly obsessed, such as myself, I've posted the entire article including original hyperlinks below.]

TIA Daily • April 14, 2011

FEATURE ARTICLE

Going Galt

The Ayn Rand Factor and the Atlas Shrugged Movie

by Robert Tracinski

After more than 50 years, a movie version of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's perennially best-selling pro-capitalist epic in finally coming to the big screen—but through the strangest route possible.

That the film hasn't been made long ago, despite being one of world's most successful literary properties, is surprising—but not too surprising. No, it's not because the novel is difficult to adapt to the screen, as you will sometimes hear from both its critics and its admirers. Yes, the book has long, complex exchanges of dialogue that have to be ruthlessly condensed. But Ayn Rand started out her career—in the 1920s through the 1940s—as a Hollywood screenwriter, working for such legends as Cecil B. DeMille and Hal Wallis. She wrote her novels in a very cinematic style, with stark visuals, sharp exchanges of dialogue, and peaks of high drama. She gave a director everything he could ask for to keep the audience in their seats: visually beautiful settings from the skyline of New York City to the mountains of Colorado, large-scale action scenes set on railroad lines and in steel mills, big ideas expressed in sharp-witted exchanges of dialogue—and, of course, passionate love scenes with handsome leading men and beautiful leading ladies.

If you can't figure out how to make a good movie out of all of that, then brother, you don't know your own business.

Hollywood, as many of us have long suspected, does not know its own business. Plenty of big-name directors, writers, producers, and stars expressed interest over the years. But whether it was the pro-free-market politics, the larger-than-life heroic characters, or the big philosophical ideas, the book forced modern Hollywood outside its comfort zone, and no one was able or willing to figure out what to do with it.

So the version that comes to us now is one that was hastily put together at the last minute, with only weeks to go before the film rights lapsed. It has a small budget, no recognizable stars, an inexperienced director, and a script co-written by a producer with no literary or artistic experience whatsoever. The resulting film was unable to find a major distributor, so even though it was scheduled for April 15—a perfect symbolic date for a protest against big government—the movie was originally set to open only in a dozen small "art" theaters in a few big cities.

That was about six weeks ago. Then something remarkable happened.

Atlas Shrugged is set to open tomorrow in 300 theaters across the country. True, that's still a fraction of the opening distribution for a big blockbuster—but it's an awfully big fraction. This means that the film won't just be opening in a few big cities but will play in quite a number of towns across the heartland. Places like Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, and Lakeville, Minnesota. In politics, we ask: but will it play in Peoria? Yes, it will, at the Grand Prairie 18 in Peoria, Illinois.

More remarkable is how this happened: as a result of grass-roots pressure and agitation from fans of the novel. This allowed the producers, who decided to self-distribute the film, to convince many local theater operators to give the movie a chance.

I know from local experience that a lot of this pressure came from Tea Party groups or individual Tea Party members, many of whom have taken inspiration from the novel, so this huge jump in distribution has to be seen as the latest success—and as a show of strength, numerical and ideological—for the Tea Party movement.

I have never seen a film spread through this kind of grassroots groundswell of enthusiasm, with zero support from movie critics, cultural elites, or celebrities. This is all the more remarkable because most of the people clamoring for the film are doing so sight unseen. So we have to interpret this as an enormous demonstration of support for Ayn Rand's novel, which readers hope will be faithfully adapted in the film.

I have seen the film, at an advanced screening arranged by the producers, and I am afraid that it is a pale shadow of the book. A friend of mine calls it "a Roman copy of a Greek original," a reference to the Roman empire's penchant for copying Greek sculptures of gods and heroes—but when you compare the copy and the original side by side, you inevitably find that the energy in the limbs has gone slack and the life has gone out of the eyes. The details are reproduced, but the animating spirit has been lost.

The movie does not adulterate or rewrite the ideological content of the novel. Rather, the script has a tendency to take Ayn Rand's complex and original characters and reduce them to Hollywood clichés. Yes, you read that right. Contrary to the usual literary smears against Rand, it is her characters who are fresh and complex, while it is Hollywood's stock heroes and villains who are two-dimensional cardboard cutouts. The novel's version of Lillian Rearden, for example, is a fascinating study in how the left uses its pose of moral and intellectual superiority to keep the people who do the actual thinking and the actual work—the world's innovators and wealth-creators—intimidated and suppressed. Lillian's goal is to prevent these men from expressing pride in their achievement and to make them eager to demonstrate their subservience to their "progressive" overlords. She does this in high society by using her husband's money and position to support a salon of leftist artists and intellectuals. Much more memorably, she does it at home by subjecting her husband—an innovative, self-made steel tycoon—to a constant drumbeat of emotional abuse intended to make him feel that business, like sex, is not a subject to be mentioned in polite company. (He eventually learns to question both of those assumptions.) Lillian Rearden is a totally original yet instantly recognizable archetype of manipulative power-lust—yet in the film, she is reduced to not much more than a catty trophy wife of the type we've seen many times before. So Hollywood found a way back to its comfort zone, after all.

Unfortunately, this persistent flaw takes a good deal of the ideological and dramatic punch out of the story and may leave some new viewers of the film wondering what all of the fuss is about. I hope they take the time to find out by picking up the original novel, because there is a lot there that will justify the enthusiasm of Ayn Rand's fans and of the Tea Partiers who have picked up her novel in recent years.

The film covers just the first part of the novel. The producers wisely chose to divide Ayn Rand's densely plotted thousand-page epic into three segments, with the plan of presenting them in a trilogy of films. The main story line in Part 1 is the struggle of the protagonist, railroad executive Dagny Taggart, to hold her railroad together and save an American economy dying from suffocating taxes and government regulations. Sound familiar?

But Dagny's story isn't just about economics. It is about her sense of loneliness and isolation in a world where men of enterprise, initiative, and ability seem to be disappearing. And more: we see her loneliness in a culture where clear-eyed rationality and self-assertive ambition are no longer valued. Dagny faces a world that has fully adopted, in all of its ugly actual details, the left's credo of "need, not greed." Everyone has needs—expressed in long, whining complaints about how "sensitive" they are—and no one has the guts to take responsibility for supporting his own life and achieving his own happiness. In short, these guys have taken over.

Dagny finds an ally in the steel tycoon, Hank Rearden, who helps her build a crucially needed rail line to the nation's last remaining industrial boomtown—and I think you can guess that they find, in each other, a solution to their problems.

Dagny's main obstacle is her older brother, Jim, who is no good at running the railroad but knows how to run to Washington. While Dagny tries to keep the railroad alive by supporting the last growing industrial enterprises, Jim is always scheming for short-term profits from political favors and government subsidies. Again, sound familiar? He is the perfect fictional villain for the age of bailouts—the era of Government Motors and banks being turned into "government sponsored entities."

It is Jim's cabal of politicians and politically connected businessmen who begin the action in Part 1 by plunging the nation into an economic crisis, from which Dagny saves them, and they end Part 1 by causing another, worse crisis. Again, sound familiar? But while the film presents Jim as another Hollywood cliché, a soulless young corporate schemer, the novel's portrayal is more complex, interesting, and relevant to today's political environment.

In the novel, Jim has pretentions of being an intellectual and a deep, sensitive, "spiritual" type. Even when his schemes have the obvious ulterior motive of extorting unearned wealth, they are always pitched in terms of altruist bromides. But he really means the bromides, and Ayn Rand's point is that you can't tell where the "idealist" motive leaves off and the cynical one takes over. Jim believes that someone needs to be sacrificed to "the public good"—and he always tries to make sure he is "the public" and not the one being sacrificed.

This is summed up in a scene early in the novel when Taggart concludes the negotiations for one of his corrupt deals by offering a macabre toast: "Let's drink to the sacrifices to historical necessity."

This same combination—vaporous leftist "idealism" and cynical looting by gangster government, all of it wrapped up in appeals to "sacrifice"—might remind you of an important political leader in today's environment.

This is just scratching the surface of an epic novel, and the story widens and deepens as it goes beyond Part 1. But I think you can now see how an obscure, low-budget film has become a grassroots crusade before it even opens in the theaters. The spread of the Atlas Shrugged movie is just part of a wider Atlas Shrugged phenomenon—and part of the Tea Party phenomenon.

The Tea Party movement began, in last 2008 and early 2009, during a huge surge in interest in Ayn Rand's masterwork, when talk of "going Galt"—a reference to one of the novel's heroes—sent Atlas Shrugged back onto the best-seller lists after more than 50 years. The two phenomena are connected. The financial crisis and the giant government bailouts sparked a renewed interest in Ayn Rand's intellectual and literary defense of capitalism, and in turn Atlas Shrugged helped give ideological confidence to the nascent Tea Party movement. Now the Tea Parties and their supporters have repaid the favor by winning a 300-theater opening for the small, unheralded film version of the novel.

The novel has not yet found anything near its fullest and best expression on the screen—nor have we seen anything near the full scope of its impact on American politics.

April 15, 2011

Sen. Rand Paul Defends the Tea Party

Woot!

Posted by John Kranz at 1:16 PM | Comments (5)

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Lest anyone forget, Jim Bunning being driven from office was the opening that lead to Paul being elected. We were told that the Tea Party was an albatross and that Paul was too extreme - we needed to nominate moderates like Bunning to have any chance to win. Let that be a lesson - talk about an upgrade!

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 15, 2011 2:05 PM

But johngalt thinks:

"Liberty, equality, fraternity" or, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is the choice before Americans in our national polity.

I know which I choose. You?

Posted by: johngalt at April 15, 2011 3:59 PM

But jk thinks:

I had forgotten how well Bastiat destroys that.

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.

Posted by: jk at April 15, 2011 4:29 PM

But johngalt thinks:

This morning I saw a short, soundless, clip of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Reparations) giving a floor speech in front of a large pie chart with the title "Shared Sacrifice." It got me to thinking about the principle of liberty, and how to go about pointing out to the good congresswoman that she is essentially advocating for a name change, from Statue of Liberty to Statue of Shared Sacrifice.

Posted by: johngalt at April 15, 2011 6:49 PM

But jk thinks:

A short, soundless clip of Rep. Lee is the best kind.

Posted by: jk at April 16, 2011 10:41 AM

April 10, 2011

It's not about who won, but who lost

My dear blog brother has accused me of negatively reinforcing good behavior for suggesting that Speaker Boehner's budget compromise with Obama, Reid and the rest of the Socialists might not have been lauditory. My point was that this doesn't necessarily imply he'll do the same thing when negotiating next year's budget. I'm giving him the benefit of a significant doubt. But Dr. Michael Hurd is not:

Throughout this debate, the Republican leadership argued that the deficit should be cut. They made the debate about numbers: First $100 billion in cuts, then $60 billion, and then finally $30 billion. They never argued why anything should be cut in the first place. It just should be cut -- because. That's the essence of principle-by-number.

Principles are qualitative, not quantitative. "Man has a right to live for his own sake, unencumbered by force." That's a principle that will slash budgets. "The budget deficit should be smaller than it is." That's a true statement, but it's not a principle. In fact, the truth of the statement begs for a principle to defend it. From the likes of Republican leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor -- none were forthcoming.

But Dr. Hurd isn't really throwing Boehner and Cantor overboard personally as much as philosophically.

This is more than a problem of communication. It's an intellectual and moral problem the Republicans have. Boehner and Cantor actually seem to believe they won. Evidently they're not perceptive enough to see that Democrats set them up along. (...) It's hard to believe that newscasters can ask with a straight face, "Well, who won? The Republicans or the Democrats?" Like there's any question?!

Perhaps the real victors in this budget battle are the "moderate Republicans" -- in other words, those who don't stand for anything other than Democrat-lite.

And though he is more critical of the GOP leadership than I, we share the same strategy for long-term success.

It's now up to the Tea Party to go back to the polls and keep repealing and replacing Republicans who mostly agree with Democrats, until America really does become a two-party system. We're clearly not there yet. Democrats and Republicans won the budget battle; but America lost it.

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:23 PM | Comments (0)

April 9, 2011

Gentlemen, Resume Spending

While driving home last night after losing a $20 Texas Hold'em stake to my preternaturally lucky nephew I heard on the radio that the Government Shutdown™ had been averted. "Boehner caved" thought I. But when I looked for reports of the Democrat triumph I couldn't find any, not even on Reason. In fact, FNC's Carl Cameron says Who Won the Shutdown? It Wasn't Even Close.

HR1 was originally to seek spending cuts of $32 billion until Tea Party conservatives insisted on more than $ 60 billion. House Speaker John Boehner won more cuts than he originally sought and got the Senate to agree to votes to defund the health care reform law and groups like the nation's largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood - once votes Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said he'd never allow to come to the floor.

So despite caving on all of the Republican riders at least some of them will be voted on, putting the Dems on record for 2012, but the rider aimed at stopping the EPA energy tax is not among them.

For all of their class-warfare eat-the-rich rhetoric the Democrats appear to be the ones who caved. They had the "extreme" TEA Party backed Republicans right where they wanted them, or did they? Across the nation local officials were standing ready to take over when federal workers took their (read "our") toys and went home. A Colorado sheriff vowed to keep Rocky Mountain National Park open. The governor of South Dakota, when asked by the feds to close the state highway that accesses Mount Rushmore National Monument, refused and instead offered to run the place while the Washington boys were indisposed. Err, umm ... "no thanks." Apparently the Dems in D.C. feared that despite so many of us being on the government payroll, too many Americans might not miss them when they were gone so they "worked hard to make sure the government would keep doing the people's business."

Very well. Boehner may or may not have actually buckled on the billions. The real test will be if he stands firm when it comes to the TRILLIONS.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:36 AM | Comments (3)

But jk thinks:

Et tu, jg!

You, and Reason, should treat the Speaker like a dog: Praise him when he does good, roll up the newspaper when he's not*. Every victory is couched in reminders of past failures or expectations of future disappointments. An Atta Boy is warranted.

[* I would not and do not advocate smacking a dog. A Speaker of the House, on the other hand...]

Posted by: jk at April 9, 2011 12:49 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Heh. I thought this was an atta boy!

I said I "thought" (last night) that Boehner must have caved. This belief was borne of my attitude yesterday - "Go ahead, shut it down, and keep it shut down long enough for a plurality to realize where they would be without taxpayer largesse." And yes, I realize that a few billion either way won't make any difference. The key in this negotiation was to show the Dems that we won't blink when the big money negotiations come around. I was simply looking for a clue as to who blinked yesterday and, according to Campaign Carl, it was the Dems.

I won't defend Reason but I don't think I said anything that would make the Speaker feel trod upon.

Posted by: johngalt at April 9, 2011 4:58 PM

But jk thinks:

"Very well. Spot may or may not have actually piddled on the rug. The real test will be if he stands firm when it comes to the CARPET."

Not exacly out of the Cesar Millan playbook man -- but I am glad your heart is in it!

Posted by: jk at April 10, 2011 10:55 AM

April 7, 2011

They've Done It!

No, not reach agreement on the overdue budget. The Dinosaur Media has finally found something of consequence that will be lost as a result of the looming Government Shutdown™ - Fort Sumter Reenactment Could Face Shutdown Without Budget Deal By all means then, capitulate to Harry Reid's demands!

What bothers me most about stories like this, and Chris Coons' (D-Witch Haters of Dover) lament that "my people will be prevented" from working a job fair in Delaware this weekend, is this idea that anyone who is paid by the government is somehow forbidden from taking the individual initiative to work for free. You know, VOLUNTEER! (Seems I've seen an Ad Council spot or two about that.) And the Fort Sumpter site ... doesn't it belong to us? Where does the federal government get off locking us out of our own historical places? Before you know it they'll be preventing Muslims from building churches at Ground Zero.

UPDATE: Larimer County Sheriff vows to keep Rocky Mountain National Park open for visitors in the event of a government shutdown.

Fort Collins Coloradoan:

"The reality is, we are at the local level sending the message to Washington: We can take care of things," he said.

When Smith issued a news release Thursday afternoon announcing his intent to provide the staff to keep Rocky Mountain National Park open if the government attempts to shut the gates, he had not yet talked with National Park Service officials about his plan.

"The park is federal property, and I don't know that he has the authority, that a state or county agency would have the authority to manage the park," Rocky Mountain National Park spokesman Larry Frederick said.

If federal workers are told to go home Saturday, Rocky Mountain National Park will close and lock the entrance gates, barricade the roads and bar the public from accessing the park per orders from Washington, he said.

(...)

Smith said, if the National Park Service follows through with its threat to barricade park entrances, he's not sure what the Sheriff's Office will do.

"We'll deal with them," he said of National Park Service officials.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:02 PM | Comments (6)

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

The potential loss of cowboy poetry has reduced me to tears. And now this! It's all too much to take.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 7, 2011 3:58 PM

But jk thinks:

My government bailout is being processed by the FHA and I would be discommoded by any delay...

Posted by: jk at April 8, 2011 11:09 AM

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Discommoded?!? Does that mean "get off the pot" or "a mode of dancing under a spinning mirror ball"?

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 8, 2011 4:36 PM

But jk thinks:

Excellent update! Methinks Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith is a serious hoss, and more deserving than most of an heroic cowboy ode in his honor.

Justin! Let 'em in.

Congress cannot Sheriff Smith's mountains close. For as the Boehner and the Reid meekly, pens-drawn advanced -- Sheriff Smith knew whence power sprang. Songbirds listening. People ever seeking. The quiet piece, the strength in a man's free will.

This park. My park. The people's park. Shall. Not. Close.

Posted by: jk at April 8, 2011 6:15 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Stirring prose my brother. Djou manage to write all that without a federal grant? Get outta town! Can't be done!

Posted by: johngalt at April 9, 2011 12:24 PM

But jk thinks:

Well, I did apply for a small NIH stipend...I understand the gub'mint's still open.

Posted by: jk at April 9, 2011 12:45 PM

April 5, 2011

The Pitchfork Judiciary

Colorado's state Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature, just as United States Supreme Court justices. This explains my surprise that high court judges in many states, including Wisconsin, are actually elected directly by popular vote. Tyranny of the Majority, anyone?

A brief review of the "debatepedia" entry on the election of judges provides two opposing views:

Elected judges are more in tune with public opinion - The system of training through law schools and vocational work is elitist and prolonged, and leaves judges' opinions at risk of being, or appearing, out of date or out of touch. (...) Judges are often seen as lacking knowledge of recent social trends. Elections can help reverse these trends by forcing judges to understand and respect public opinion so they can advance a form of law that is seen as "just" to all citizens, not just to their own conscience.

v.

Elected judges wrongly interpret public opinion over the law - Legal decisions require a strict interpretation of law. It should not be driven by popular opinion. Yet, this is precisely what judicial elections call for. This diverges from basic judicial principles of applying the law objectively and neutrally.

Today's high court election in Wisconsin is as obvious an example of the latter opinion as one may ever see. Wisconsin Election Is Referendum on Governor is a predictably biased NY Times "news" story on today's vote, but the headline tells the story. Namely...

"This has really become a proxy battle for the governor's positions and much less a fight about the court itself," said Charles H. Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

The outcome is now in great doubt, which is surprising considering where voter sentiment was 6 weeks ago.

For his part, Justice Prosser contends that Ms. Kloppenburg has become the darling of union leaders, protesters and others who opposed Mr. Walker's collective bargaining cuts. He said he saw protest signs in Madison that read: "Stop the Bill; Vote Kloppenburg."

"I feel like the victim of a drive-by shooting," Justice Prosser, 68, said in an interview in which he described his record on the court as moderate. "Here I am, I’m walking along, I should win this race going away. But I mean, not if people aren't thinking about what they're doing."

