Speaking of hurricanes…

Seriously, these people run the country?!?

The Road to Barbarism

Dr. Sowell’s three part series is a must read for those interested in the analysis of the current state of western civilization:

Part I     Part II     Part III

The social degeneration that he describes comes as an unintended consequence for the liberal left whose ideology forms the basis of the policies that are a root cause of this turmoil.  The chaos and anarchy that we’ve seen recently is only a logical conclusion of those policies, but create an environment in which even the cultural elites cannot survive, especially if they truly ascribe to those policies in practice.  (How would they defend themselves against such mobs if they themselves are unarmed, as they believe everyone else should be?)  Emphases added in the excerpts below.

From Part I:

The prevailing social dogma is that disparities in outcomes between races can only be due to disparities in how these races are treated. In other words, there cannot possibly be any differences in behavior. But if black and white Americans had exactly the same behavior patterns, they would be the only two groups on this planet that are the same.

Translation:  the facts are otherwise.  Reality does not confirm the social dogma when all the evidence is evaluated.

From Part II:

Today’s politically correct intelligentsia will tell you that the reason for this alienation and lashing out is that there are great disparities and inequities that need to be addressed.

But such barbarism was not nearly as widespread two generations ago, in the middle of the 20th century. Were there no disparities or inequities then? Actually there were more.

What is different today is that there has been — for decades — a steady drumbeat of media and political hype about differences in income, education and other outcomes, blaming these differences on oppression against those with fewer achievements or lesser prosperity.

Moreover, there has been a growing tolerance of lawlessness and a growing intolerance toward the idea that people who are lagging need to take steps to raise themselves up, instead of trying to pull others down.

Translation:  multiculturalism and political correctness will kill us, not make us stronger

From Part III:

Our elites often advise us to learn from other countries. They usually mean that we should imitate other countries. But it may be far more important to learn from their mistakes — the biggest of which may be listening to fashionable nonsense from the smug intelligentsia.

These countries show us where that smug nonsense leads. It may be a sneak preview of our own future.

"Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

Translation:  Pride goeth before destruction!  (Proverbs 16:18)

And for those who have been reading The Interface for awhile, I would suggest that a significant part of the problem is the public education system that is more concerned about Johnny’s self-esteem rather than his character (the former is based on feelings, the latter, on objective behavior), that teaches what to believe rather than how to think, and that has an agenda at variance with how reality works.  For more details, see my series on Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Interestingly, recent readers will note that I quite frequently give you editorial cartoons on various and sundry issues, trying to present the best of the best (or at least those that speak to me most clearly…as warped as my sense of humor is).  I have been unable to find, or recall, any cartoons on this matter (maybe I missed them?).

Obama’s Plan Explained So Even the Public Edjamacated Can Understand

Obamanomics Explained So That The Problem Is Obvious For the Public Edjamacated

You want beauty? Go to a Museum.

Charles Krauthammer knocks it out of the park with his latest commentary on the political scene.  He starts off with:

Of all the endlessly repeated conventional wisdom in today’s Washington, the most lazy, stupid and ubiquitous is that our politics is broken.

On the contrary. Our political system is working well (I make no such claims for our economy), indeed, precisely as designed — profound changes in popular will translated into law that alters the nation’s political direction.

The process has been messy, loud, disputatious and often rancorous. So what? In the end, the system works. Exhibit A is Wisconsin. Exhibit B is Washington itself.

He concludes with:

Democratic politics was never meant to be an exercise in aesthetics. Not just ugly, moan the critics, but oh so slow. True, again. It took months. And will take more. The supercommittee doesn’t report until Thanksgiving. The next election is more than a year away.

But the American system was designed to make a full turn of the carrier difficult and deliberate. Moreover, without this long ugly process, the debt issue wouldn’t even be on the table. We’d still be whistling our way to Greece.

Instead, a nation staring at insolvency is finally stirring itself to action, and not without spirited opposition. Great issues are being decided as constitutionally designed.

The process is working. Notice how the loudest complaints about "broken politics" come from those who lost the debate. It’s understandable for sore losers to rage against the machine. But there’s no need for the rest of us to parrot their petulance.

In between, he supports his assertions with a withering analysis and common sense observations.  Read the whole thing.

If you recognize this…

…then you are a.) really old, b.) a true geek, or c.) both!

Check out this article in which a modern geek attempts to use the above for 21st century tasks.  The results may surprise you.

Why, you may ask, even bother doing this?  Because today is the 30th anniversary of the introduction of the IBM 5150, which box of electronics started our whole computer era.