In a primary election on Feb. 15, Mr. Prosser won 55 percent of the vote, compared with 25 percent for Ms. Kloppenburg. The balance went to two other candidates.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:09 PM | Comments (6)

But jk thinks:

Hrrrmphhh. Just finished the very unsatisfying "The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic" this weekend. Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule suggest that Madisonian limits were never enough to constrain the executive and that instead of seeking legal remedies, we should just be happy that political pressure does a swell job.

Sorry to do a review corner in a comment, but that book got me thinking of the DNCC commercials against Ken Buck's Senate campaign. The phrase "Seventeenth Amendment" is conspicuously absent from Posner's book, yet it is the elephant in the room in almost every chapter.

But the sadness is that "tyranny of the majority" is completely unrecognized outside of elite circles of people devoted to liberty theory. The blog optimist does not see that toothpaste ever going back in that tube.

More democracy == more freedom. The world accepts that as truth.

Posted by: jk at April 5, 2011 3:37 PM

But Keith Arnold thinks:

Color me naive - but when members of the judiciary are elected by the general public based on their stances on the issues and how they will "vote," then how are they different from members of the legislature?

Mayhaps I'm drawing too much on silly, outmoded ideals and a little Schoolhouse Rock, but I was under the impression that it was supposed to be legislators who enact laws that represent the will of the people, and judges who were supposed to interpret that law consistent with overarching Constitutional principles - not render decisions based on their own individual political stances, law-be-damned.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 5, 2011 7:17 PM

But johngalt thinks:

And rule not merely on their own individual political stance but also, demonstrating "knowledge of recent social trends" they must "advance a form of law that is seen as 'just' to all citizens."

Or if it can't be 'just' to all citizens, a simple majority will suffice.

Br'ers, our challenge is larger than any of us previously realized.

Posted by: johngalt at April 5, 2011 7:40 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Robert Tracinski observes that since Wisconsin is the birthplace of the Progressive movement they've worked hard over the decades to reshape state government in their own image.

Wisconsin is the birthplace of the Progressive movement, and in addition to promoting the power of unions, the Progressives also tried to break down the constitutional structure of government, including the separation of powers and indirect representation, and replace them with "direct democracy," in which every issue is put to an immediate vote by the people. This election is their ideal at work, and we see what it means in practice: giving outsized political power to any faction that is good at mobilizing a mob in defense of its special interests—which in this case is the unions.

Posted by: johngalt at April 6, 2011 1:06 AM

But johngalt thinks:

Hot Air blog covered the WI supreme election tonight. Latest word was with most precincts reported except for a few in Kloppenburg country, Prosser led by just 1600 votes. "...needless to say, we're headed for a recount" says Allahpundit.

Posted by: johngalt at April 6, 2011 1:10 AM

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

The recount will give them time to find another 1700 ballots that someone misplaced in a union members car trunk.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 6, 2011 11:21 AM

April 4, 2011

Budget Cuts with a Purpose

Not only does this recommendation by forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania hold promise for reducing the federal budget deficit, it could also reduce energy costs across the board nation wide.

The three researchers audited the forecasting procedures used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose "procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles," Armstrong noted.

Armstrong and his colleagues recommend Congress end government funding for climate change research as well as other research, government programs, and regulations that assume the planet is warming. They also recommend Congress cease funding organizations that lobby or campaign for global warming.

"Based on our analyses, especially with respect to the violations of the principles regarding objectivity and full disclosure," Armstrong told members of Congress, "we conclude that the manmade global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:26 PM | Comments (0)

March 23, 2011

Obama's "Stash" of Cash Discovered!

Well, it's actually Congress' stash. Under the cute but misleading headline Government Has $1 Trillion In Untapped 'Piggy Bank' Investor's Business Daily reports on past government spending (appropriations) that have never actually been allocated (doled out.) This amounts to a Congressional slush fund of over a Ta-Ta-Trillion dollars.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., recently introduced a bill to eliminate $45 billion in unobligated funds.

"The Senate actually adopted unobligated funds as its way of paying for eliminating the 1099 provision in ObamaCare," he said. "There is no reason why we can't simply cancel unobligated funds to reduce the deficit."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:14 PM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2011

The TEA Party State

JK did a great write-up on the Wisconsin revolution against state employee union looting of the treasury. As I thought about covering the same story I had some phrases in mind: Here comes the sun... It's always darkest before the dawn... Finally, hope and change! Stuff like that.

But how can something like this happen in Wisconsin? Home of the U of W in Madison, birthplace of the AFSCME union and a long-time leftist bastion? Check the leadership:

Scott Walker in 2010

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

45th Governor of Wisconsin
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 3, 2011
Lieutenant Rebecca Kleefisch
Preceded by Jim Doyle (D)

And the Senate...

And the State Assembly...

Now that's the kind of flip-flopping one can appreciate! Makes me want to break out in song:

"Movin' to Wisconsin soon,
Gonna be a dental floss tycoon"

Just one * last * question: How in the bloody 'ell did Colorado manage to stay in Democrat hands? Wait - don't answer that.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:18 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Colorado comparison is apt. Madison makes Boulder look like Fort Worth. Mister Wadhams replacement would do well to try and reproduce their success.

(And Mister McDaniels's replacement could look at some Packers tape as well...)

Posted by: jk at February 17, 2011 4:46 PM

January 26, 2011

Whither the Tea Party Resonse

The SOTU is kind of Christmas for political geeks. But we neglected one topic that interested me: Rep Michelle Bachman's "Tea Party Response." I did not watch it. After the President and Rep Ryan's response, I found myself full up on speechifyin' And I was anxious to get John Stossel's response (he did a whole show with David Boaz and Rep. Ron Paul -- awesome).

So maybe she soared. Maybe it was great. But I think it was ill advised. Does Rep. Ryan not represent the Tea Party enough? It sends a message of disunity that disturbs the blog pragmatist.

Anybody see it? Me wrong?

Posted by John Kranz at 5:24 PM | Comments (1)

But johngalt thinks:

I sawr it. It wasn't televised, but was an live web feed from "Tea Party HD" or something like that. I didn't rush to view it live, figuring it would be available on-demand when and if I was ready to demand it. Then FNC's 'Greta' saved me by running the whole thing on her show.

My best guess: She didn't write it. Someone at Tea Party Central Command wrote it and Bachman read it.

My impression: It seemed like a good script with the right message narrating some excellent charts, but she put her emphases in all the wrong places and it came across without much punch. And the teleprompter was off to the side of the camera, making her look cross-eyed to the viewer.

As far as I know it wasn't her idea, she didn't promote it, and it didn't contradict the Ryan response. It was hyped out of proportion by the DLEMM*, perhaps intent on sending a message of disunity in GOP/TEA movement ranks.

* (Dominant Liberal Establishment Mass Media)

Posted by: johngalt at January 26, 2011 7:56 PM

January 25, 2011

How did they know, before there was any evidence?

...That the Arizona shooting was the TEA party's fault? "I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions by not accusing them."

I'll be a lazy blogger today and just share this pointed and incredibly sarcastic xtranormal vid.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:46 PM | Comments (1)

But AlexC thinks:

This is brilliant. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: AlexC at January 25, 2011 4:00 PM

January 24, 2011

And the Women Shall Save Them

I'd love to see Sarah Palin as President. I'm not sure I think she's the best nominee from a winnability standpoint but we could and may well do worse in a future Commander-in-Chief. But even if she never achieves that office she has had and continues to have a profound impact on American politics. Why? I liked this extended analysis by City-Journal.com's Kay Hymowitz - 'Sarah Palin and the Battle for Feminism'

However excessive their frothing, feminists had good reason to be in panic mode. Palin may have lost her bid to become vice president; she may have failed to appeal to such prominent conservatives as Peggy Noonan, George Will, and Karl Rove, as well as to lesser right-of-center mortals like this writer; but by leading a wave of new conservative women into the fray, she has changed feminism forever. In fact, this new generation of conservative politicas -- having caught, skinned, and gutted liberal feminism as if it were one of Palin's Alaskan salmon -- is transforming the very meaning of a women's movement.

And the old-fashioned women's movement was ripe for the transforming. Ironically, in large part due to the success of that old-fashined women's movement in making the corporate and governmental realms so accessible to women. But at its core, the difference between progressive feminists and TEA movement gals is philosophical.

But the Palinites have drawn big question marks around language like this. What does "equality" mean? Is it equal opportunity, as the newcomers would probably say? Or equal results, as many feminists appear to believe? Does it mean women's choosing how to run their lives, just as men do? (Grizzlies.) Or does it refer to absolute parity between men and women? (Liberals.) How can both sides claim the feminist mantle with such different understandings of government's function and of women's progress?

Hymowitz closes her piece by citing a "marriage gap" in electoral politics, where "married women were far more likely to vote Republican than single women in 2010." She says this is "more evidence that feminism is up for grabs." I say it's evidence that women who do well in the competition for men in the social marketplace are less likely to want the government to mandate some sort of "absolute parity" with their sisters.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:27 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Enjoyed the article quite a bit, thanks. I like the suggestion that the post war ascendency of women's rights unfortunately coincided with the diminution of libertarian tendencies and the apogee of trust in big government. Professor Bainbridge penned some cogent thoughts on the same piece.

I may start competing with your Atlas Shrugged QOTD franchise as I read Ludwig von Mises's Socialism. Like Atlas Shrugged and Mises's 1927 Liberalism, the prescience and applicability to today astonishes in every chapter.

In this 1922 release, he wrote a chapter on family, sex, and gender roles that holds up today as being well thought, contemporary, and forward looking, A couple reverse-anachronisms give it away, but it would seem pretty up to date had it been written last year.

Posted by: jk at January 24, 2011 6:55 PM

January 20, 2011

Bad Idea of the Day

The problem with the TEA party movement, is that they are very susceptible to crackpot alternative ideas, and will likely show enthusiasm for third party candidates as well. On that note, Donald Trump was on Kudlow last night and seems a well coiffed hair's length from becoming our generation's Ross Perot.

I know dozens of people who would go for GOOOH. Most all of them -- look at the issues in the video -- would be pulled away from supporting a Tea-party-limited-government-Republican. One can ask Senator Buck from Colorado or Senator O'Donnell from Delaware about successful "real people, citizen legislator" campaigns against professional political machines.

Secondarily, what will these folks believe? Will they all be as attached to border enforcement as the founder? Will they have a better feel for the Constitution? (No amendments? Binding future Congresses?) Will all 435 want to abolish the D of Ed?

Lastly. Umm, the Senate? Four hundred thirty five naifs (we sent Paul Ryan and Ron Paul home -- yipee!) against Chuck Schumer and Dick Lugar? I think there might be a President around, too.

He seeks to divert 500,000 informed citizens away from other limited government candidates -- I sure hope he does not get half.

Hat-tip (VodkaPundit) Stephen Green, who links approvingly.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:04 PM | Comments (10)

But jk thinks:

I think the real flaw in your Gubernatorial candidacy is that everybody knows you're just using Sacramento as a stepping stone to the Presidency.

With all respect to Ace, I recommend Jimi P for a more serious look at State bankruptcies. It is an interesting -- and unfortunately germane -- legal question.

Posted by: jk at January 21, 2011 2:51 PM

But Keith Arnold thinks:

You have a point there - everyone knows that being governor of California is like being captain of the Titanic, and I'm not going down with this ship.

Is California "too big to fail"?

Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 21, 2011 3:08 PM

But jk thinks:

Well, we need you in Washington -- it's all good, but I think you have to be cagier: "It's the best job in the world to be Governor of , and it would be presumptuous of me to think of any other challenges to distract from the real problems right here in "

TBTF? Not in the 112th. Interesting times.

Posted by: jk at January 21, 2011 3:23 PM

But johngalt thinks:

I think you mean "not in the 111th" don't you? The 112th hasn't bailed anyone/anything out (yet.)

And bankruptcy isn't "failure" it's just a new beginning, full of "hope" and "change." [Gratuitous pun intended.]

I liked this Jimmy P line: "Would bankruptcy mean a radical reorganization of state government? Yes, that's the whole point."

Posted by: johngalt at January 23, 2011 1:46 PM

But jk thinks:

No. I am frequently in need of editing, but I meant that I exteded the 112th to hold firm. Could have been more artfully worded but I meant what I done sed.

Posted by: jk at January 24, 2011 11:19 AM

But johngalt thinks:

Ah yes, I get it now. I first read it that the 112th wouldn't let it fail.

Posted by: johngalt at January 24, 2011 11:46 AM

Jobs in CO-4 Destroyed by Obamacare ... Already

My new congressman voted to repeal Obamacare yesterday. He also rose to make some remarks on the matter.

Sorry to keep rubbing it in, JK. Maybe the 4th CD will include you after redistricting. Most likely not, however. You could always move a bit further east.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:36 PM | Comments (0)

Honesty and Morality in Taxation

I didn't do so well in yesterday's effort to find a potent list of federal regulatory reforms for our ersatz "pro-business" president. Fortunately, blog brother JK was there to bail me out with the Armey/Kibbey article. But today I think I've done better.

Anyone who's been here more than a week knows that I believe taxation is moral issue, i.e. taking money from people against their will is theft, even if done by our "democratic" government. If I'm right, thinks I, then there's probably a high proportion of taxpayers who do whatever they can to lower their tax burden and consequently, limit how badly they are robbed.

This Freakonomics Quorum from 2009 includes some data related by University of Michigan economics professor Joel Slemrod:

About two-thirds of all underreporting of income happens on the individual income tax. Of that, business income -- as opposed to wages or investment income -- accounts for about two-thirds.

(...)

The I.R.S. estimates that the net misreporting rate is 53.9 percent, 8.5 percent, and 4.5 percent for income types subject to "little or no," "some," and "substantial" information reporting, respectively, and is just 1.2 percent for those amounts subject to both withholding and substantial information reporting.

So when taxpayers know they are being watched, they are honest, and when they know they are not, 53.9 percent of them are not. But how can this be? In the next paragraph Slemrod wrote, "In a recent survey, 96 percent of people mostly or completely agreed that 'It is every American’s civic duty to pay their fair share of taxes;'"

So 96 percent of us believe that paying "their fair share" is his duty but only 46 percent report all of the income that isn't traceable. Is there a better case to be made that roughly half of American taxpayers don't consider their tax rate to be representative of "their fair share?"

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:11 PM | Comments (2)

But Keith Arnold thinks:

Thought-provoking article, and an even more thought-provoking post. My contributions:

(1) 96% of people agreed that it is our civic duty to pay our fair share of taxes, but nearly half of Americans pay no income tax. Translation: at least half of America thinks it is everyone else's duty to pay their fair share of taxes, but not theirs.

(2) In light of your observation that "roughly half of American taxpayers don't consider their tax rate to be representative of 'their fair share'" and in tandem with point 1 above, the half that thinks their tax rate is too high is the half that is paying the taxes. Ergo, everyone actually paying taxes believe their taxes to be too high.

(3) We're all familiar with the respective levels of taxation of America, broken down by decile of income. I'd love to see that survey broken down by decile.

(4) Something not addressed is a discussion of how much of that underreporting is taking place in the margins of the shadow economy. This would appear to be more a function of the lower strata of our socioeconomic ladder, rather than the higher.

(5) None of the experts in the article propose as a solution simply doing away with the income tax system entirely, and relying instead on business taxes or a national sales/consumption tax.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 20, 2011 4:30 PM

But jk thinks:

Milton Friedman is correct that the real tax rate is the rate of government spending. Looked at that way, I think more would consider their taxes too high.

Yet perhaps Professor Reynolds's words may be more germane than any economist's. Even though Brother Keith's #5 will bring in more revenue, more fairly, with minimal compliance and maximum growth: "there isn't enough chance for graft."

Posted by: jk at January 20, 2011 6:11 PM

January 16, 2011

The "TEA Movement" is More Popular Than a "Big-Tent"

Comity? Who needs comity?

Jared Rhoads of The Lucidicus Project (Helping medical students understand free markets) agrees with me (and Robert Tracinski) that limited government is not merely a practical issue, but a moral one.

I used to think that Republicans did stand for individual rights on principle, but that they shied away from moral arguments because they deemed it better public relations to be "big-tent," inclusive, neutral. Well, over the past two years, the Tea movement has demonstrated that pro-individualist moral sentiments are popular and effective. We are still waiting for the Republicans to catch up.

What is holding them back? As writer Craig Biddle explains in a recent article in The Objective Standard, Republicans face a self-imposed obstacle in their effort to limit government to its proper functions: they still believe that being moral consists of sacrificing oneself for the needs of others.

Imagine approaching your moderate Republican Congressperson and making the case for cutting government based on the morality of individual rights. He may smile and nod in agreement, but as Biddle indicates, there is conflict churning in his head:

•Repeal Obamacare? How can we do that if the right thing to do is to sacrifice for others? People need medical care, and Obamacare will provide it by forcing everyone to sacrifice as he should.

•Phase out Medicare? How can we do that if we are morally obliged to provide for the needy? The elderly need medical care, and Medicare provides it by forcing everyone to pony up.

•Phase out Social Security? How can we do that if, as the bible tells us, we are our brother's keeper? The elderly need money for retirement, and Social Security provides it by forcing everyone to do the right thing.

The only proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights. It is not to oversee our healthcare, help us be charitable, or assist with our retirement planning. There is no way to roll back Obamacare or other government encroachments without recognizing this fact and stating it openly on the floors of the House and Senate.

The next time we circulate a petition, let's tell the supporters of Obamacare that what they have done is not simply impractical, unfair, or too expensive. Let's tell them it is wrong.

Posted by JohnGalt at 1:52 PM | Comments (0)

January 9, 2011

"America's Gun Culture," Driven by TEA Partiers, "Claims It's Latest Victims"

It was predictable that frustrated gun-grabbers would leap at the opportunity to villify handguns provided by the tragic shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and numerous bystanders yesterday. But they're making it a two-fer by blaming the TEA Party movement at the same time. The first such conclusive leap I saw was posted on the same day as the shooting - 'Lock and Load and Lost in Tucson Today: What's the Matter with My Arizona?' Wherin Jeff Biggers cites Gregory McNamee-

"What is clear to me, at this chaotic moment, is that no one should be surprised by this turn of events. The bullets that were fired in Tucson this morning are the logical extension of every bit of partisan hatred that came spewing out during the last election, in which Gabrielle Giffords---a centrist, representing well and faithfully a centrist district---was vilified and demonized as a socialist, a communist, a fascist, a job-killer, a traitor, and more.

Anyone who uttered such words or paid for them to be uttered has his or her name etched on those bullets."

And Biggers himself-

Now in Arizona--and the nation--do we have the courage and wisdom to deal with our gun laws? To stop the hatred from finding its all-too-easy expression through the barrel of the gun?

The Huffpo headlines are even more inflammatory today:

'Giffords Shooting Is an American Tragedy We Need to Urgently Address' by Paul Helmke (President, Brady Campaign)-

"While we are all still learning details about this shooting, and particularly the 22-year old responsible for this horrendous act, we should find it unacceptable that when Americans and our elected leaders are assembling in public places, their lives are at risk from gun violence."

'Congress Must Rein in Gun Industry in Response to Giffords Assassination Attempt' by Josh Sugarmann (Exec. Dir., Violence Policy Center)-

"America's gun culture claims its latest victims."

(...)

"If the attempted murder of one of their colleagues does not force Congress and President Obama to face the gun issue, what will?"

Perhaps worst of all is this, from former Colorado Senator Gary Hart who I have to believe truly knows better: 'Words Have Consequences'-

"Today we have seen the results of this rhetoric. (...) We all know that there are unstable and potentially dangerous people among us. To repeatedly appeal to their basest instincts is to invite and welcome their predictable violence.

So long as we all tolerate this kind of irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric (...) so long will we place all those in public life, whom the provocateurs dislike, in the crosshairs of danger.

That this is carried out, and often rewarded, in the name of the Constitution, democratic rights and liberties, and patriotism is a mockery of all this nation claims to believe and almost all of us continue to struggle to preserve. America is better than this."

Posted by JohnGalt at 1:03 PM | Comments (3)

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

If Gifford is a "centrist" or "moderate," then what does "liberal" mean anymore? I shed no tears.

Leftists decry any availability of guns, but it's their desire for disarmament that made Gifford a sitting duck. If this had been a conservative gathering, the shooter had a 100% risk of leaving in a bodybag after firing just one bullet, and a high probability of getting blown away just for drawing his gun?

Killer's rants on a social network page, check. "Semi-automatic" weapon, check. "Extended clip," bonus! Innocent bystanders were killed, check. But the intended victim survived...

Getting "close" to Gifford, the killer still managed no more than a non-fatal head wound. This couldn't have been better for leftists if they had done it all themselves. And I wouldn't put it past them.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 9, 2011 2:28 PM

But johngalt thinks:

If we come to learn that the killer had a liberal political motivation I will be just as completely shocked as if he is proven to be a TEA Partier. The act was the sick manifestation of an incoherent mind.

You make an excellent point about conservative crowds though. If Giffords had attracted any such citizens to her event they might have stopped the shooter before he emptied his first magazine, at the very least. Perhaps she's not as centrist as some want to believe.

Posted by: johngalt at January 9, 2011 4:00 PM

But jk thinks:

Glenn Reynolds nails it in a guest WSJ editorial today:

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

Posted by: jk at January 10, 2011 10:32 AM

January 3, 2011

When does illegality happen?

In a comment reminiscent of the claim that a tree falling in a forest makes no sound unless someone is there to hear it, Leo Laurence writes in the magazine for the Society of Professional Journalists that the term "illegal immigrant" does not apply to non-citizens. Why? Because of the Constitution, he asserts.

In an appearance on FNC's Fox and Friends this morning Laurence said, that an "undocumented immigrant" is not an illegal immigrant "until a judge says so." This is because of the Constitutional provision of innocence until proven guilty before a jury of one's peers. "No. No. They are not. The only person who can say someone is here illegally is a judge."

So the bank robber hasn't committed a crime until he is found guilty, according to this logic.

Laurence added that, "It's a very conservative issue because we're following our Constitution."

I attribute the smug, self-confidence of Mr. Laurence to a collision between the philosophy of subjective idealism and the TEA Party movement.

For what it's worth, Leo closed the segment by spelling out his telephone number and email address for those who want to discuss the matter with him. Repeated as a public service: 619 757 4909, leopowerhere@msn.com.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:07 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

To tie our open threads, that's the Scroëdinger defense: the cat is not guilty until the box is opened...

I don't think I'll call Mister Laurence. His seems an odd defense and unlikely to advance the cause of more legal immigration that I champion.

And yet, I've heard a sister theory that it does not actually violate any statute to be on American soil, providing the same outcome that no one is truly illegal. Back to work but I'll see if I can find a well written exposition of this theory to share with the class.

Posted by: jk at January 4, 2011 10:13 AM

January 2, 2011

The Next Moral Crusade -- Capitalism

Over the New Year's holiday spent here in Seattle with Mr. and Mrs. Macho Duck I re-read an article in a 2008 issue of The Intellectual Activist (Vol. 20, No. 1.) The article's title is 'Fusionism Comes Unfused.' It reopened some internecine disputes in a clearly stated way so I wanted to share. Checking first for posts containing the word "Tracinski" (the author) I found a drought from 2007 until 2010. Shame on me!

The piece reviews the 2008 GOP primary season, where Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee's early leads evaporated, for no apparent reason, to leave the field wide open. Tracinski attributes the cause to a "desperate desire" on the part of GOP voters to avoid the stark choice between a pro-defense, pro-markets and "not particularly religious" Giuliani and a "strongly religious, anti-abortion candidate who has nothing particular to offer on the war and denounces the pro-free-market Club for Growth as the 'Club for Greed."

"But in avoiding the choice between a religious agenda and a secular agenda, Republicans were forced to evade the substantive issues at stake in th election and focus instead on the personal qualities of the candidates. (...)

In short, faced with a big ideological question on the role of religion, Republicans dodged the issue and instead chose a candidate on non-ideological grounds. [McCain, the flip-flip-flopper]

Yet the conflict between the religious and secular wings of the conservative agenda cannot be avoided, even if Republicans declined to resolve it this year.

Republican fusionism is unstable because its basic premise -- that the moral foundation of free markets and Americanism can be left to the religious traditionalists -- is false. For five decades, under the influence of fusionism, conservatives have largely ceded to the religious right the job of providing the moral fire to sustain their movement. But they are discovering that the religionists do not have a strong moral commitment to free markets. In fact, the religious right seems to be working on its own version of 'fusion' -- with the religious left.

(...)

The reason for this shift toward the religious left is that religion ultimately cannot support the real basis for capitalism and a strong American national defense: a morality of rational self-interest. Christianity is too deeply committed to a philosophy of self-abnegation, a destructive morality that urges men to renounce any interest in worldly goods and to turn the other cheek in the face of aggression. (...)

Tricked by William F. Buckley and his fusionists into outsourcing moral questions to the guardians of religious tradition, the right has never been able to develop the moral case for rational self-interest -- which means that it never developed the moral case for the profit motive, property rights, and the free market. Many on the right are implicitly sympathetic to capitalism; they sense its virtues, but thanks to "fusionism," they are unable to articulate them. And this means that they have never been able to turn the defense of free markets into a moral crusade."

To my religious brothers and sisters I urge you not to read this as an indictment of your faith. Religious morality has much to offer in the realm of personal values. But as a universal guide for the conduct of civilizations it is too easily co-opted by the forces of World Socialism.

A defense of capitalism as the means for men to deal with one another is not only not an abandonment of moral values, it is the only moral crusade that can hope to ever have a peaceful end.

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:39 PM | Comments (2)

But jk thinks:

I guess this post means holiday comity is now officially over. It was fun.

I don't know that Mr. Tracinski has changed his tune since 2008, but I posit that the Tea Party and the 2010 elections have about completely debunked his argument.

I had the good fortune to meet, via one of my most leftist friends, one of Hizzoner's state campaign chairmen, I parroted the media line about how Giuliani erred in waiting for the Florida primaries, yadda, yadda. This person, 25 years my junior looked at me as a naive waif and said "yeah, that's what we said -- we spent piles of money in New Hampshire and couldn't get anywhere." Without dismissing the candidate's faults, the GOP is clearly not ready for a social libertarian of Giuliani's stripes.

But by the same token, they did not pick His Huckness. TIA sees that as some nefarious plot, I see it as recognition of electoral exigencies. Moderates appeal to the American electorate and prosper in the American system.

Yet I return to the Tea Party, which brought a bounty of serious freedom candidates like Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul. Subtract the evangelicals from the Tea Party and you have a typical libertarian gabfest with some angry bearded guys.

I think this comment still holds: we have to hold our uneasy partnership together to hold back the forces of collectivism. Frank Meyers was right -- it's worth it.

Posted by: jk at January 3, 2011 11:03 AM

But johngalt thinks:

And I say the TPM validates his argument.

I read you as focusing on one aspect of the post: why Rudy and Huckabee were rejected. It is a fact that they were, and you passed right on by the new fusion of the religious right with the religious left or the assertion that Republican fusionism is fundamentally unstable.

As for the TEA Party verdict, consider from the last quoted paragraph - "Many on the right are implicitly sympathetic to capitalism; they sense its virtues..." But they don't understand why it is virtuous. The closest they usually come is to quote the Declaration of Independence's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The World Socialists slay this foe with the ol' "200 year-old dead white guys" argument.

The past quote you linked celebrated that "pro-lifers line up to vote when it's 40 below." They do so because it is a moral cause for them. You couldn't oppose making the profit motive, property rights and the free market an equally or more powerful moral cause, so you must just consider it impossible. "If man were meant to fly then God would have given him wings."

Posted by: johngalt at January 3, 2011 2:52 PM

December 31, 2010

Quote of the Day

We saw the Reform Party with Ross Perot in '92, and that was kind of John the Baptist to this real genuine arrival [...] the only real sign of hope I have seen in my lifetime in terms of reversing -- not just stopping -- reversing this inevitable, cyclical decline of civilization. -- Bill Whittle, celebrating "the TEA party" as Trifecta's person of the year

Posted by John Kranz at 5:36 PM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

On the other hand, some people (see "RIDICULE THEM" post below) believe that Nothing much happened in 2010.

Posted by: johngalt at January 1, 2011 6:21 PM

But jk thinks:

And so believe all Americans who turn to TIME for breaking news and hard hitting political punditry.

Posted by: jk at January 2, 2011 10:38 AM

December 1, 2010

TEA Partiers Explained by Pawz

Since the Xtranormal.com 'text to movie' is a free web app there are loads of these vids with varying degrees of veracity and intelligence. Here is a darned good one on the TEA Party. If you don't listen to the whole thing at least give yourself the treat of listening to the last minute and a half [starting at 8:00.]

The close is so perfect I just have to excerpt:

[Refering to President Obama] - "We do not like to be treated like children by a naive, Ivy-League intellectual who does not know what he is talking about. Tell him to move to Greece where they already have the economy he wants."

And just especially for JK I'll include this link to a conversation between a "Libertarian" and a "Tea Partier." I think the caricature of the Tea Partier painted here is more aptly called "Conservative" or "Traditionalist" but to the extent that individuals with these beliefs participate in the TEA Party movement it is a fair comparison.

Posted by JohnGalt at 9:40 PM | Comments (4)

But T. Greer thinks:

Since we are sharing these xtra normal videos, I thought this one on the TSA was nothing short of hilarious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXDLQPfqc04

Posted by: T. Greer at December 2, 2010 3:17 AM

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

But haven't you heard, JG, liberals have told those of us who want a country of individual freedom to get out and make our own. It doesn't matter that we were here first and that they're the perverters of what was.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 2, 2010 1:37 PM

But jk thinks:

You mention variances in quality levels. I'm not certain that "The Goldman Sachs" and "I have to see you naked" aren't the only entertaining ones in the genre.

People need to learn to write for this medium. Current artists are using this to deliver very long monotone harangues.

Posted by: jk at December 2, 2010 2:43 PM

But johngalt thinks:

3:20 is the historic, market-based, prescription for the length of a hit song. It's probably a good starting point for the best length of an Xtranormal vid - at least an upper limit.

Posted by: johngalt at December 2, 2010 2:53 PM

November 8, 2010

Christine O'Donnell

Chris Chillizza joins Senator Jim DeMint (R - SC) in speculating that Christine O'Donnell could have won her Delaware Senate race, "had she not been so 'maligned' by the national GOP."

I'll let the pollsters slice and dice the exit polls. But I must comment on media treatment in the very post discussing her chances. The lead paragraph starts "Over the weekend South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint suggested that marketing consultant Christine O'Donnell..."

Now. I've worked as a "Marketing Consultant" and hate to come across as maligning that important field of industry BUT, clearly Chillizza is denigrating her achievements. The modifier "political newcomer" could have communicated the idea less pejoratively.

And here is the photo his editors chose to decorate the post. After a lengthy Senatorial campaign, our nation's primary political newspaper does not have a less candid image in its photo files?

I'll answer Chillizza: yes, she could have won but it would have required a moderately balanced press. So, no, she didn't have a chance.

Posted by John Kranz at 2:29 PM | Comments (0)

November 5, 2010

V, Guy Fawkes and the TEA Party

I don't remember what precipitated the choice but I decided to make "V" my halloween costume this year. I watched the movie again and found it much more pleasing than on initial viewing (during the second term of the "atavistic, homophobic, warmongering" President George W. Bush.) Obviously I wasn't so defensive about possible hidden meanings this time around.

I reviewed past reviews and commentary on these pages and was reminded that we all instantly recognized that labeling V as a "terrorist" was false. (He never attacked innocent civilians, only the guilty accomplices of a totalitarian state.) While searching the web for character quotes I found this leftist review which, despite it's anti-conservative bias and failure to grasp the "terrorism" distinction, recognizes the liberty and freedom message of the film.

One of the most progressive aspects of the film is its attempt to inject optimism about political change in a world that is despairing. "Every time I have seen the world change, it was for the worse", Evey tells V, echoing the reality of an entire generation in the First World. V sets out to prove to Evey that "governments should be afraid of their people", and, despite the terrorist trappings, the film's fundamental message is that responsibility for political change lies with the mass of people, not institutions or politicians or stars.

Then why do leftists so despise the TEA Party movement, which seeks to restrict government and champion liberty via popular activism?

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:07 PM | Comments (0)

November 1, 2010

Et Tu, Dalmia?

Not nearly the headline of "Et tu, Tunku?" But I am twice as broken-hearted.

Shikha Dalmia has become one of my favorite writers, and no it is not solely because of her attractive profile picture by her Forbes columns. She is smart, principled, and a clear communicator.

Today she takes to the pages of Reason.com for a snarky, elitist, Tea Party bashing that is completely unworthy of her

Anyone who has not been living under a pumpkin lately knows that the single, biggest threat to this country's economic future is its gimongous (hey, if Sarah Palin gets to invent words, why not me!) entitlement state.

Bash Governor Palin, check -- hey this must be a very smart person!

Geithner has yet to encounter an economic woe anywhere in the world that a good dose of stimulus can't cure, its fiscal side effects be damned. He is to the cause of global stimulus and bailouts what Bush was to the cause of global democracy.

President Bush, check -- girl's on a roll!

[...]although a vast majority of Tea Party supporters favor smaller government, they don't want cuts in their Medicare or Social Security, a contradiction perfectly captured in a sign at a Tea Party rally: "Keep the Guvmint out of my Medicare."

They're so stupid!

In fact, setting aside the lapsed witch of Delaware, Christie O'Donnell[...]One is Joe Miller of Alaska, a man so unfamiliar with the First Amendment[...]

Two candidates who did what you wanted but still get a slap...

I don't know if it's better that she sees the flaw in her position and ignores it or not. Umm, why might some candidates be unprepared to make a bold stand to cut entitlements? Wait...I know this one...

To be sure, much of this backsliding is in response to attacks by Democratic opponents who are undoubtedly worse and shamelessly demagoguing the issue. Still, the fact of the matter is that instead of pulling Democrats in the direction of reform, the Tea Party candidates themselves are moving in the direction of the status quo. This wouldn't happen if these candidates could count on a strong and large constituency for reform within their own movement. Elections are a discovery process through which candidates find out what their base really wants. And what many of the Tea Party candidates have found is that when push comes to shove, their backers want to protect their entitlements as much as the next guy. In fact, much of the fury of the Tea Partiers against government stimulus and bailouts might have less to do with any principled belief in the limits of government and more to do with fear of what this will do to their own entitlements.

To recap: Angle, O'Donnell, and Miller are holding their ground and have turned "cakewalk" GOP victories into two nail-biters and an expected loss. Why won't the rest follow suit?

Breaking up is hard to do. I could have handled the analysis -- especially from Reason -- but to put it in a snarky, smarmy package like this is too much.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:17 PM | Comments (0)

No, YOU'RE the Doo-Doo Head!

The week before last, Denver's David Harsanyi gave us a celebration of the TEA Party's "Stupid Stupidity." Last weekend his antipode, Denver's David Sirota, explains why they're 'stoopid' in "It's the Stupidity, Stupid." He starts out wondering how "red-baiting crusades by the plutocrats" are managing to get such traction with the electorate.

As Wall Street executives make bank off bailouts, as millions of Americans see paychecks slashed and as our economic Darwinism sends more wealth up the income ladder - it's surprising that appeals to capitalist piggery carry more electoral agency than ever.

What could cause this intensifying politics of free-market fundamentalism at the very historical moment that proves the failure of such an ideology? Two new studies suggest all roads lead to ignorance.

But since Sirota is "smarter" than Harsanyi he uses "science" to support his claims.

As Northwestern University's David Gal and Derek Rucker recently documented in a paper titled, "When in Doubt, Shout!", many Americans respond to convention-challenging facts not by re-evaluating their worldview. Instead, they become more adamant in defense of wrongheaded ideas.

So, for instance, we may be aware that our broken economy is creating destructive inequality; we may know the neighbor's opulence is underwritten by loans. We may even see the connection between our personal financial struggles and census figures showing inequality at a record high. But many of us nonetheless react by more passionately insisting our economic system sows equality.

Or we may write opinion columns asserting that free-market economics is a proven failure and that "equality" is somehow the panacea, and if you don't agree with us you are "stupid."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:03 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

I'm going to hijack your post for a segue. I did not know what to do with this but it has captured my heart: The Rally to Restore Vanity.

It's far from perfect, as blog friend tg admits on Facebook, yet it has some important ideas. The most interesting to me was the Stewart/Colbert crowds' primacy to "not appearing stupid." Amid some generational psychoanalysis and some curious political generalizations, lives a superb point that to stand up at a Tea Party (or a Code Pink rally) is to take a stand and risk appearing stupid. Yes, you will be standing near a stupid person.

Yet to not say anything, not take a stand, and if you must stand up have it be at the gathering of those who are waaaay too hip to take a stand. That's cool, baby!

Posted by: jk at November 1, 2010 4:49 PM

October 27, 2010

Barney Isn't Frank

Does anybody remember when politicians used to at least pretend to tell the truth? Now they just deny there is such a thing as truth.

Fast forward now to 2008, after the risky mortgages had led to huge numbers of defaults, dragging down Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the financial markets in general -- and with them the whole economy.

Barney Frank was all over the media, pointing the finger of blame at everybody else. When financial analyst Maria Bartiromo asked Congressman Frank who was responsible for the financial crisis, he said, "right-wing Republicans." It so happens that conservatives were the loudest critics who had warned for years against the policies that Barney Frank pushed, but why let facts get in the way?

Ms. Bartiromo did not just accept whatever Barney Frank said. She said: "With all due respect, congressman, I saw videotapes of you saying in the past: 'Oh, let's open up the lending. The housing market is fine.'" His reply? "No, you didn't see any such tapes."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:02 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Clearly, we have always been at war with Eurasia.

Posted by: jk at October 27, 2010 3:28 PM

October 20, 2010

Harsanyi: Three Cheers for TEA Party's "Stupid Stupidity"

Catching JK napping a bit...

Do I wish there were more articulate and intellectual free-market candidates? Sure, I do. But, alas, Americans are in no mood for know-it-alls who think sailing is a sport.

Do I wish that science-challenged believers would resist the urge to raise their hands when asked if they believe the world is 5,000 years old? God, yes. But an election offers limited choices. Take Delaware, where voters can pick a candidate who had a youthful flirtation with witchcraft or one who dabbled in collectivist economic theory.

Only one of these faiths has gained traction in Washington the past few years. And as far as I can tell, there is no pagan lobby.

Plenty more good zingers for those who click through.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:07 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Not sleeping; I was just resting my eyes...

Awesome on stilts in high heels, David.

Posted by: jk at October 20, 2010 3:42 PM

October 15, 2010

Et tu, Tunku?