Covering up Failure with a Capital “F”

Andrew Klavan may not be a name everyone knows, but he is rapidly establishing himself (at least for this blogger) as an eminent anti-idiotarian with his eloquent common sense approach to the issues of the day.  Here is an example in which he evaluates the worldview of the left and the fruit thereof.  Enjoy!

~~~

As the 9/11 massacre underscored the failure of the left’s multicultural worldview, so the current debt crisis highlights the failure of leftist redistributionism.

In fact, leftism has failed utterly. It has failed everywhere and it has never done anything else but fail. From the murderous, leftist tyrannies of the Soviet Union and China to the soft but nonetheless oppressive and stagnant socialism of a moribund Europe, the relativist, wealth-crushing, overweening state has revealed itself to be an engine of misery and collapse.

This is a disappointment to many. To those who feel they are entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor, to those who feel their good intentions can be brought to fruition by the government, and to those, most of all, who fancy themselves elite, who fancy themselves better able to make moral and economic decisions on your behalf from on high than you, the citizen, can do on your own — to all of these, the failure of leftism is a trauma so great it has yet to be accepted. Rather, in order to distract both their followers and their opponents — and maybe themselves — from the gathering facts on the ground, leftists routinely rely on three well-worn techniques: insults, stupid arguments and lies.

The insults we all know. Disagree with the left and you’re a racist, a sexist, an Islamophobe — whatever. What do such insults even mean, really? Let’s say you oppose Barack Obama — and let’s say you really are a racist — does that mean his share-the-wealth ideology works? Of course not. If you’re a sexist, does that make women less interested in babies or more interested in trucks? If you’re Islamophobic, does that change the odds that the man who murders you will be named Mohammad? We are what we are and the world is what it is regardless of our personal merits and failings. The insults — for the information of all you teabagging terrorists out there — are just the sound of the left indulging in base intimidation, hoping they can keep you from spreading the word that their philosophy has failed — failed always and everywhere.

As for the stupid arguments, they usually involve citing bad individual actions in order to obscure bad underlying principles. Thus when you note the disaster wrought on our economy by Obama’s governing philosophy, leftists counter that, well, George W. Bush spent too much money too. Yes, he did — because, in those moments, W. was operating under the same misguided redistributionist principles as Obama. It’s the principles that are wrong, no matter who holds them.

Likewise, when you point out that Islamism is an evil and oppressive idea, leftists counter that Americans have done many bad things as well. And yes, we have — all nations have — but the liberty we stand for is a good, just as shariah law is a bad, not for some people in some places but for everyone all over.

No group or philosophy is free of its madmen, villains, saints and clowns, but it matters, in the end, what you stand for. In fact, that’s what matters most — and the left stands for a philosophy that has failed.

Finally, the lies. For me, the worst of them are those that misrepresent the true nature of our disagreements — because these lies are intended to turn us against one another. No one, for instance, is arguing about whether the poor and aged should be cared for. We are arguing whether they should be cared for by a federal government that, by its very nature, is prone to power hunger and corruption. No one of good will disagrees about the immorality of institutional racism, but we are arguing about whether the past can be corrected by reverse racism now.

And we are not arguing about whether the United States is perfect. We are arguing whether our problems can be addressed within the framework of constitutional law, small government, unhindered markets, and the resultant liberty these provide.

To address our problems without crippling individual free will or confiscating private property (which amounts to the same thing) — this is the useful and noble enterprise that stands beyond the ruin of the moment. But before the left can join in that enterprise, it must first admit that its own enterprise has failed.

Well, this explains a lot!

Headline on ScienceDaily:

Narcissists Look Like Good Leaders, but They Aren’t

I’m sure you can see the application.

Do Your Homework First!

Reproduced below is an email from WallBuilders that is excellent in its refutation of idiots spouting nonsense regarding this past weekends prayer meeting in Texas called by Governor Perry.  Enjoy!

~~~

This past Saturday, over 32,000 from across the nation gathered at Reliant Stadium in Houston at the request of Texas Governor Rick Perry for a day of fasting, repentance, and prayer for America. Protestors ringed the outside of the event, which is a potent commentary on the condition of the culture today that so many object to Americans voluntary gathering for prayer.

Media coverage prior to the event was largely negative, with many articles happily providing critics a free platform from which to spew their hate. Particularly preposterous were the historical arguments leveled against the event.

For example, in the Houston Chronicle, so-called “First Amendment scholar” David Furlow claimed that “the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have been fans of Gov. Rick Perry’s official involvement with a Christian day of prayer.” [1] To prove his point, he asserted:

“Thomas Jefferson famously coined the phrase ‘wall of separation between Church & State’ when describing the First Amendment to Baptists who asked if the president would dare ‘govern the Kingdom of Christ’.”

First, Jefferson did not coin the phrase. It was introduced in the 1500s by leading clergy in England who objected to the government taking control over religious doctrines and punishing religious activities and expressions. In America, many famous early ministers also used the phrase – all well over a century before Jefferson did.