Okay. That's my best headline in seven years of blogging. Dig it before it rolls off the page.

Tunku Varadarajan looks down his elitist, Libertarian nose at the Tea Party candidates. I have expressed concern -- right here on ThreeSources -- that in our moment of extreme zeal, we may have chosen some less than stellar candidates. But never, ever, once, for a moment, did I ever question whether I wanted them to win. Varadarajan has thought it over very carefully, and decided that Sharron Angle may win, but not the witch and the homophobe:

But there is a delicate, almost aesthetic question that remains: Do we back candidates like Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell--people we wouldn't ask home to dinner, except in a Dinner for Schmucks sense? Put another way: Is our thirst for a resounding defeat for the statist Democrats so great that some of us would be prepared to swallow a mouthful of "Paladonnell" rotgut along with the premier cru of a GOP victory in the House, the Senate, and elsewhere?

Personally, I would love to see Paladino and O'Donnell lose, since they've distracted attention from the small-government message by adding in their own social conservatism and cultural weirdness. Republican primary voters need to be reminded to be more grownup, and practical. But there are, of course, many libertarians who would tend to think that anything is better--yes, even Paladino and O’Donnell--than Democrats endorsed by public-employee unions.

Cultural weirdness? O'Donnell's great sin is that she is not rich enough to be a Senator. I have donated more to her quixotic candidacy than any other, because I think everybody else is abandoning her.

I suppose she has no chance, but she is not helped by a respected former WSL Ed Page staffer's sudden self-promotion to be the arbiter of Cultural Weirdness.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:29 AM | Comments (1)

But Lisa M thinks:

One moment please while I dig that headline.

Ok I'm back. What's disappointing about Tunku's analysis is that the very "cultural weirdness" he disdains as "distracting" from the issues are distracting simply because that is the very strategy that the left is using against them. Most of O'Donnell's "cultural weirdness" has been thrown into high relief by lefty hacks like Bill Maher and SNL; shame on Tunku for falling for it. My reservations about O'Donnell stemmed far more from the ethical baggage she carried (lying about college, tax problems, rent problems, etc.) but all of that has fallen to the wayside in favor of a throwawy comment about her practicing witchcraft in high school. I haven't been following Paladino's campaign as closely, but I must say, I'm terribly disappointed that Tunku has swallowed the liberal bait so easily.

Posted by: Lisa M at October 15, 2010 7:46 PM

October 6, 2010

Dusty bookshelves, Dead Writers.

Those wacky tea partiers! Reading Bastiat and Hayek -- what is the matter with them?

The Tea Party is a thoroughly modern movement, organizing on Twitter and Facebook to become the most dynamic force of the midterm elections.

But when it comes to ideology, it has reached back to dusty bookshelves for long-dormant ideas.

It has resurrected once-obscure texts by dead writers — in some cases elevating them to best-seller status — to form a kind of Tea Party canon.

This from a NYTimes piece by Kate Zernike that is raising a bit of a stir.

If their arguments can be out there (like getting rid of the 17th Amendment, which established the direct election of senators by popular vote) or out of date (Bastiat warned that if government taxed wine and tobacco, “beggars and vagabonds will demand the right to vote”), the works have provided intellectual ballast for a segment of the electorate angry or frustrated about the economy and the growing reach of government.

Brother Keith pointed me at this through a NewsBusters piece. Jonah Goldberg takes a nice whack at her dismissal of the rule of law.

But I would suggest reading the NYTimes piece first. It is stunning.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:15 PM | Comments (0)

September 16, 2010

Quote of the Day

Blame that on George W. Bush, who arrived billing himself as a compassionate conservative, a description that was accurate except for the adjective and the noun. -- Steve Chapman

Reason Cheers the Tea Party.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:48 AM | Comments (0)

September 15, 2010

A Great Michael Kinsley Column in the Atlantic

A great friend of this blog is almost apologetic in forwarding a link to this.

Blog friend admits to the article's including "whoey mongering above and beyond the call" but knows we share a visceral distaste for boomers' self-congratulation. Merely hearing Kinsley admit what we all know is well worth the click. (I kid about Kinsley but he's a good writer and this is a good piece).

Nobody actually wants the Boomers dead (or at least nobody has been impolitic enough to say so), but many wouldn't mind if they took early retirement. From the day John F. Kennedy said "The torch has been passed to a new generation" to the day George H. W. Bush headed back to Houston, seven members of the World War II generation occupied the White House, for a total of 32 years. The Boomers had just two presidents, Clinton and Bush the younger, over 16 years, before the citizenry said, "That's enough. Let's move on." Barack Obama, born in 1961, is technically a Boomer, but consciously ran against a version of Boomer values, and got a lot of self-hating Boomer supporters as a result.

Kinsley gets around to a point I have made. Our fathers and grandfathers fought wars all over the world to preserve freedom for posterity. We the boomers won't even pay our damn doctor bills.

When he gets away from bashing his self indulgent generation and gets to remedy, I diverge a bit. But he suggests repaying the national debt as the boomers' D-Day. A grand and difficult sacrifice for freedom.

Bravo!

The medicine he prescribes isn't mine and even he isn't keen or specific on his solutions. If we accelerate taxes enough to pay it off, we would pass along less prosperity and innovation. But if we were to actually get entitlements onto at least a sustainable path, it would be a gift to posterity.

UPDATE: I recommended back Ayn Rand's Apollo and Dionysus (one of her best works).

POINT OF ORDER: "We, kimosabe?" Those who extend the boomers to 1964 don't know many people born in '64. I used to call myself the last baby boomer because I saw the culture through my older siblings. An oldest or only child born in '60 would likely not be a boomer -- no way President Obama is. You had to be born when Truman or Eisenhower was president. If "Christmas Story" looks like home, you might have to own up.

UPDATE II: The blog friend who sent the link thinks I am too charitable toward Kinsley. Tough room.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:35 AM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

"Accelerate taxes enough to pay it off" [the national debt] and there won't be enough money to do so. In addition to "less prosperity and innovation" we'd also have, a larger national debt.

Posted by: johngalt at September 15, 2010 3:02 PM

But jk thinks:

Curious that I end up being the Michael Kinsley defender. You never know what'll happen...

If you drag yourself to page four, he suggests advancing inheritance taxes. I'm not advocating that, and I have never been a deficit hawk. I'd rather leave a foundation of freedom and prosperity than a clean balance sheet.

But I liked Kinsley's admission that the boomers take while other generations have given so much. If this sentiment could be directed at entitlement reform it would be powerful and positive.

Posted by: jk at September 15, 2010 4:32 PM

September 12, 2010

Happy 9/12

Actually my sister's birthday...

I don't know that this video is great. But isn't it sad that the Obama administration has forced us to learn the plural "stimulas?"

Posted by John Kranz at 10:33 AM | Comments (0)

September 2, 2010

Teabaggies Get One Right

I've expressed perhaps too much concern over the inexperience and lack of slick political skills among the new generation of "Tea Party Candidates." We shall see in November.

But I saw Mama Grizzly's Joe Miller last night on Kudlow. This guy is the real deal: war vet, top of his class at West Point, clean, articulate... No seriously, he would raise the average IQ of the US Senate by 10 points. He has firm philosophical underpinnings and the brainpower to contextualize and express them.

Lee Cary suggests the old guard makes room for some of this new talent:

The current GOP leadership would be wise to heed the lesson of Joe Miller's victory over Senator Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary in Alaska and announce that they'll step aside if Republicans gain a majority in one or both Houses of Congress. Congressman John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell do not represent the leadership of a GOP with a longer-term future. They are the generals of the last political war, where they lost. And their party, if it wins, will have done so mostly because the Democrats lost support.

I'm actually a big Mitch fan. Leader McConnell has impressed me with principled stands on flag-burning and his eponymous Supreme Court challenge to McCain-Feingold. His performance as minority leader has been awesome. If he's not an inspiring speaker, he has herded felines pretty well.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:17 PM | Comments (0)

August 23, 2010

Terrorized Enough Already?

Get it? TEA? The offical stance of the TEA party supporting walls and agents and drones &c. Anything but free movement of goods, labor, and capital,

PJTV

Fair enough, I suppose, but I will henceforth not identify myself with the Tea party movement. I got a couple T-Shirts if anybody wants 'em.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:40 PM | Comments (7)

But jk thinks:

Fair to a point, but I don't think "our Ku Klux Klan group is totally not racist" is a stirring defense. I have been pretty concerned about this from day one and a trend is clearly underway to roll popular populist programs under the bright yellow Gadsden umbrella.

It started as a very cool shorthand for limited Constitutional government. I think it has become shorthand for "Conservative."

Posted by: jk at August 24, 2010 3:35 PM

But jk thinks:

TO BE CLEAR: I just read my previous comment and did not want anyone to think I was calling Tea Party Illegal Immigration Opponents (TEAPIIOs) racist. I was using the example of the KKK as a group that has a collective identity without a central office controlling it.

Posted by: jk at August 24, 2010 3:40 PM

But Keith Arnold thinks:

(1) No offense taken, as we all know that the Klan was the militant arm of the DEMOCRAT party.

(2) Gasden flag: good. Gonzalez flag: better.

(3) What sizes are the shirts, and how much you want for them?

(4) I've decided that when the revolution comes, I'm going to call it "The War Of Washington Aggression," just to be contrary.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 24, 2010 4:01 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Yours is a warranted fear, jk. I see the TEA Party platform ebbing and flowing to include and then discard issues beside "limited Constitutional government." If the TEA Party movement is discredited by association with indefensible causes and left-liberal ad hominem then it will likely dissolve. But the idea that individual 'mericans can rally together to foment opposition to statism has been born. Maybe next time it'll have a better name.

Posted by: johngalt at August 25, 2010 3:09 PM

But nanobrewer thinks:

It's a bad idea; why not express your power by convincing them (in our case, whomever stands for Tea Party in CO). what a bad idea it is, instead of the "I'm taking my vote card home and putting it under my mattress" approach?

Is there such an organization that there's a person or office in CO to call or post? Help a brother out here, who has scant time for PolyTicks.

nb

Posted by: nanobrewer at August 25, 2010 4:25 PM

But jk thinks:

Actually no, nb, The same thing I have always cherished is its Hayekian Spontaneous order. I guess one of the downsides is that there's nobody to call and yell at!

Of course I won't be figuratively "going home" (I am home). I will continue boring people with my thoughts, sending the occasional $50-100 to candidates I like, and looking for a group I can count myself in. I had hoped that I had found it with the Tea Party -- and it has been a gas! I just don't think that describes me anymore.

I completely agree with jg (just this once) that it is great that expectations have been raised and people have been educated. I'd say the same about Glenn Beck's 9-12 thingy, but I would not want people to define me by their stances.

Posted by: jk at August 25, 2010 4:49 PM

August 17, 2010

Tea Party Manifesto

Rep. Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe (president and CEO of Freedomworks) hawk their book in a guest editorial today. It is as good a description of "The Tea Party" as I have seen: The authors (or a clever editor) say "The movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party. It is aiming for a hostile takeover."

The criteria for membership are straightforward: Stay true to principle even when it proves inconvenient, be assertive but respectful, add value and don't taking credit for other people's work. Our community is built on the Trader Principle: We associate by mutual consent, to further shared goals of restoring fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. These were the principles that enabled the Sept. 12, 2009 taxpayer march on Washington to be one of the largest political protests in the history of our nation's capital.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:58 PM | Comments (4)

But Keith Arnold thinks:

You had me at "hostile takeover."

Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 17, 2010 1:42 PM

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

"We associate by mutual consent, to further shared goals of restoring fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government."

Before the comma is completely contradictory with what follows the comma, but the rest is not bad at all.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 18, 2010 10:43 AM

But jk thinks:

Hmm. No, it does not bug me, Perry. The left thinks that all those people are at the rallies because Glenn Beck told them to be there. At 12:07. In a hat.

I think it captures the spontaneous order that I had seen: individuals, with shared goals. I miss something?

Posted by: jk at August 18, 2010 10:56 AM

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

"Mutual consent" is fine. But once they, or anyone else, refer to "constitutionally limited government," they're talking about a system you cannot opt-out of, by definition. Therefore you are obligated to participate in that government, no matter how limited it may be, whether or not you "consent."

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 18, 2010 4:22 PM

August 9, 2010

Primaryeve Polling

It all comes down to this.

With Colorado's primary election day tomorrow the left-leaning pollster Public Policy Polling today released a new poll on the senate and governor's races. Bennet's 6-point lead over Romanoff is slightly more than the 4.6% margin of error for the Democratic poll, but the GOP races are both closer than the 3.5% theoretical uncertainty.

Among 767 "likely Republican primary voters" Norton leads Buck 45-43 (12 percent undecided) ((still?)) and McInnis leads Maes 41-40. The only poll that's going to settle these races is the one that starts to be tallied tomorrow at 7pm.

But here's something else I found interesting in the questions asked only of Republicans.

"Do you support or oppose the goals of the 'Tea Party' movement?"

Support - 78%

Oppose - 9%

"Do you personally identify as a member of the 'Tea Party' movement?"

Yes - 35%

No - 47%

So while one-third of us are active anti-tax and spenders, three-quarters of Republicans support our cause. Bully!

(Also curious why they didn't poll those questions of the Dems.)

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:49 PM | Comments (0)

July 19, 2010

Longmont Makes National News

And it's not even a sex offender or anything.

Lesley Hollywood, director of the Northern Colorado Tea Party, is profiled and the popularity of the Tea Party in Colorado is discussed.

ThreeSources Heartthrob Ken Buck gets good coverage and his spectacular polls are documented. But the accompanying picture is not one his mom selected, I'll tell you that.

Posted by John Kranz at 7:29 PM | Comments (4)

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Photo deliberately selected to depict an angry white guy.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 20, 2010 10:18 AM

But jk thinks:

My sentiments exactly. I think the writer wrote a fair assessment and the editor grabbed an AWG (Angry White Guy) photo.

Posted by: jk at July 20, 2010 12:29 PM

But jk thinks:

To be fair, there are some anti-Norton ads running on TV that use photos even less flattering to the LtGov. There is a cost to insurgency and I hope this one os worth it.

Posted by: jk at July 20, 2010 12:31 PM

But johngalt thinks:

I don't think the writer wrote a fair assessment. For example:

"...Tea Party Patriots, leading some of the had-it-up-to-here conservatives..." [TPPs are not all conservatives.]

"...a state like Colorado, not the most natural Tea Party territory." [Colorado has become the swingiest of swing states and has a highly educated population. It's prototypical TEA Party territory.]

"Buck outlines positions he calls more "nuanced" than those attributed to him in the past, when he said his views had been "distilled" and shorthanded by reporters." [Why the scare quotes?]

"...he was hired by then-congressman Dick Cheney..." [You mean, that Dick Cheney?]

"A half-hour later, however, his tone is sharper, his voice louder and his emphasis different when he stands on a makeshift stage to address the crowd. (...) "People are sick and tired of the answer coming out of Washington, D.C., always being more government," Buck shouts into the hand-held microphone.

Posted by: johngalt at July 20, 2010 2:49 PM

The ThreeSources Enemies List

Hey, it worked pretty well for President Nixon!

I love to focus on the positive as much as anybody, but I think some lovers of liberty would do well to enumerate the people and policies that brought us here. Santayana would not want us doomed to repeat Majority Leader Trent Lott.

Senator Helmet Hair is featured in a Washington Examiner Editorial by Mark Tapscott

"We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them," Lott told The Washington Post in an incredibly revealing story.

Tea Partiers prove their "street-cred" by lambasting President Bush at every opportunity. I won't say #43 deserves a marble bust in the Cato lobby, but I have long felt that the GOP brand was despoiled more by Lott, Speaker Hastert, Rep. Tom DeLay, Rep Jerry Lewis, and the general trends of the 108th and 109th Congresses.

My blog brother jg calls for the extirpation of "progressive Republicans." And I wouldn't miss them a lot (they always eat all the good appetizers...) but I am far more concerned with Republicans who want to continue corrupt business-as-usual patronage. Better a dozen McCains than a couple Trent Lotts.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:26 AM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

Wow. What a quote. While I rank the Progressives and the patronage pull-peddlers equally evil you are completely right - these guys have got to go too. Since the ones still in office, unlike lobbyist (naturally) Trent Lott, won't make it so easy to ID them it is up to primary voters in the several states to root these parasites out of the federal government.

Speaking for Colorado, we're actively engaged in doing so right now. I've maintained that Jane Norton is of the Progressive stripe, having been "encouraged to run" in a phone call from John McCain. But I've also said she'll become a McCain puppet, meaning she'll willingly allow herself to be co-opted by the strongest of the powers-that-be.

Fortunately, Norton's opponent Ken Buck leads her in the polls by 16 points. Buck actually leads her in every category except, interestingly, the 17% of those polled who have a "neutral" opinion on the TEA Party Movement. (He leads her by 22 points among those Favorable to the TEA Party (79% of the sample) and 25 points among those who are Unfavorable (7%.)) In other words, the TEA Party is NOT a handicap for Buck, at least in the Primary.

Against his likely Dem challenger, Michael Bennet, the numbers are about 80/10 for Buck among TEA Party favorables (37% of sample) and 80/10 against him among unfavorables (27%). In the neutral and no opinion categories however (21% and 15% respectively), Buck trails by 8 and by 24 points. This will be the challenge to overcome, although by most other demographic splits Buck leads or trails narrowly. Bennet's strength appears to be among white moderate-to-conservative females aged 50-64.

Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2010 3:24 PM

But jk thinks:

I hope you're right. I have only your word on Buck vs. Norton, powerful as it may be.

I think we know who they are. Jerry Lewis (CA 41) is still there. I go back and and forth on Leader Boehner. Mister Pragmatist doesn't really suggest a purge. I'm happy to have Lewis's and McCain's votes for leadership. (I bristle at the juxtaposition, we'd do very well to expel Lewis, but a GOP that cannot find room for Senator McCain is too small.)

What annoys me is the RNC (and House and Senate election committees). In a creep out contest, Michael Steele and Trent Lott would fight to a draw. We need to launch somebody soon into the "civilian leadership" segment of the party who understands a little bit about liberty.

Posted by: jk at July 19, 2010 4:35 PM

July 15, 2010

The crowd burst into applause.

In a recent article linked by JK Matt Kibbe said that TEA Party values represents the majority of Americans, and at the center of the political spectrum.

The Tea Party movement, if sustained, has the potential to take America back from an entrenched establishment of big spenders, political careerists, and rent-seeking corporations. The values that animate us all—lower taxes, less government, and more freedom—is a big philosophical tent set at the very center of American politics.

This reminded me of a sentiment I've expressed, though I couldn't find the instance on these pages, that individualism is Americanism. At the base of the moral code of most Americans is the idea that each of us is entitled to choose our own path, without permission from any master, and to dispose of our earnings as we see fit. All of this is segue to today's 'Atlas Shrugged' QOTD.

Part II, Chapter 4: The Sanction of the Victim- [Henry Reardon at his trial before the judges of the "Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources."]

It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own—I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"

The crowd burst into applause.

Rearden whirled around, more startled than his judges. He saw faces that laughed in violent excitement, and faces that pleaded for help; he saw their silent despair breaking out into the open; he saw the same anger and indignation as his own, finding release in the wild defiance of their cheering; he saw the looks of admiration and the looks of hope. There were also the faces of loose-mouthed young men and maliciously unkempt females, the kind who led the booing in newsreel theaters at any appearance of a businessman on the screen; they did not attempt a counter-demonstration; they were silent.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:11 PM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2010

Quote of the Day

I for one hope we maintain our difference from Europe in continuing to live by the radical principles of individual rights and limits on collective government power. Is that trite? If so, I got my triteness from a guy named Howard Roark: “Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism, the principle of man’s ‘inalienable rights.’ It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce; to prosper, not to starve; to achieve, not to plunder; to hold as his highest possession a sense of his personal value, and as his highest virtue his self-respect.” -- Matt Kibbe

This is as the end of a very interesting discussion of libertarianism and tea partiers.

UPDATE: Internet Segue Machine is set on 11: Ilya Somin summarizes and expounds on the discussion. Nicely, of course.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:31 PM | Comments (3)

But johngalt thinks:

Matt Kibbe expresses my perspective on the TEA Party movement with precision. I didn't bother reading the other two guys. (5 pages?!?)

Posted by: johngalt at July 15, 2010 2:53 PM

But jk thinks:

Jonah Goldberg's (page 3) was brief and worth a read. Most of three pages is for Brink Lindsey's effete, elitist, pointy-head Libertarian thrashing of the TEA partiers. I can't say it is a pleasant read, but it is a good foundation of "Libertario Delenda Est."

Posted by: jk at July 15, 2010 3:13 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Several good takeaways from Goldberg's two pages:

"Isn’t libertarianism about freedom, including the freedom to live conservatively if that’s what people choose? Secularism in politics is a perfectly admirable and libertarian value, but using the state to impose secularism on society is not." Amen.

"Even if the majority of people who (accurately) describe themselves as libertarians favor legalized abortion, it is quite clearly not the case that most care about the issue very much." This libertarian [I] cares about it first for its repulsive effect on unaffiliated voters and second for its proper place in the sphere of the individual. But I must admit that every one of the TPD Republicans I support is publicly pro-life.

"As for social conservatism, I think the real way to deal with Lindsey’s disdain for it is to pursue a more plausible and principled solution to the problems affecting both libertarianism and the country: federalism. As Thomas Jefferson knew, big cities will always be cosmopolitan. But there’s no reason why one narrow definition of cosmopolitanism needs to be imposed across the land. Social conservatives and libertine libertarians—and some practical progressives—should be able to find common cause in a campaign that allows people to live the way they want to live in communities that reflect their values." This reinforces my assertion "At the base of the moral code of most Americans is the idea that each of us is entitled to choose our own path, without permission from any master, and to dispose of our earnings as we see fit."

Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2010 2:55 PM

July 1, 2010

JK's Dark Thought of the Day

No doubt I will run out of these items soon. Surely this won't be a daily feature!

Those wild eyed lib-er-alls at the New York Times take some whacks at Tea Party darling Sharron Angle for avoiding unfriendly press:

Ms. Angle, a Nevada Senate candidate and Tea Party darling, has steadfastly refused to talk to reporters here, leading to some unusually aggressive behavior by local television stations. In a segment fit for TMZ, one intrepid reporter chased her on foot outside a restaurant this month, repeatedly asking why she had once said that “if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.” She ignored the questioner and tried to outpace him, in a video clip replayed across the state.

My dark thought of the day is that this might be a good strategy. She was weak in the friendly environs of a Larry Kudlow interview last night.

Kudlow started the interview with a softball: what would she do, were she elected, to restore growth. (Hint: lady, this is Larry Kudlow's show, maybe something about lower taxes or less regulation or something...) Ms. Angle gets rabidly partisan: Well, Larry the first thing to do is unseat Harry Reid! He's a job killer, we have 17% unemployment! And...

And Larry breaks in. Yes, but if you win, which might be your first legislative goals?

[Pause]

[Deer in the headlights]

[Pause]

"Repeal ObamaCare!" [Good answer, Would've been better 24 seconds ago, but we can edit that out on YouTube, Show some cute kittens playing with a toy for a while...]

I am being a bit harsh but it was not a good interview. And this was not Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson trying to trip her, this was Larry Kudlow.

I sent her $50 way back when she started. She was a tea party candidate who knocked off a "conventional GOPer" in the primary. Was that a mistake? And how many times did/will this happen this cycle?

Posted by John Kranz at 12:22 PM | Comments (3)

But johngalt thinks:

Okay, this one is easy. Not all "TEA Party darlings" will be Mister Smith, and oh by the way, Mister Smith had Frank Capra, a Hollywood script, and as many takes as it ... took ... to get it right. But the plot still works:

"A naive man is appointed to fill a vacancy in the US Senate. His plans promptly collide with political corruption, but he doesn't back down."

Hopefully Sharon and other TPDs will take a page from Ken Buck who said, "I'm not sure I will win but I am who I am." Voters are looking for more of that these days.

Posted by: johngalt at July 1, 2010 2:51 PM

But T. Greer thinks:

JK-

Is it too early for a "told you so"?

Posted by: T. Greer at July 1, 2010 3:41 PM

But jk thinks:

Not a function of time, tg. You said they would be ineffectual and I have been waiting for a "TYS" on efficacy.

If all the Tea Party candidates win their primaries and are so ill fitted to politics that hey lose the generals, then I will serve one up with whipped cream, chocolate chips and a cherry.

Posted by: jk at July 1, 2010 4:07 PM

June 27, 2010

Those Angry Tea Partiers!

The roving band of protesters torched four police cruisers and shattered shop windows with baseball bats and hammers for blocks, including at police headquarters, then shed some of their black clothes, revealing other garments, and continued their rampage.

Police used shields, clubs, tear gas and pepper spray to push back the protesters who tried to head south toward the security fence surrounding the Group of 20 summit site. Some demonstrators hurled rocks and bottles at police.

The vandalism occurred just blocks from where U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders were meeting and staying.

Oh, no. Wait... I guess these "activists" are protesting the G-20 Summit. My Bad.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:42 AM | Comments (3)

But Giggle T thinks:

I don't really care if they were a bunch of Tea Partiers or a clown troupe. These people need to understand that vandalism and/or violent protests will never give them the credibility to actually have their voices heard.

Civil protests and contacting leaders in a polite manner will go so much farther than torching cars.

Posted by: Giggle T at June 27, 2010 6:51 PM

But johngalt thinks:

I'm in full agreement with Giggle T of course, but I think the point is that popular news outlets frequently refer to TEA Party goers as "angry protesters" but the word angry never seems to appear in these reports about routine instances of political vandalism. Instead, the "black-clad youths" are apologized for: "Despite the violence, no serious injuries were reported..."

Posted by: johngalt at June 27, 2010 8:07 PM

But jk thinks:

I think our friend gt might be more interested in getting us to click on a malware link than engaging us intellectually.

I have kept both your comments, Giggle T, but have removed the links. If I am wrong, please email me.

Posted by: jk at June 28, 2010 10:04 AM

June 22, 2010

Six Stars

That's what I'm giving the new Ridley Scott "Robin Hood" film that JK rated (unseen) at 5 stars. It isn't just "a rousing love letter to the tea party movement" but a must see inspiration.

I also hereby nominate Ridley Scott to direct a film version of Atlas Shrugged, after reading How 'Nottingham' Became 'Robin Hood' and Robin Hood - Whose Fault Was It?

In Hollywood, the director is always considered to be the ultimate author of a movie. The director is always right, and the bigger the director, the less likely anyone will shoot down their crazy whims. So what happens, Martell asks, when the director is wrong? If Universal/Imagine had taken Robin Hood away from Scott when it started to go off the rails and had handed it to a younger, cheaper director -- one interested in actually making the script that Imagine had bought -- then it could have been delivered on schedule, wouldn't have cost a reported $200 million-plus, and might have actually been good.

And...

This might not come as a welcome thought for fans of Loxley and the gang, but it was about half-way through the film that I realized that the 'origin' of Robin really isn't all that interesting. When it comes down to it, the tale of Robin Hood doesn't really get exciting until he's Robin Hood -- you know, robbing from the rich, giving to the poor. But in Hood, so much time is devoted to creating a supposedly 'realistic' setting around the myth that you kind of wish they would just get to the good part.

Yep, that explains why so many of these reviewers thought it was boring and too long and terrible - He never did get around to "robbing from the rich, giving to the poor." Instead, he protected the weak from the strong. (Dang, what a LOOOOOOZERRRR.)

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:03 PM | Comments (0)

June 18, 2010

Are You Angry Yet?

Blog Brother LatteSipper recently surfaced on Facebook. I think we chased him away from here with my partisan hackery.

But I am thinking I might use my June quota of FB politics on this one. It's Volume CXLII of "explaining those crazy tea partiers to sensible NYTimes readers." But this one is by a Philosophy professor. He's going to use metaphysics to explain why we're so angry.

I'll warn prospective clickers that it's long for a blog post, but I suggest it. You get bonus Hegel references and get to watch the Professor try to stay professorial as he is so clearly befuddled at what we is and what we be so angry about.

Hegel’s thesis is that all social life is structurally akin to the conditions of love and friendship; we are all bound to one another as firmly as lovers are, with the terrible reminder that the ways of love are harsh, unpredictable and changeable. And here is the source of the great anger: because you are the source of my being, when our love goes bad I am suddenly, absolutely dependent on someone for whom I no longer count and who I no longer know how to count; I am exposed, vulnerable, needy, unanchored and without resource. In fury, I lash out, I deny that you are my end and my satisfaction, in rage I claim that I can manage without you, that I can be a full person, free and self-moving, without you. I am everything and you are nothing.

This is the rage and anger I hear in the Tea Party movement; it is the sound of jilted lovers furious that the other — the anonymous blob called simply “government” — has suddenly let them down, suddenly made clear that they are dependent and limited beings, suddenly revealed them as vulnerable.

To be fair, that's the worst bit but I'll let you decide if that vindicates...

I do respect that he arrives at birthright liberty -- even if it's from the wrong side. And even if he does not recognize it when he finds it.

I am so startled by the attribution of anger. I guess some town halls got more contentious than usual. But I attended a couple of rallies and remember grannies and grandpas waving Gadsden flags. Cops walked their bikes through the crowds in shorts and chatted with the participants. How is this group "angry" and not the riot-gear devastation I see in collectivist marches?

And why can't they take a few of us at our word? Again, the antiwar marches have all sorts of fringe elements, yet they generously attribute the purpose to the central group. The people I saw clearly wanted limited government. Tenth Amendment stuff.

I can't walk into a room and agree with everybody (look at us!) I certainly do not expect that everybody on the West steps of the Capitol agrees with me.

Unsettling. Worthy of a response, I don't know. But if you want to understand those mysterious and angry collectivist lefties, It's worth a read.

Posted by John Kranz at 7:51 AM | Comments (0)

June 9, 2010

Tilting at Windmills and Repeal

This one is for blog friend TGreer. He produced a thoughtful post on a topic once near and dear: repeal of the 17th Amendment.

[New York Magazine's Jessica] Senior seems surprised that the Senate has become a second House of Representatives. She should not be. We have thrown out the institutional checks the framers designed to prevent the Senate from becoming slave to 'popular fluctuations.' It was only a matter of time before the norms that maintained the Senate's dignity were also discarded.

The institutional check I refer to is the original method by which our senators were chosen. While the members of the House of Representatives were chosen directly by the people, the senators were chosen by the legislatures of the states they represented. Senators were not thought of as representatives of the people, but as delegates from the states. Not unlike today's diplomats, the only link between these statesmen and the people they represented were the governments the latter had elected.

One of my present day heroes takes up the banner today and salutes the Tea Partiers who have re-raised the issue. Gene Healy, author of "The Cult of the Presidency" and a vice president at the Cato Institute, joins tg and I in preference for the original:

"Let the state legislatures appoint the Senate," Virginia's George Mason urged at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, lest a newly empowered federal government "swallow up the state legislatures." The motion carried unanimously after Mason's remarks.

So it's probably fitting that it's a George Mason University law professor, Todd Zywicki, who has done the best work on the 17th Amendment's pernicious effects.

Zywicki shows that selection by state legislatures was a key pillar of the Constitution's architecture, ensuring that the Senate would be a bulwark for decentralized government. It's "inconceivable," Zywicki writes, "that a Senator during the pre-17th Amendment era would vote for an 'unfunded federal mandate.'

Healy shares my pessimism that repeal would be effected and effective. The Progressives -- led by a call from one of tg's heroes, but I hate to rub it in -- established popular election in many states prior to ratification. I don't think we're going to unwind this string cheese.

And, while I'd support repeal, I'll stand by my comments to tg's post: the amount of government influence and control is more problematic than the mechanism. The $20 million that goes to TV ads for a Colorado race would just go to individual legislators and create 100 opportunities for 100 Blagojeviches.

But we can miss it and dream.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:53 AM | Comments (1)

But T. Greer thinks:

Thanks for the shout out.

You might be interested in a NYT op ed that leads with the following passage:

After gaining control of much of the world’s copper supply, the 19th-century robber baron William A. Clark set out to buy a seat in the United States Senate. Openly, he went about bribing Montana legislators, $10,000 a vote, the cash paid in monogrammed envelopes.

Mark Twain called Clark “as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag,� but the senator did not show any shame. “I never bought a man who wasn’t for sale,� he said.

It was corruption such as this that led to the 17th Amendment, which allows direct election of senators by the people, not state legislators. And it was stone-hearted, Gilded Age titans like Clark who prompted this populist movement in the West.

Corruption and money was just as big a concern before the age of big government as it is now.

The difference, however, is that the type of corruption displayed by Gilded Aged senators is clearly illegal and punishable by law. The influences of lobbyists and out of state money machines is not. (Nor should it be, for liberty's sake.)

We have advanced in some ways over the last 100 years. No longer are we afraid to prosecute public officials. And in this the comparison with Blagovich is apt - he was indicted. I see no reason to think that the same would not happen with the 100 Blogovichs you fear would arise once the 17th came down.

Posted by: T. Greer at June 11, 2010 11:46 PM

May 12, 2010

Reading List Nomination

Mike Rosen's 10 am guest today was author Lee Harris, whose most recent book entitled The Next American Civil War: The Populist Revolt against the Liberal Elite might find a welcome place on the reading list of every ThreeSourcer.

Throughout our history, Americans have always challenged the definition of liberty, and this has allowed us to progress as a society. Harris argues that this debate is good and necessary, and that we must take this new populist uprising seriously if we are to defend our founding principles. A masterly and visionary work that weaves current events with philosophical investigation, The Next American Civil War rethinks Americans' most elemental ideas of freedom in order to enable the people of the United States to face the challenges of our times.

Harris has penned other titles that, were I a more prolific reader, I'd likely have read by now. Civilization and It's Enemies explains that historical amnesia leaves the west unprepared to defend itself from the barbarism of al-Qaida (and the sneeringly dismissive review of the book by Publisher's Weekly is reminiscent of the vitreol once reserved for the likes of Ayn Rand). The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West carries the theme further and "offers strategies by which liberal internationalism can defend itself without becoming a mirror of the tribal forces it is trying to defeat."

But The Next American Civil War apparently concerns a different threat to western liberal internationalism namely, liberal internationalists.

Here's a link to the audio interview, wherein he even mentions the Woolworth's' Waitresses jk blogged about back in ought-five.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:38 PM | Comments (2)

But jk thinks:

Ah, September ought five, happy days! I still had no idear that the Republicans weren't going to usher in some libertarian paradise...

I'm still lumbering through the Presidents but try to give myself one piece of candy per month if I keep up with my medicine. Professor Jeffry Miron's Libertariaism from A - Z is fun. But if there were a quorum who wanted to read this and discuss on these pages, I'm in.

Posted by: jk at May 12, 2010 5:08 PM

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Sounds like a must read. Thanks for the tip, JG!

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at May 12, 2010 6:47 PM

May 9, 2010

Otequay of the Ayday

Anyone remember my mention of the Senate Conservatives Fund? It was just before our little foray into drug legalization so I'll understand if you missed it. Here's part of Jim DeMint's endorsement of Weld County (CO) DA and GOP candidate for the US Senate Ken Buck:

"There are certainly other good Republicans in this race," said Senator DeMint, "but I believe Ken Buck is a conservative standout who will fight the establishment in both parties when he gets to Washington."

Music to my TEA Party ears.

"The purpose of the Senate Conservatives Fund is to help elect strong candidates who are overlooked by the Washington establishment," said Senator DeMint. "Ken Buck is one of those candidates, and I'm confident he will win if he gets his message out. My goal with this race is to partner with freedom-loving Americans in Colorado and across the country to help level playing field and give Ken Buck the support he needs to win the primary in August and defeat the Democrat in November. I am not trying to tell the people of Colorado how to vote; I am asking for their help because we need Ken Buck to save our country."

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:36 AM | Comments (0)

April 27, 2010

Dang Good Advice

From Cato:

Posted by John Kranz at 5:18 PM | Comments (7)

But jk thinks:

All hope is lost.

That's your takeaway? He made a (throwaway) line on a call to return to Federalism, so that Tea Partiers do not get mired in social issues, and your single comment is that it's an attack on abortion rights?

Sorry, I was just surprised -- I had to watch it again to see what you were talking about. Yup, you're right, he has my crazy-ass view of Roe. But if that's a dealbreaker for you and a lack of flat out repeal is a dealbreaker for pro-lifers, then we have no plurality, Leviathan-plus wins.

Posted by: jk at April 28, 2010 5:47 PM

But dagny thinks:

1. Republicans aren't always your friends.
c.f. Bush, McCain, Collins, Snowe, Crist.
2. Some tea partiers like big government.
Well, it's not called the TTM Party (although I'd support that one too.)
3. Democrats aren't always your enemies.
That's right. Look at the principled vote of one Ben Nelson. cough, cough.
4. Smaller government demands restraint abroad.
Iraq was a consequence of a feckless U.N. more than anything else. Can we start by just asking them to reform or get the hell out of our country? I hear France is nice.
5. Leave social issues to the states.
OK, it's a pet peeve. Can you blame me for focusing on this one? I suppose I'm guilty of the same thing most readers are. We comment only where we disagree, with rare but notable exceptions.

Posted by: dagny at April 28, 2010 9:30 PM

But jk thinks:

You guys gotta be more careful about setting your name. Identity ambiguity is an unfair advantage [smileyface].

I don't want anybody to abandon their principles. But any success from the Tea Party movement will require a little *cough* pragmatic ability to come together on important issues and leave other things at the door.

Abortion seems almost quaint -- the real danger to the Tea Party is immigration. I think it is still underappreciated how badly that rift hurt the GOP in 2006 and 2008. Am I going to support Scott McInnis if he wins the CO Gubernatorial primary and wants to "sign a law like the Arizona one?"

Tough times lay ahead. But if Jefferson and Hamilton were able to work together...

Posted by: jk at April 29, 2010 11:12 AM

But johngalt thinks:

Yeah, dagny comments infrequently enough that I never check the "remembered" name entry when I comment from a shared computer.

I hope (and pray?) that abortion is merely a quaint political issue now. I do agree that Republicans and conservatives in general are more bold in standing up to hollow shout-downs like "racist" "nazi" "hater" "homophobe" and continue to press for their beliefs. That's one reason you see the AZ legislature and governor actually growing a pair to "make illegal immigration illegal." The horror! And unlike the 50-50 issue of abortion, the political support for border control is lopsided in favor. (I think 55 pro, 36 con, 9 unsure.)

Posted by: johngalt at April 29, 2010 11:31 AM

But jk thinks:

Game On! (See my new post Apr 29) I cede Arizona's right to strict enforcement BUT NOT arbitrary and capricious demands for documentation AND NOT its spreading to Colorado.