Second, nowhere in the letter from the Baptists to Jefferson or in his reply to them was it ever questioned whether “the president would dare ‘govern the Kingdom of Christ’.” To the contrary, the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson’s ardent supporters during the presidential election, consoled him by telling him that the vicious attacks against him by his political enemies in New England had been because he had properly and vigorously refused to “assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.” Jefferson’s reply letter simply reassured the Baptists that the government would definitely not prohibit, inhibit, limit, or regulate religious expressions – exactly the opposite of what Furlow claimed.

Third, on multiple occasions, Jefferson called his state to Christian prayer and worship. In 1774, he called for a day of fasting and prayer, [2] which included that all the legislators “proceed with the Speaker and the Mace to the Church” to hear prayers and a sermon. [3] He also urged his home community around Charlottesville to arrange a special day of fasting, prayer, and worship. [4]

In 1779, Jefferson again called his state to prayer, asking the people to give thanks for “the glorious light of the Gospel, whereby through the merits of our gracious Redeemer we may become the heirs of His eternal glory.” [5] He further asked Virginians to pray that . . .

He would . . . pour out His Holy Spirit on all ministers on the Gospel – that He would bless and prosper the means of education and spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth. [6]

Rick Perry did nothing more than what Thomas Jefferson did – a fact that Furlow ignores. Furlow further claims:

“The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli . . . said ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion’."

Furlow has lifted 19 words out of an 83 word sentence, thus making it say exactly the opposite of what it actually does say.

That 1797 treaty was one of several that America negotiated with Muslim nations during America’s first War on Islamic Terror (1784-1816), [7] in which five Muslim countries were indiscriminately attacking the property and interests of what they called the “Christian” nations, including America.  But America sought to ensure the Muslims that we were not like the ancient European Christian nations – that did not hate Muslims because of their religious faith. Thus, the full sentence in that treaty states:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] . . . [8]

That is, we were not one of the Christian nations that held an inherent hostility toward Muslims. (See our full article on the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli and America’s first War on Terror.) Furthermore, in 1805 under Jefferson, that treaty was renegotiated and the clause stating that “. . . the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion . . .” was deleted. [9]

Finally, Furlow complained that “the day of prayer [was] announced on the state website and the official invitation printed on Perry’s gubernatorial stationery.” But by 1815, some 1,400 official calls to prayer had already been issued by government leaders, [10] each printed and distributed at government expense – the Founders’ equivalent of using the “state website” and “gubernatorial stationery.”

In conclusion, despite what critics claim, history is clear that Rick Perry did exactly what the Founding Fathers themselves had done – on hundreds of occasions.

*Picture of Governor Perry is courtesy of the Office of the Governor. Permission to reproduce from this website for noncommercial purposes is freely granted. This permission statement must be included in any noncommercial reproduction.

---

[1] Kate Shellnutt, “Lawyer: Perry’s plans raise First Amendment, church-state issues,” The Houston Chronicle, July 27, 2011 (at: http://blog.chron.com/believeitornot/2011/07/lawyer-perrys-plans-raise-first-amendment-chu rch-state-issues/).

[2] Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Ford, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), Vol. II, p. 42, “Notice of Fast to the Inhabitants of the Parish of Saint Anne,” June 1774.

[3] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), Vol. 1, pp. 105-106, “Resolution of the House of Burgesses Designating a Day of Fasting and Prayer,” May 24, 1774.

[4] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), Vol. 1, p. 116, to the Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Anne before July 23, 1774.

[5] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. 3, p. 178, “Proclamation Appointing a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer,” November 11, 1779.

[6] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P.Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. 3, p. 178, “Proclamation Appointing a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer,” November 11, 1779.

[7] See, for example, the 1787 treaty with Morocco; the 1795, 1815, and 1816 treaties with Algiers; the 1796 and 1805 treaties with Tripoli; and the 1797 treaty with Tunis. The American Diplomatic Code, Embracing A Collection of Treaties and Conventions Between the United States and Foreign Powers from 1778 to 1834, Jonathan Elliot, editor (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970; originally printed 1834), Vol. I, pp. 473-514.

[8] Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797), pp. 43-44.

[9] The American Diplomatic Code, Embracing a Collection of Treaties and Conventions Between the United States and Foreign Powers: From 1778 to 1834. With an Abstract of Important Judicial Decisions, On Points Connected with Our Foreign Relations, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington, D. C.: Jonathan Elliot, 1834), Vol. I, p. 499, Art. 11, “Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary,” November 4, 1796, signed January 4, 1797.

[10] Deloss Love, The Fast and Thanksgiving Days of New England (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company 1895), pp. 464-514, “Fast and Thanksgiving Days Calendar.”