Posted by: jk at April 29, 2010 12:19 PM

But johngalt thinks:

I'll save the back and forth for the new post but for balance let me say...

My understanding of the Arizona law (essentially a duplication of long-standing federal law) is that "arbitrary or capricious" demands for documentation are forbidden.

If Colorado were to follow AZ's lead it's not really "spreading" to our state in the sense that federal law already has standing here too.

Posted by: johngalt at April 29, 2010 3:03 PM

April 20, 2010

Quote of the Day

The voiceover is by US citizen (and spiritual mentor, most recently, to Major Hasan) Ayman al-Awlaki. He is explaining the rationale for killing identified individuals, including the creators of “South Park”.

Mr al-Awlaki says things like, "Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that."

Maybe he’d get a worse press if he were to stop pussyfooting around and explicitly incite violence by saying something openly hateful like "I'm becoming very concerned about federal spending." -- Mark Steyn

Hat-tip: Instapundit

Posted by John Kranz at 7:29 PM | Comments (3)

But AlexC thinks:

LIKE

Posted by: AlexC at April 20, 2010 10:17 PM

But Lisa M thinks:

Yeah, that second comment about federal spending borders on sedition.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 21, 2010 7:43 AM

But jk thinks:

I fear to have it on the blog. This domain is registered in my name!

Posted by: jk at April 21, 2010 10:38 AM

April 19, 2010

Quote of the Day

I think it was Obama with his usual condescension — except he ratcheted it up to Code Orange into snootiness — where he looks down his nose at the gun-and-god crowd, the lumpenproletariat, as he sees it. And he ridicules them because they're not grateful enough to him.

And look, it's quite obvious what he’s talking about. He thinks that they are stupid because they don't recognize that he hasn't raised their taxes. -- Charles Krauthammer

Posted by John Kranz at 6:45 PM | Comments (2)

But AlexC thinks:

How often did President Bush knock his political opponents?

Posted by: AlexC at April 19, 2010 7:28 PM

But johngalt thinks:

You cut the Krauthammer quote short. The last word was supposed to be "... yet."

Posted by: johngalt at April 20, 2010 2:44 PM

April 18, 2010

I am the TEA Party

LM's picture with her sign at a recent PA TEA Party was all the excuse I needed to put up this pic of me at the most recent Denver party. Not only am I "wealthier and more well-educated than the general public" and "just another extremist element who thinks he should get to spend his own earnings" I am also an ...

Can't you just tell how absolutely freakin' filthy RICH I must be?? In defense of the NY Times though, I do have a college degree.

The Times also said, "The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45." So what exactly does "tend to be" mean? 50.1% I suppose.

I meet all those requirements, sure enough, and look at all those old white dudes behind me, but then the Times story goes on to quote four TEA Party celebrants. Their names are Elwin, Kathy, Dee and Jodine. If this had been a pro-Obama rally the Times would probably have said "women outnumbered men three to one."

Posted by JohnGalt at 1:21 PM | Comments (2)

But Lisa M thinks:

Love it, jg! I may have to lift that one for the next Tea Party.

A common sight around Independence Mall in Philly is the guy who dresses up as Ben Franklin. I'm not sure who pays this guy to walk around the city pretending he's Ben Franklin, but he was hanging out on the fringes of the rally all day. Finally, just beofe my girlfriend and I were getting ready to leave, he came up and, reading my sign, remarked, "Boy, you two really look like dangerous radicals." We agreed that we were indeed dangerous radicaqls, and Ole Ben began to elaborate about his sympathy witht eh Tea Partiers. My guess is that if he wasn't working, he would have joined in with us.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 18, 2010 9:30 PM

But johngalt thinks:

I'm thinking I should start working on a Ben Franklin costume for the next TEA Party. My sign will be "A REPUBLIC, MA'AM, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."

Posted by: johngalt at April 20, 2010 2:53 PM

Quote of the Day

The rally, estimated in the tens of thousands, also displayed a wacky, irreverent spirit that I found endearing. I can't help but smile when paunchy small-business owners aged 50 and older don three-cornered hats and hoist rattlesnake flags in exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. -- Robert McCartney, WaPo

McCartney "differ[s] strenuously with the protesters on about 95 percent of the issues" but gives a pretty fair assesment of the participants.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:30 PM | Comments (0)

TEABAGGERS EXPLAINED

At last, I have the lowdown on these tea parties you have been hearing so much about. A work friend posts this on Facebook:

Teabaggers (OK, the Tea Party), explained: "What's happening here is that you have a few leaders tapping into a very, very old seated racial resentment. . . . It's about 'those other folks' getting something that would otherwise go to you. That's ancient, and it goes back to reconstruction times. That's not about... information." -- Laura Flanders on Real Time with Bill Maher

There were 44 comments. One guy seemed to have not completely bought in, but the rest were how right she was and thank you for telling us this and...

I broke my no-politics-on-Facebook pledge yet again and there are now 45 comments. Perhaps I need a quota. If I could only pipe up once a month, I could save it up for a good cause.

Again, the poster lives near me, has three kids and a mortgage. This is not some poli-sci major at CU. I assume her laudatory commenters are in a similar class and situation.

UPDATE: Okay, I got me first response. I don't know the sender but she chose to personally engage on an intellectual level:

Head in the sand , head in the sand looking like a fool with your heads in the sand.
I just read back through this entire string and am struck by the single generalization that was made: "disagreeing with the left ALWAYS leads to charges of racism".

You go white people - who else would know better about the end of racism or even what it looks like - I guess I was just being a crazy liberal to listen to people of color on the issue -

I am sure the "birthers" are just concerned Americans worried about the political direction of the country - my bad for doubting.

NO ONE said all Tea Party activists are racist and I would imagine that the geographic location of any rally would be a factor in the characteristics of the participants at said rally. Exchanges like this one are sure leading me to the conclusion that, beyond the overt and covert racial elements of the movement, there are a growing number of Tea Party supporters willing to condone racism by their unwillingness to acknowledge it even exists.

Have I thanked ThreeSourcers lately? Even when there is bloodletting like Perry and TG, it is on topic and thoughtful. Thanks.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:58 AM | Comments (8)

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

"NO ONE said all Tea Party activists are racist"

This is true only when taken literally. The libtards simply say that Tea partiers are acting out of racism -- meaning the movement as a whole, and that racism isn't necessarily the direct motivation.

I don't even need to go into specifics. I'll just provide this and let y'all form your own conclusions.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 18, 2010 7:39 PM

But Lisa M thinks:

"Racist" is just the liberal way of saying "Shut up!" I'm about sick of this method of non-debate too, and tweeked my old managing editor's nose about it as I commented on his column this morning. If you are interested, his phoned-in column, and my response are here.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 18, 2010 9:49 PM

But johngalt thinks:

One heckuva smack-down. Loved it! I'd say Gordon would be better off sticking with roller hockey, where he only lost 10-2.

Posted by: johngalt at April 19, 2010 10:40 AM

But johngalt thinks:

And it was news to me that Megan McCain joins Herr Olbermann and Janine Garofolo in believing TEA Partiers are "racist redneck hicks." (Toward the bottom of PE's google link.)

Pappa John McCain must be so proud!

Posted by: johngalt at April 19, 2010 10:45 AM

But jk thinks:

I was glad he wasn't on my hockey team.

Posted by: jk at April 19, 2010 10:58 AM

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Loved your reply, LM. But I guess that makes me a racist.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 21, 2010 10:18 AM

April 17, 2010

April 15 - "TEA Party Day"

I posted a TEA Party article by one of JK's favorites... now here's one of mine - Robert Tracinski: American Love of Liberty is Not Dead.

The whole idea behind income taxes and runaway government spending is a reversal of the original meaning of America. It is a switch from a system of individual rights, a nation of independent individuals, private enterprise, and private property-to a system of subservience to the state.

(...)

I didn't think I'd see anything worse than that article-but wouldn't you know it. On Monday, there was a new article in the Boston Globe by somebody named James Carroll, who argues for "the true patriotism of paying taxes." He says that we should show gratitude for paying taxes, because it is our chance to show our dedication to-and this is a real quote-"the sacred treasure we share as a people." That "sacred treasure" is the state. And, he says, "Taxes are its sacrament."

The state as "sacred"? Taxes as a "sacrament"? I've heard it said that the left wants to put the state in the place of God, but I've never heard someone on the left admit it so clearly. Religious folks would view this as sacrilege. I'm secular in my outlook, but I agree-it's a sacrilege against America.

Posted by JohnGalt at 10:55 AM | Comments (1)

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

There isn't enough profanity in the world to describe an asswipe like Paul Regala.

The real Patriot's Day is Monday, the 235th anniversary.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 17, 2010 9:58 PM

Prosperity depends on Constitutional Limits of Government

Larry Kudlow is on board with the 'Contract from America.'

Harking back to the Founders' principles of constitutional limits to government is a very powerful message. It's a message of freedom, especially economic freedom. The tea partiers have delivered an extremely accurate diagnostic of what ails America right now: Government is growing too fast, too much, too expensively and in too many places -- and in the process it is crowding out our cherished economic freedom.

It's as though the tea partiers are saying this great country will never fulfill its long-run potential to prosper, create jobs and lead the world unless constitutional limits to government are restored.

Posted by JohnGalt at 10:46 AM | Comments (3)

But jk thinks:

Larry has been talking it up on his show as well. He had the guy who started it on, and he has asked most of his guests about it.

I'd go for all of them but (always gotta be a "but...") I'd reword #9 as reducing government intrusion into the energy sector. It reads "Less government, Less government, Less government, Less government, Less government, Less government, Less government, Less government, NATIONAL EBERGY POLICY, Less government,."

But that's small beans. Yes, jk is on board with the output -- and celebrates the Hayekian, crowdsourced creation.

Posted by: jk at April 17, 2010 11:25 AM

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

I'm going to quibble a little with the phrasing, but not the sentiment. To say that "Government is growing too fast, too much, too expensively and in too many places" still implies that there's a proper rate for government to be growing fast, to be growing much, to be growing expensively, and that there are many places where it's proper to expand.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 17, 2010 10:02 PM

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Let me put it another way that I heard from someone years ago. Once you say something like, "Taxes are too high," you've just admitted that there's a certain level you find acceptable.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 17, 2010 10:05 PM

TEA Party "Contract From America"

Here's a political platform I can completely support. Comprised from the online votes of over 450,000 Americans are the top ten priorities of those who want to take their country back from the welfare statists. They call it the Contract from America.

1. Protect the Constitution
Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget
Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

6. End Runaway Government Spending
Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork
Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes
Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:04 AM | Comments (8)

But jk thinks:

Excellent! What he says.

Posted by: jk at April 17, 2010 11:18 AM

But johngalt thinks:

It's more awesome-er the more I think about it. It would make a great bumper sticker too. Even dagny would put it on her car.

Posted by: johngalt at April 17, 2010 11:33 AM

But Lisa M thinks:

I can't claim it's my original sentiment--I did in fact get it off of a bumpersticker. But it sums up everything I want to say. Heading out now armed with my camera!

Posted by: Lisa M at April 17, 2010 12:10 PM

But Lisa M thinks:

Independence Hall Tea Party pics here.

I had a great time, met a lot of great people and I will definitely go again.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 17, 2010 9:56 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Good pics LM! I share your appreciation of the grandma and "biker dude" conversing. I see plenty of this kind of thing at the TEA Parties I attend too. And a grandmotherly type was the one to told me to "show that one a lot more" about my "What part of 'Enumerated Powers' don't you understand?" sign.

Posted by: johngalt at April 18, 2010 12:26 PM

But Lisa M thinks:

The funnier picture that I didn't post was the one of the group of gay Obama supporters who were hanging out at the edge of the crowd all day watching being intensely engaged by a Ron Paul supporter wearing and "End the Fed" tee shirt. The more I think about everything I saw and heard down there yesterday, the happier I am that I went.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 18, 2010 9:32 PM

The Making of Electoral Landslides

A new book published this month explains how four wealthy progressives transformed Colorado politics from red to blue in a single election cycle. The Blueprint by Rob Witwer and Adam Schrager describes the targeted use of massive amounts of cash in close races to essentially buy Colorado politics for the Democrats. If they're smart, Republicans will adopt much of this winning strategy.

I haven't read the book but one or both authors appeared on two different Denver radio shows today. In the morning Rob Witwer was on the Rosen show and both authors were interviewed by KHOW's Craig Silverman in the afternoon. A critical concession mentioned in both venues was agreement by the monied donors from the very beginning that they would not bicker with each other over policy differences. Instead, they all agreed that their solitary goal was election of Democrat candidates.

I'm not sure it's that simple for Republicans. After all, we have McCain and his merry band of big-government do-gooders to be wary of. But I do think the advice is useful when it comes to the fiscal/social conservative divide.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:45 AM | Comments (0)

April 16, 2010

Where is the other half of Conservative voters?

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh cited opinion poll results that have shown consistently, since the question was initiated in 2002, Americans consider themselves "conservative" by a 2-to-1 margin over those who call themselves "liberal." So why are GOP and Democrat registrations nearly equal in the 30 percent range? I guess it's because Republicans aren't "chic."

David Harsanyi gives a more pointed explanation in his observations on yesterday's Tax Day TEA Party at the Denver capitol:

And though tea party supporters are more conservative than the average voter on social issues, as well -- particularly abortion, according to a separate Gallup Poll -- The New York Times reports that 8 in 10 tea party activists believe the movement should focus on economic issues rather than cultural ones.

How long have we been hearing from moderate, sensible, worldly Republican types that if only -- if only -- the right found God on economic issues and lost God on the social ones, there would be an expansion of appeal and support? Apparently, they were right.

The rest of the column gives some good polling info on TEA Party opinions. For example, would you believe that most TEA Party activists believe the taxes they now pay are "fair?"

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:34 PM | Comments (8)

But Lisa M thinks:

Yes, jg, I started this post agreeing with your assessment because I do think the abortion issue gets in the way of fiscal conservatism, in that the issue has been so inflated in importance of the minds of the people---it's a RIGHT to kill your unborn child!----that any opposition to it is looked upon as a revocation of rights. (As an aside, I think we've already hashed that out here, and I would say our basic disagreement boils down to when to confer rights on an unborn child.) That all being said if a fiscal conservative is pro-choice, it's not a deal breaker for me.

However, there is such a thing as a pro-life Democrat, PA's own Bob Casey Sr. (Junior is a joke) being the prominent among them. But Bart Stupak, even though his collapse at the end was ridiculously weak, was elected as a Democrat on a pro-life platform. I think there is still a segment of Dems out there--shrinking, to be sure---that still think that this is their father's democratic party and don't understand that their party has been hijacked by the far left. Since the so-called pro-life democrats failed their constituency in the health care vote, it will be interesting to see where this shakes out.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 16, 2010 8:28 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Fair enough. But for my part I've always believed that Dems claim a pro-life stance only when they think it's required to win election in a given district, while pro-life GOP'ers are more likely to crawl across broken glass for the issue. And why? Because the (yes, religiously motivated) pro-life lobby demands total commitment, or else they take their money and votes and go home.

I just hope that most pro-life voters are able to join you in adopting the TEA Party principles with at least as much intensity and dedication as they've pursued outlawing of abortion and gay marriage. Events of the post-Reagan era have shown that either conservative faction by itself is no match for the welfare eco-statists.

Posted by: johngalt at April 17, 2010 2:44 AM

But Lisa M thinks:

I agree 100% with this assessment: "Because the (yes, religiously motivated) pro-life lobby demands total commitment, or else they take their money and votes and go home." and agree that fiscal conservatism should be everyone's first priority for government, especially in these times.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 17, 2010 9:04 AM

But johngalt thinks:

Kum Bay Ahhhh!

In re-reading the original post to dagny I noted that Harsanyi already observed that TEA Partiers are more socially conservative than the average voter - and yet overwhelmingly support a "focus on economic issues rather than cultural ones."

I hope I don't risk the shared joy of the moment with a fine adjustment to your characterization of our difference on the abortion issue. I think we agree that an unborn child has rights at conception. The disagreement is over the hierarchy of those rights: I say they trump the rights of every other individual except the mother.

Posted by: johngalt at April 17, 2010 11:23 AM

But jk thinks:

As a great philosopher once said "It's a mixed up, muddled and shook up world 'cept for Lola."

Growing up in a Catholic community, there is a significant vote that goes to Republicans from voters who yearn for a progressive agenda but cannot countenance abortion (through-the looking glass Johngalts and Dagnies).

It's an electoral dynamic that cannot be ignored.

Posted by: jk at April 17, 2010 11:30 AM

But johngalt thinks:

We try to ignore them anyway, the same way you try to ignore kids in a public pool who you just know are peeing in it. We (dagny and I) call these types "the worst of both [philosophical] worlds." They want to infringe the social AND economic liberties of others. The ones you speak of are disciples of the social justice movement that Glenn Beck railed against.

Posted by: johngalt at April 18, 2010 12:46 PM

April 11, 2010

"Capitalism is the only truth that keeps the nation healthy and fed."

I happened upon this on FNC's Huckabee show yesterday and have to share it, now and for posterity.

Actor Jon Voight, one year the junior of my 'mad-as-hell over the state of American governance father' uses his interview on the show as a platform for a ranting expose against the sitting President of the United States, except that he isn't ranting - he's sober as a judge and serious as a heart attack.

Hat Tip: Marc Schenker at Associated Content who gives a thorough review of the letter and its presentation. Special recognition for the word "Bailoutpalooza."

UPDATE: [12APR 12:38 MDT] I checked google news to see if any other media outlets were talking about the Voight letter. You can see all four related stories here. But you can't see the original story that I HT'ed anymore. Apparently AssociatedContent.com has blackballed it. And earlier today the original author, Marc Schenker, posted another story revealing the censorship. Of course that posting gets "The content you're looking for has been removed" treatment as well. But google saw it before it was yanked.

Associated Content Censored My Accurate Reporting on Voight's Criticism of Obama Associated Content - Marc Schenker - ‎19 hours ago‎ today. As some of you have read, my article of today ACCURATELY REPORTED on Jon Voight's criticism of Barack Obama, which was delivered on Mike Huckabee's ...

Is this a genuine case of internet censorship? Anyone know how to access the google cache pages?

AssociatedContent.com "is an open content network. AC's platform enables anyone to participate in the new content economy by publishing content on any topic, in any format (text, video, audio and images), and connects that content to consumers, partners and advertisers."

Apparently some content is less equal than others.

Mega hat tip: The patriot who youtubed the Huckabee appearance - "DouggieJ." It may only be a matter of hours before youtube blows him away too.

Note: As of this UPDATE, the video has 18,458 views (compared to 196,251 who viewed 'Obama can't name any ChiSox players?')

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:34 PM | Comments (2)

But jk thinks:

I dunno man. It's nice to hear a Hollywood cat talk up capitalism, but I think rape and poison are over the top.

Posted by: jk at April 11, 2010 3:27 PM

But johngalt thinks:

A more appropriate word may be found than rape but poison is precisely correct: "Giving them the idea that they are entitled to take from the wealthier who have lived and worked in a democracy that understands that capitalism is the only truth that keeps a nation healthy and fed." [pointed glare]

Keep swallowing that and, when you run out of the wealthy, you're dead.

Posted by: johngalt at April 11, 2010 6:00 PM

April 8, 2010

On The One Hand, 100 Video Cameras

On the other hand, the probity of a Union Boss:

As Breitbart spoke, [AFL-CIO chief Richard] Trumka said he himself had seen the events in question. "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word," Trumka said. "I witnessed it, I witnessed it. I saw it in person. That's real evidence."

Your call.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:44 PM | Comments (3)

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Then there shouldn't be a problem producing verifiable video and audio, right?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 8, 2010 11:24 PM

But jk thinks:

We don't need proof. We have the word of a long-time union official.

Posted by: jk at April 9, 2010 12:37 PM

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

To paraphrase Groucho Marx, who are we going to believe, him or our own lying ears?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 9, 2010 3:05 PM

America's "Unusual Bargain"

In the 25th comment under JK's "That's Not Me" post lamenting the "God and Values and Country" flavor of the organized TEA Party Express bus tour JK expressed that "giving" a right to individuals which, in turn, takes away the rights of other individuals to "define my own law" is an unusual bargain. Maybe I'm being too cavalier but I believe that's what America has always been about. In the 26th comment I made a layman's case for a supportive Constitutional interpretation:

I contend that our difference of opinion arises from two different interpretations of the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I submit that these unenumerated rights are those of individual people. I read you as insisting that what is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution any majority of people may impose upon all individual people. I say the latter interpretation de facto turns the ninth amendment on its head.

It's an interesting topic worthy of its own post. And the original thread rolled off the page today. Something tells me that commenters aren't yet finished.

UPDATE: An extension of the excerpt from my own comment (in response to jk's first comment below).

The ninth amendment is to protect the rights of individuals, of minorities, from all levels of government, not of states from the Feds. By my reading the tenth amendment does not give the states power to abrogate the right of individual people "to be secure in their persons..."

This is the nature of my "parasite" argument. That clinical term does not imply benefit or harm, but the state of being conjoined as one person in the eyes of the Constitution. No, you won't find this in the text. But you will find numerous prohibitions that threaten Obamacare or "the right to receive uncompensated medical care from my neighbor."

(Emphasis added.)

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:32 PM | Comments (2)

But jk thinks:

So there is indeed a right to health care (nowhere does it say there isn't). And any law which allows any provider to refrain from providing any treatment for any reason will be struck down.

This will save us a lot of debate on ObamaCare and I won't have to endure another one of those "God and Values and Country" TEA parties.

Posted by: jk at April 8, 2010 4:42 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Funny, I haven't seen any legislatures passing such laws ... telling doctors they don't have to treat someone.

I don't understand why it's so hard to recognize that a document acknowledging unenumerated individual liberties doesn't imply unenumerated government powers. Specifically enumerating the latter is the way to protect the former.

Posted by: johngalt at April 8, 2010 7:49 PM

The Raciest Thing Ever on ThreeSources

Nate Beeler

Posted by John Kranz at 10:49 AM | Comments (1)

But johngalt thinks:

TEA Party: "Cut the spending, b-tch!"

Posted by: johngalt at April 8, 2010 2:28 PM

April 5, 2010

'Leave Us Alone' -

'Getting the government's hands off our money, our guns, our lives.' The 2008 Grover Norquist book by this name posited a future politics driven by the "Leave Us Alone Coalition" on one side and the "Takings Coalition" on the other. This dovetails nicely with our recent discussion and Norquist apparently addresses the social values schizm toward the end of the book [Craig Matteson review]:

If I disagree with Norquist on anything it is his rough dismissal of social conservative issues towards the end of the book. However, I understand his emphasis on economic issues and their rough correlation with social conservative issues. That is, if you look at all economic conservatives in the Republican party, they will also include almost all of the social conservatives and some of those who are more liberal on social issues. So, we get more voters to help us win our issues with economics. This ignores the reality that for social conservatives, some issues are so vital that sitting home or creating a new party would be better alternatives than letting them slip out of the public debate.

If there is anything that religious leaders can do to help save America and the American way of life it is to disabuse their flocks from keeping social issues in the public political debate. Take them back to the public moral debate where they rightly belong.

And "Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally" is a good place to start.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:47 PM | Comments (0)

April 3, 2010

The Inevitable Backlash

Against myself.

While we Jeffersonian tea-partiers whine about the bus, we should probably admit that the Hamiltonian wing is doing a better job with publicity and organization. I forget the exact context, but brother jg's first response to my first complaint was "you could hear." No musician should ever under-appreciate a quality PA run competently.

And, numbers matter. I don't know how many times I learned of a big TEA party rally in Denver -- that happened the day before I heard about it. The bus tour I decried did get me there, as it did to the good folks in Omaha: hundreds expected, thousands attend..

The big traffic problems in Southwest Omaha Thursday night could be blamed on one thing: a political rally. Some people had to park more than a mile away from the event. It's exactly what Tea Party organizers were hoping for.

The Tea Party Express Bus Tour began last weekend in Saturday. "One person does make a difference," says one of the tour speakers.

Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom helped organize this stop. "I think a lot of people who haven't got too involved in politics before have really gotten angry and frustrated to the point that they want to get involved in politics now," says Doug Kagan who represents the organization.

Lynn Ewing brought her family to boat ramp/picnic area at Lake Zorinsky. "I think they're being taxed to death and it's not fair."

Organizers were expecting a few hundred at the rally but instead there were an estimated 3,000.

I surely would like to impute some more intellectual and ideological values on the group, but I may have been a bit harsh on some allies. Not very pragmatic of me.

Hat-tip: Classical Values via Instapundit

Posted by John Kranz at 11:13 AM | Comments (4)

But Lisa M thinks:

jk, there's an tea party event at Independence Mall in Philly non April 17 that I am going to try to get to. It's NOT a bus event. Your review of the Tea Party express was very useful, in a very positive way in making my decision to attend this event.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 3, 2010 8:47 PM

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

LM, This is a little off-topic, but fits well with the title "Inevitable backlash." What are Philly fans saying about the McNabb trade? Sounds a bit like if the Broncos had traded Elway to the Raiders.

One can almost understand a trade given McNabb's age and recent injury history. But to a conference rival?? If McNabb rolls into Philly and beats the Eagles, Jeffrey Lurie had better have a reservation in the witness protection program, I would think.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 5, 2010 2:03 PM

But Lisa M thinks:

Refugee, I don't know if I can quite sum up the Philly mentality having actually experienced it, but I'll try. Almost to a man, Philadelphians are THRILLED that McNabb is gone. His stats mean nothing to the fans here; in fact there is only one thing that does:
THE MAN HAS NOT WON A SUPERBOWL FOR THIS CITY
Therefore he must go. This happens to every Philadelphia sports superstar eventually, because they never win championships (Fightin' Phils being a recent exception to that) but I heard a local sportscaster talking about it this morning on the radio; he seems to think these guys hang around too long. Mike Schmidt, Charles Barkley, Randall Cunningham. They all lose their luster and Philly fans turn on them.

For some choice entertainment, however, I would highly recommend the Eagles/Redskins matchups this year. Especially if the birds are having a good year. The fans will be ruthless.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 5, 2010 6:19 PM

But dagny thinks:

My parents are transplanted Eagles fans currently living in Seattle but still inordinately dedicated to their, "iggles." They are the exception to the, "thrilled," group in Philly and are sorry to see him go.

Call me a Denver fan but I think Mike Shanahan is VERY smart man.

Posted by: dagny at April 5, 2010 7:07 PM

April 1, 2010

That's Not Me! That's Not Me!

The first TEA party I attended was transformative.

Here were enough people to cover the West lawn of the State Capitol, all of whom believed in limited government and enumerated rights enough to come down to the West lawn of the State Capitol. The people were nice, the signs were clever, the atmosphere festive. Many times since, I have wished I could have shown that to non-believers on the right and left. No, these people are not crazy racists -- and no, these people are not ignorant fools who will let this opportunity slip away. I would have been proud to have brought anyone I know there.

Yesterday, The Tea Party Express bus tour rolled through my hometown. We were again on the West lawn and once again there was a good crowd, bright signage, and general comity. Sadly, this time the event was tarnished by the Tea Party Express. Where I would have longed to share the first experience, this one would have embarrassed me. At times, it felt as if I were watching an SNL portrayal of a Tea Party. What? Tina Fey is not scheduled to appear?

Brother jg and Sister dagny-- after providing most commendable handicapped transportation services -- worked the crowd, politely engaged some counter-protesters, and starred in photos with their clever signage and preternaturally photogenic daughters. My lovely bride and I opted for a secluded opportunity to sit and listen. If you dance every dance, you may not care so much that the band sucks; but if you sit and listen...

The first TEA party had Jon Caldera from the Colorado Independence Institute, a couple State Senators came out of the Capitol and I think Michele Malkin was the "star." The sound was poor and the spontaneousness of the event was apparent. Hayek would have been proud.

While any two or three of yesterday's speakers or performers would have fit in perfectly, the sum total was dispiriting. There was not a single intellectual, philosophical or educational speaker. There was a lengthy series of patriotic songs and poems and speeches supporting the troops. I don't think anyone who has read this blog for more than three days would suggest that I am indifferent to patriotism or to recognition of those who wear the nation's uniform. But we have work to do and what started as sweet (a Gold Star Mom extolling her son's last day with stories and a song she composed) grew kitschy and maudlin. Again, consider the reviewer.

When the theme turned to politics, it was red meat ("Pelosi and Reid and Obama, or as I like to call them 'Lenin, Stalin, and Mao-lite'") and several more novelty songs. Oh-boy. The rap song from the guy from Waco was notable as it was the only time "limited government" was mentioned in the entire rally.

In between, the chatter was condescending and offered no recognition to the more libertarian attendee. It was God and Values and Country. The hand lettered signs were intelligent and bespoke of sophistication and awareness of politics and media. And yet, the speakers talked down "You know, we’re going to have an ee-lec-shun this year…"

To make my experience complete, Rep, Tom Tancredo closed the show. His introduction included a cringe-inducing Strom Thurmond moment of deep regret and sadness that he didn't win the presidency in 2008.

At the end, I asked Brother jg to drop me off at Democratic Party HQ so that I could sign up. I’ve calmed down a little since then but if the bus tour folks successfully co-opt the TEA Party, the last great hope for the last great hope has been extinguished.

Posted by John Kranz at 2:28 PM | Comments (26)

But jk thinks:

Umm, yeah, self-determination. The ability to enact and enforce laws under the auspices of a State Constitution so long as those laws are not superseded by the Federal Constitution.

I would support a ban on D&X procedures (an assertion of the right to life of a viable infant) and would support parental notification with reasonable safeguards.

And yet, the Federal government, though the Judiciary, has removed my voice. They have packaged it with a pretty bow of "rights," but it remains an infringement on my self-determination.

The Constitution can be amended. It is no gift to liberty that it can sometimes be ignored. You cannot run to the Constitution for protection from ObamaCare® and then shrug when another overreach happens to please.

Posted by: jk at April 7, 2010 5:05 PM

But johngalt thinks:

So the state, which sets state law, is a "self?"

I don't understand how you think any of this rebuts my argument that state law is the imposition of majority will upon the minority.

Posted by: johngalt at April 7, 2010 7:41 PM

But Lisa M thinks:

Prior to the Roe decision, many states had their own abortion laws. What Roe did was create a sweeping new "right" that had not existed, the right to privacy, and from there infer that the right to privacy meant the right to kill an unborn child. States can dictate to me whether or not I may carry my .357 concealed, or in certain areas. If they can place restraints on my right to bear arms, which is, in fact, clearly enumerated in the Constitution, why can they not regulate the ability to terminate our young, a far more consequential and heinous practice?

jg, I understand your point that a fetus is essentially a parasitic organism until birth; however, I would argue that to most women who decide to complete their pregnancies, should that pregnancy end in miscarriage, that woman is not going to say, whew! I'm glad I was cured of that parasitic organism. On the contrary, most women will mourn the loss of their "baby." On this point, I can speak from personal experience as well. In this instance, the only thing that changes the equation is whether the mother wants the child or not. A decision, given the ubiquity of birth control and sex education these days, that could have been made before a human life was hanging in the balance.

Additionally, given the advances in modern medicine, a fetus is viable long before the pregancy comes to term at 40 weeks. My cousin gave birth to twins at 26 weeks gestation; they are now active and completely normal seven-year-olds. So the question becomes, at what point would it have been ok to terminate the lives of those twins without it becoming murder? Any time prior to their emergence from the womb? This seems a rather arbitrary way to decide when a human life, already begun, can be snuffed out.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 7, 2010 8:44 PM

But Lisa M thinks:

dagny, forgive me, but I did not originally see your post above and there are a few things that need clarification. You characterize my position as "wanting the government to DO something" which is correct, up to a point: I want the government to UNDO something that they should have never done in the first place. Then put it back to the people to decide. Once the people's voices are heard on the matter, I believe only then can the country have an intelligent, and somewhat less emotional discussion regarding abortion rights.

I agree that your body is your business, however, as I mentioned to jg in the post above, at what point does the human being inside of you gain rights? As a woman you make many choices with regard to birth control and whom you decide to sleep with; the decision to get pregnant in my mind is the same as deciding to have unprotected sex. Irresponsibly starting another human life, then choosing to shrug off that resulting responsibility to another human being by terminating that life cheapens all life. And it makes all life an easy thing to end. It is my belief that the ubiquity of abortion led in a direct line to the starvation death of Terri Shiavo, a woman who was brutally murdered by the state because, like a woman making a choice about her unborn baby, someone else made a choice for her: that her life was not worth living.

As a woman, and a mother of a daughter with a chronic illness, the fact that anyone can make a decision that another's quality of life (or potential quality of life) would not be worth living chills me to the bone. I don't necessarily believe abortion should be outlawed, but neither do I believe it is a right enumerated in the constitution.

Posted by: Lisa M at April 8, 2010 7:37 AM

But jk thinks:

I put this toward the worng post. (What's he going on about...)

I vote in my State. My State has a constitutional process (a pretty wide open one as you know in Colorado) to create laws. I can work through the legislature or referendum process and seek to enact laws. But Article VI gives the Constitution supremacy over the laws I may enact.

Fair enough if the topic deserves Constitutional purview. I'll respect the 13th Amendment and not re-institute slavery. But every time you "give me a right" and take away my power to define my own laws, you've offered an unusual bargain.

Majority rule as tempered by a State and Federal Constitution is certainly not inconsistent with republican government. If you’re concerned that Colorado's referenda process is too close to plebiscite, consider another State.

Speaking of not answering. I haven't heard much on Justice Clinton's defining health care as a right. It's not much more a leap that security->privacy->abortion. You either live in a Constitutional framework or you do not. I think you're being opportunistic in deciding when to be constructionist and when to follow a "living document."

Posted by: jk at April 8, 2010 10:38 AM

But johngalt thinks:

I am arguing that the "unusual bargain" you described is what makes America unique in the world. She is "the land of the free..."

I have not read the majority decision in Roe, at least not recently. I am not defending the reasoning of the decision, but its result. And I do not find its result inconsistent with the Constitution or kicking the door open for ignorance or overreach.

I contend that our difference of opinion arises from two different interpretations of the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I submit that these unenumerated rights are those of individual people. I read you as insisting that what is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution any majority of people may impose upon all individual people. I say the latter interpretation de facto turns the ninth amendment on its head.

The ninth amendment is to protect the rights of individuals, of minorities, from all levels of government, not of states from the Feds. By my reading the tenth amendment does not give the states power to abrogate the right of individual people "to be secure in their persons..."

This is the nature of my "parasite" argument. That clinical term does not imply benefit or harm, but the state of being conjoined as one person in the eyes of the Constitution. No, you won't find this in the text. But you will find numerous prohibitions that threaten Obamacare or "the right to receive uncompensated medical care from my neighbor."

LM: It appears that said parasite argument hasn't persuaded you, unless I can take credit for your not necessarily believing abortion should be illegal. Your arguments have reinforced my belief that abortion is abominable, but I disagree that when individuals choose this it "cheapens" all life. Individual self-determination is the essence of a moral existence. As a three-time witness to the miracle of human birth I am convinced that the matter is rightly decided by the woman, under advisors of her choice, and her Creator.

Posted by: johngalt at April 8, 2010 3:29 PM

TEA Party Pix

Here are some pix from yesterday's TEA party in Denver. Click the links below each for a higher resolution image.

A lengthy (and surprisingly negative) review is on the way after I finish some stupid work stuff.

hi-rez	hi-rez
hi-rez	hi-rez
hi-rez	hi-rez
hi-rez	hi-rez

Posted by John Kranz at 11:57 AM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

Hey, doesn't one of those signs say Threesources.com? :)

Thanks for the pics brother, and the soapbox. I missed much of the program including, apparently, all of the local speakers due to mingling in the crowd and keeping two of my small children in sight at all times. Here are my highlights:

Saw gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes walk right past me - wasn't sure it was him 'til it was too late to say hi.

Saw uber-liberal Denver Post columnist Mike Litwin walk right past me. Said, "Hi Mike!" He smiled back and said hello. (See, we're not extremists!!)

Saw one of the teachers from my daughter's preschool. Refreshing!

Saw less than a dozen young *white* people holding small, letter-sized signs alongside Lincoln Blvd. Signs read "I (heart) Pelosi" and "I (heart) Obama." Engaged a few of them in conversation about-
i) Caucuses - Apparently participation in only the last one or two marks us as "out of touch" or "uncaring" or in some other way worthy of derision.
ii) Taxes - We "extremists" think we should get to spend our own earnings. "But we do!" the pleasant 30-something female retorted. "Not really" I said, "since about half of our paychecks go to the government." I ended the back and forth shower of statistics by asking, "Do you know when Tax Freedom Day is?" They didn't know WHAT Tax Freedom Day is.
iii) Public employee unions/wages/retirement plans - I asked if it's really right for us to pay full salaries to gov't employees when they retire, even though they're no longer working for us. "Yes because their pay is so low to start with." They weren't aware of recent statistics showing avg. gov't wages are 145% of comparable private sector employees. "Teachers" they said. "Teachers are very poorly paid." I said that's a shame considering the obscene amount of money we pay for public education.
Around this time a middle-aged (and less pleasant although, also *white*) female chimed in with "How much of your money do you think is in PERA?" [The Public Employees' Retirement Association] I said that since PERA is a defined benefit plan, if its investments don't earn enough to cover obligations then the rest comes out of the state General Fund. She said I was wrong. I said I don't think so, but I'll look into it again. I did. From 'Retirement Benefits' page 5: "If you meet the eligibility requirements for a service retirement, your defined benefit will be 2.5 percent of your HAS [highest average salary] for each year of service credit up to 100 percent."

Was asked by a pleasant older male (circulating a petition to get GOP also-ran Tom Wiens on the primary ballot) what the last word of my "ENEMY OF THE STATIST" sign means. I said it means, "communist, totaltarian any form of collectivist." Still not sure what I meant I said it's someone who employs statism. My jaw dropped when he said he never associated the word statist with communist and ... he teaches government! Sigh.

Posted by: johngalt at April 1, 2010 3:07 PM

But jk thinks:

Yes, now that you mention it, the extremely well lettered sign beside the really super-cute kid does look like it says threesources.com...

Posted by: jk at April 1, 2010 3:16 PM

March 30, 2010

Denver TEA Party III

I don't yet have firm plans to attend tomorrow's Denver TEA Party [4pm at the State Capitol] but if I go, these will be my signs:

And...

Are any of the Colorado brothers interested in going? I have two blank poster boards and need someone to carry the second sign.

UPDATE: 3/31 0850 MDT - According to People's Press Collective the scheduled 4pm start time is unlikely. Travel delays from Grand Junction mean the start time will probably be 5pm instead.

Also, I had assumed that Palin and other headliners were on board for the entire tour. Not so.

In the event that none of us go to the event I invite others to contribute their sign ideas in the comments.

UPDATE II (jk): Blog friend Sugarchuck sends a pic:

Posted by JohnGalt at 8:44 PM | Comments (7)

But johngalt thinks:

Not out of line at all. Besides not having to walk from a parking spot we'll also be livin' the green life in the carpool lane!

Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 10:58 AM

But jk thinks:

Posted before update -- whatever you decide. I'm not sure Palin's absence isn't a plus. With all respect to the guv, I'd rather attend a freedom rally than a "Sarah Palin rally."

Posted by: jk at March 31, 2010 10:59 AM

But johngalt thinks:

More signs:

WHAT PART OF "ENUMERATED POWERS" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

ENEMY OF THE STATIST
|
V

(A couple of these would make good 3Srcs T-shirts!)

Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 11:09 AM

But johngalt thinks:

News of Ms. Palin's absence serves mostly to explain the dearth of local advertising for the event.

jk: I emailed you to discuss logistics. [@3srcsdotcom]

Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 1:05 PM

But jk thinks:

Got your email, thanks. $50 seems a bit excessive for gas but we're thinking it over...

Posted by: jk at March 31, 2010 1:51 PM

But johngalt thinks:

What did you expect in the "new energy economy?"

Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 2:56 PM

Obama: Health Care Bill is "All Sorts of Republican Ideas"

Did anyone else catch this Matt Lauer interview of Obama this morning?

The president is "frustrated" that Republicans did not support these ideas that they had actually proposed in the past.

Mister president, have you forgotten that the Republicans were VOTED OUT OF OFFICE FOR THE POLICIES THEY PROPOSED IN THE PAST? Instead of trying to please congressional Republicans, try pleasing the voters.

TEA anyone?

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:41 PM | Comments (6)

But jk thinks:

Clearly he recognizes the unpolularity of ObamaCare® -- he's trying to blame Republicans!

Posted by: jk at March 30, 2010 5:14 PM

But Lisa M thinks:

You mean that interview where he said that the Tea Party's core is a bunch of birthers? The flat out lies in that interview were too many to count, including his claim that his NCAA brackets blew up because he was too busy concentrating on health care.

Posted by: Lisa M at March 30, 2010 6:47 PM

But jk thinks:

If only the President had payed more attention to his NCAA bracket, the country could have saved Trillions!

Posted by: jk at March 30, 2010 7:13 PM

But T. Greer thinks:

"Mister president, have you forgotten that the Republicans were VOTED OUT OF OFFICE FOR THE POLICIES THEY PROPOSED IN THE PAST? Instead of trying to please congressional Republicans, try pleasing the voters."

I do not understand this.

Republicans are in office for eight years. Voters do not like them - perhaps for what they proposed, perhaps for what they (or did not) accomplish. It does not matter really - the voters chose to kick them out.

But they also chose to put someone else in. That someone was a person, described by yourself, as 'the most radical leftist President' in America's history.

Doesn't the election of such a man imply the implicit endorsement of radical leftism by the voting public? Or at least, the rejection of conservatism writ-large?

You say Obama should stop trying to please congressional Republicans and start trying to please voters. Forgive me, but that sounds like an invitation for an even more socialistic set of policies than we have got.

TEA is fine and all, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking we have attained greater heights. We have a long way upwards yet.

Posted by: T. Greer at March 31, 2010 7:49 AM

But jk thinks:

I'll let brother jg defend his own words; I'm guessing that we're all gobsmacked that this single-party cramdown that gathered zero GOP votes is presented as being jam-packed with Republican Ideas®

I will speak up on the suggestion that President Obama's election proves "endorsement of radical leftism." President Obama cleverly ran away from his leftist record. He beat up Senator Clinton for insurance mandates and wasn't going to raise taxes "one dime" on earners below 250K. Post-partisan, post-racial, and Post Toasties, a new era of government bla bla bla.

It worked and I won't blame him for trying it. You're correct that the GOP left the door wide open and he walked through it. But it is unfair to the poor American voter to say that he asked for this.

Posted by: jk at March 31, 2010 10:41 AM

But johngalt thinks:

My best effort at explaining how a center-right country elected the most radical leftist president in history is here.

It took the happy, not-paying-attention public six to eight years to recognize that Republicans were ripping them off. It hasn't taken that long with the Bolshecrats.

Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 10:43 AM

March 28, 2010

Missing the Point

Roughly a year after inauguration of America's most radically leftist president in history, in the wake of a year of grassroots outrage popularly monikered TEA Parties, a pair of "documentary filmmakers and political activists" formed "an alternative to the Tea Party Movement" - the "Coffee Party USA."

By failing to notice the capitalization of all three letters in the word TEA the authors of the linked Wikipedia entry, and likely the Coffee Party USA organizers themselves, fail to recognize that the TEA Party phenomenon is not just about dumping tea into a metaphorical government harbor - it's about being Taxed Enough, Already!

But it isn't just the name that Coffee Statists have wrong, it's the philosophy.

Its mission states that it is based on the underlying principle that the government is "not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges we face as Americans."

TEA Partiers participate in the democratic process but since there is no such thing as "collective will" outside the writings of Karl Marx they seek to address the challenges we face as individual Americans. Today, more than ever before, productive Americans are challenged by a government that forcibly confiscates individual earnings in the name of "helping the people." Unfortunately, they do the former much more efficiently than the latter.

So what does COFFEE stand for? While waiting for the founders to enlighten us we can at least offer our own interpretations. Mine is 'Confiscate Ownership Freedom From Every Entrepreneur.'

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:07 PM | Comments (5)

But terri thinks:

Funny how that philosophy is only official when the new coffee party's side is in office.

Posted by: terri at March 29, 2010 9:12 AM

But HB thinks:

I couldn't help but to be reminded of the introduction of Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom:

"In a much quote passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, 'Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.' It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on it origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic 'what your country can do for you' implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, 'what you can do for your country' implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favor and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served....

...He will ask rather 'What can I and my compatriots do through government' to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?"

THIS is the issue that divides the two groups.

Posted by: HB at March 29, 2010 1:21 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Well said, Milton, and excellent segue HB.

A contemporary free-market reprise of the JFK line might be: "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask how your country can leave you alone."

I repeatedly lament a "progressive" public education establishment shaped by John Dewey and others that gave us the baby boomer do gooders who now claim to run things "for the public good." This Kennedy quote is a reminder that the collectivist ethos has infected all of civil society for a very long time.

Posted by: johngalt at March 29, 2010 2:59 PM

But T. Greer thinks:

A bit late on this one, but here it goes.

My problem with Friedman's piece is that he makes an assumption I am uncomfortable with - the automatic jump from "country" to "government".

This does not make much sense to me. A country is much, much more than the state that governs it. It is a group of people, a stake of land, a collection of traditions, and the state that tries to govern it all. Thus where Friedman reads, "Ask not what your government can do for you - as what you can do for your government", I read "Ask not what your society can do for you - ask what you can do for your society". Or perhaps "your community". Even "your civilization".

And to be honest, I do not think those latter sentences are half so bad. Then again, I a am bit more on the communitarian side than most you folks...

Posted by: T. Greer at March 31, 2010 8:00 AM

But jk thinks:

We're working tg like a blogging dog today.

Were we France or Germany, I'd agree. Ein Volk and all. But I object to your objection. America is not a race or a people or a piece of dirt, it's an idea and that idea is expressed in *gasp* a free government.

Yup, letters == bad...

Posted by: jk at March 31, 2010 11:26 AM

Dozens, Indeed.

My inner mathematician says "yes, it is accurate to say that this crowd is some finite if not integral multiple of twelve."

But my inner b******* detector says CNN is whacked on steroids to describe the crowd at this Sarah Palin/TEA Party rally in searchlight as "Hundreds of people, at least dozens of people..."

Hat-tip and more at Gateway Pundit (via Instapundit)

Posted by John Kranz at 11:24 AM | Comments (2)

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Mainstream news made absolutely NO mention of the anti-big-government D.C. march last Saturday, but the "hundreds" of illegal aliens the next day made headlines.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 28, 2010 3:16 PM

But johngalt thinks:

This TEA Party Express III arrives in Denver on Wednesday, March 31 at 4:00 pm. West steps of the State Capitol.

Posted by: johngalt at March 29, 2010 3:04 PM

March 25, 2010

Balloon Boy, Shark Attacks, Audi/Toyota,...

I'm going to add Congressional threats to the list.

A rational person wants to accept that things are possible and allow them to play out. But in our media world, the truth is hitchin' up her drawers when the lie is being served pretzels on the 218 to Cleveland.

Ergo, I am demanding that a person who claims on TeeVee news to be threatened provide some proof. It's a startling charge to make that somebody is threatening you. And serious charges should be accompanied with evidence.

Brother Johngalt's Congressperson has asked for police protection after receiving two threats. One was not divulged, the other was "hope you don't see me in a dark alley." Is that a threat? Ill-advised certainly, but I would call that a playground taunt.

But not to the political geniuses on FOX31's Good Morning Colorado. The TEA Partiers have gone nuts! Lock up the children! With background footage of anti-Obama signs at the TEA parties, the newsfolk intone that "Politics has become even uglier in Washington, and the violence has now spread to Colorado!" The spitting and racial slurs incident was presented as fact even though there is no corroborating evidence with 100 video cameras rolling.

There was some vandalism that looked real enough. An Arizona Congresswoman's door was shot out and a Democratic headquarters had windows broken. But we had that in Denver for the DNC -- and it ended up being a Democrat. Sure there are some nuts out there, but many are disciples of Saul Alinsky and not Art Laffer. Michael Walsh at BigJournalism smells the same acrid odor. Walsh provides several examples and offers suggestions for his buddies in the MSM:

There are two sides to every story — and it’s your job to find the truth between them. Tempers are already too frayed, the tinder too dry. The country does not need you, my former colleagues at Time and elsewhere, to supply the match. You’re the firemen, not the arsonists.

Unless, of course, you’ve already chosen up sides.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse out-of-thepark hits it.(HT: Insty)

I really want to know the details about this one. Who did it and why? Let me see the photographs. I want to know all about it. I don't like the home addresses being posted on line, and I don't like even peaceful protests at any individual's house. I can see why you'd be upset that your address is known. But anyone could commit an act of vandalism (including dirty tricksters on the Democrat's side). Is the press following up about what, exactly, happened? Or are they complacently passing this story on to be used to propagate the violence meme?

Posted by John Kranz at 10:40 AM | Comments (0)

March 20, 2010

CODE RED Rally in D.C. via Cell Phone Vid

This is cool! Tania Gail of PAWaterCooler.com is going to the Capitol rally today and she's posting live video clips to her website via cell phone. If you click on the image it links to her qik.com page which shows a google map of her location when the video was recorded.

11 minutes ago she posted this clip. "Holy cow, people are coming!"

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:48 AM | Comments (0)

March 15, 2010

"I'm Going to Pick a Fight"

Those were the words of William Wallace [1:03] as he set out to meet representatives of English tyranny over Scotland. They're the same words I heard a GOP candidate for CO-4 say to a fellow debate attendee. She had asked him, "How long do you want to keep this job?" Cory's reply was, "I don't want to go to Washington to make friends, I'm going to pick a fight." There were only a few of us standing around him at the time so I don't believe it was a rehearsed line, but it sure made an impression on me: He's going to pick a fight with representatives of federal tyranny over America.

Cory was the only one of the four candidates not wearing cowboy boots so I joked with dagny, "Cross him off the list!" But by the end of the debate the other three had not won me over like Gardner did. I went to meet him afterwards and that's where the quote comes from. My question for him was whether he would have a problem having any of the other three candidates on his "team" to which he said, "Not at all." I had a better question for him this morning, which you can read about below the fold.

I intend to stand for election as a delegate for Cory at tomorrow's GOP caucus.

I called Cory this morning and he called me back. I asked him about his 2010 plan which, for spending reform, only says we need a balanced budget amendment. He said that the 2010 plan is a sort of bare bones summary. He essentially wants to push for a Colorado style TABOR law at the national level, which includes restraints on the growth of spending. He said that neither of these things is required in order to roll back spending. I said, "You're right, if congress wanted to cut spending they could. But what are you going to say when your colleagues say 'You're asking me to vote against something that's popular in my district - what are you going to vote against that's popular in yours?'" He said he's recently gone to the well of the Colorado legislature and proposed a cut in spending by the agriculture department, and that this is a big deal for a representative from a rural district. I agreed and asked if that sentiment would extend to the federal farm bill. He said, "Absolutely." He then explained that the 1996 farm bill was written by Wayne Allard and a senator from Kansas to wean farmers off of subsidies over a 6-year period but subsequent congresses, with Republican complicity, undid the effort.

We also talked briefly about government employee unions and ridiculous pension plans. He said that's a problem at the state and the federal level and it needs to be reformed at multiple levels. I asked if it is as simple as candidate McInnis' pledge to reverse the executive order allowing state employee unions. He said that Gov. Ritter's order gave state employee unions the right to bargain collectively - that's what would be reversed if McInnis or Maes is elected. He said it's an important first step but not the whole solution. (I was impressed by his inclusion of Dan Maes who I'm just learning about since he's getting zero press but is what I suppose you'd call "the TEA Party candidate.")

I told him I know that he has experience resisting the pressures to go along against his principles at the state level but the pressures in Washington will be even stronger. I said that I think Senator Bunning has some regrets about his career in congress. He agreed and said he plans to spend as much time as possible with constituents in his district instead of in Washington.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:34 PM | Comments (0)

March 10, 2010

Walmart* Hippies

Now there's a sobriquet I would not run from -- much better than Teabaggers! I'll give Lee Harris at American.com Quote of the Day for his appraisal of David Brooks's NYTimes column:

According to Brooks, the Tea Party movement is not only similar to hippie movement of the 1960s in terms of its lack of overall historical significance, it is a lowbrow revival of that movement, leading Brooks (or at least his editors) to dub today’s Tea Partiers “The Wal-Mart Hippies”—the title of his article.

The phrase “Wal-Mart Hippies” is certainly attention-getting, as was no doubt intended. After all, who would suspect that there lurked a secret affinity between the carefree flower children of late ’60s and the hard-working folks who shop at Wal-Mart? The two groups would seem a study in antithesis. The flower children of the ’60s put flowers in gun barrels and chanted sweet songs of peace. At Wal-Mart people buy guns to put bullets in and use them to shoot cute and cuddly animals.

Good stuff -- hat tip Insty

UPDATE: Insty also links to They expected 600, but over 2000 showed up at this anti-Obamacare meeting.

Watched Teevee news this morning to catch weather and saw footage of a giant demonstration demanding heath care reform and protesting eeevil insurance companies. Every one had a purple SIEU shirt on and they all had matching professional signs with the SEIU logo. If I thought they had the intelligence to pull it off, I'd call that media bias. But I suspect they just don't see it.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:33 PM | Comments (0)

February 21, 2010

Barnburner

I was going to make this an "Otequay of the Ayday" post but there were too many good quotes. Glenn Beck keynoted this year's CPAC conference. It was brilliant. He told Republicans it's time to say, "I'm sorry."

"It is still morning in America, it just happens to be kind of a head pounding, hung over, vomiting for four hours kind of morning in America."

Why? Progressivism. And it's in both parties.

"I'm so sick of hearing people say, 'Oh, well, Republicans are going to solve it all.' Really? It's just Progressive Lite. (...) Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution. To 'progress past' the Constitution."

(...)

"This is the cancer that is eating at America. It is big government. It's a socialist utopia. And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot coexist. And you don't cure cancer by, 'Well, I'm just gonna give you a little bit of cancer.' You must eradicate it.

(...)

"Dick Cheney, a couple of days ago, was here and he says, 'It's gonna be a good year for conservative ideas.' That's true. That's very true. It's gonna be a very good year, but it's not enough just to not suck as much as the other side."

He then played on his own battle with alcohol addiction and mocked the Republican party with the first step of the Twelve Step program: "Hello, my name is the Republican Party and I've got a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government."

Watch the video to see what he said about the Big Tent concept, and many, many other good points. Like American citizens giving ten times the charitable contributions of France ... per capita. And the depression of 1920 as compared to the "Great Depression." And Calvin Coolidge versus Woodrow Wilson.

Hat tip for the vid link to a critical Ryan Witt at examiner.com.

Some good comments there and he promises to "fact check" Beck's speech "later today."

Posted by JohnGalt at 10:10 AM | Comments (3)

But jk thinks:

Like a good joke, I enjoyed it the FIRST time (comment on post above).

But this thing kicks off once every hour. No wonder liberals hate Glenn Beck -- he won't shut up!!!

Without objection, tomorrow I will replace the embed with a link.

Posted by: jk at February 22, 2010 11:28 AM

But johngalt thinks:

Hey, have you heard that Tiger Woods plans to legally change his name? From now on he'll be known as Cheatah Woods.

(Sorry if it's not the first time for that either. I attempted to fix the vid.)

Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2010 2:58 PM

But jk thinks:

And my brother in law told me that Michelle Obama is pregnant!

-- of course, they're blaming George W. Bush!

Sad to say that crazy man once again tried taking over my workday. Jeez! No wonder everybody hates him...

Posted by: jk at February 22, 2010 4:51 PM

February 17, 2010

Livin' in the Past

Instapundit celebrates the Denver Tea Party of one year ago today.

Intrepid ThreeSourcer jg was there and posted some awesome pix.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:38 PM | Comments (1)

But johngalt thinks:

Ah, those heady days of roaming the streets with hundreds of like minded free-spirits... singing songs, cursing police, smashing windows... oh, wait.

Posted by: johngalt at February 18, 2010 9:27 PM

February 14, 2010

It's Like Democracy -- or American Idol

So, does this logo belong in the ThreeSources sidebar? Is this a Tea Party site? I am intrigued by the author's distribution page. First the rules: show this graphic on your site. Write an article every now and then supporting Democracy in Iraq. Curious that the one rule is not strictly Constitutional izzit? Now, I support Democracy in Iraq and think this site has been particularly dedicated. But I sympathize with Reason readers and Paulites who say our efforts were supraconstitutional. Text TEA to #666 -- oh, never mind, just leave a comment!

Posted by John Kranz at 10:59 AM | Comments (1)

But nanobrewer thinks:

Hey, it's your site! I won't stop reading or posting if you banner this.

That is an interesting juxtaposition: support our constitution, and Democracy in Iraq!

I do support DiI, and also duly note it's unconstitutional nature. Perhaps a better question for Tea Partiers could be: is opposing Democracies' opponents constitutional?

Posted by: nanobrewer at February 18, 2010 12:13 PM

February 10, 2010

Quote of the Day

THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT WANTS AMERICA TO RETURN TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.

There it is. I said it, one simple sentence. -- Ron Futrell

Posted by John Kranz at 10:41 AM | Comments (3)

But johngalt thinks:

I'll settle for this as a TEA Party Platform.

BTW - Broken. Link.

Posted by: johngalt at February 10, 2010 3:19 PM

But jk thinks:

Third time be charm. ThreeSources apologizes for any inconvenience.

Posted by: jk at February 10, 2010 3:57 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Thanks! The link is well worth a click. It reads powerfully (and humorously) and expresses another point not captured here: The TEA Party movement is not centralized. It is an individualist phenomenon.

And that is why it is counterproductive to consider a Platform for the movement. [Just who was that misguided idealist anyway?] The ALL CAPS agenda shown above is the one part of such a platform that all of us will agree on, now and forever. Amen.

Posted by: johngalt at February 10, 2010 8:11 PM