Quick Roundup 462

Why We Don't Want News "Bailouts"

A newspaper in Nevada explains this issue perfectly -- with an assist from Harry Reid.

On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, [Senator Harry] Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.

...

For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can't let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he'll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he's tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated. [minor format edits, bold added]

Read the whole thing. (HT: Dismuke)

Obama want to be your keeper.

A secular conservative commentator has penned an editorial (HT: HBL) that makes some very good points regarding Barack Obama's views on and actions regarding the issue of selfishness:

[T]he way Obama means [being "my brother's keeper"] is even worse. He does not view himself as a man in need of keeping; he views himself as the keeper. He invokes that line about being his brother's keeper in order to sell us on a health-care bill that will require all health-insurance plans to be designed and approved by a government overseer, and in which we will all be pushed into accepting health care provided by the government, on the government's terms.

...

Why does Obama expect us to put up with the prospect of living under government keepers? He is depending on what legal blogger William Jacobson calls, in a brilliant coinage, "ghimmitude." That's a combination of "gimme" and "dhimmitude," a term that refers to the voluntary acceptance by non-Muslims of second-class citizenship under the rule of Muslim overlords. Jacobson defines "ghimmitude" as "a peaceful surrender to the state in exchange for health-care security and benefits, based on accepting the inferiority of the individual and individual rights." ...

Read the whole thing.

An "Emergency" Gag?

Via Matt Drudge is an article on a re-write of a dangerous bill that would give the President "emergency" control over the Internet:

[A]ides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting [the revision] behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 ..., which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. [bold added]

If anything, it seems that this version would make it unnecessary for the President to even pretend that a "cybersecurity emergency" exists, or to openly take such control.

Given that Harry Reid's party is writing the bill for the Keeper-in-Chief, that everything the Democrats want to do is premised on there being an "emergency" of some sort, and that all dissent is "disinformation," this scares the hell out of me.

Objectivist Carnival

Last week's edition is over at RealityTalk.

-- CAV

A Whole Foods Buycott

Pursuant to a recent post, reader Dismuke emails me about an activity you may be interested in, which is an outgrowth of the Tea Party demonstrations:

The national leadership team of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition this morning announced a series of Tea Party Buycott events designed to support John Mackey and the Whole Foods grocery chain. Mackey is the CEO whose op-ed in The Wall Street Journal opposing Obamacare and supporting free market health care reform has sparked unprecedented and unwarranted attacks from left wing propagandists.

The first two events are scheduled for Tuesday evening, September 1, 2009 in St. Louis, Missouri and Dallas, Texas, with additional events in other cities and locales to come. The St. Louis event will be held at the Whole Foods store located in Town and Country, Missouri off Clayton Road and will begin at 6 pm. The Dallas kickoff event will be held at the Whole Foods Market located at 11700 Preston Rd., Dallas, Texas and will begin at 7 pm. Details of these Tea Party Buycotts and future buycotts can be found online at http://www.teapartybuycott.com.

If you are participating in either of these or know more, feel free to leave a comment.

Two more things I more or less randomly thought of upon hurriedly posting this... (1) I am glad to see that the Tea Party folks are characterizing themselves as "fiscally conservative." (2) Were I -- as someone pretty unfamiliar with the stores -- to participate in such an event, I might consider showing up a day or so before to become familiar with the layout of the store. One drawback I can see to one of these events is having a huge mass of people who don't know where anything is in the store at once attempting to do their weekly shopping!

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Added last paragraph.

The Missing Cost

Whipping through my feed reader this morning, I noticed that there is a recent post at Marginal Revolution titled, "A cost-benefit analysis of high-speed rail." The post raises several economic objections to a cost-benefit analysis held to show that a high-speed rail link between Dallas and Houston would not be a bad idea.

I have often complained here that such analyses -- while they may be interesting and illustrative -- are in fact a poor way to fight against the inappropriate use of government. This is because they fail to challenge the underlying premise that the government ought to be doing anything except protecting individual rights. At best, you'll indicate that some idea or other is a waste of money and undercut some popular support from it. At worst, you'll find that something is apparently cost-neutral or even beneficial in the sense that the economy as a whole might grow more as a result of the particular "investment" you are considering.

No matter what you conclude from such an analysis, however, you are dropping context. Regular readers will know this, but I do not recall, until this morning, coming up with a nice, short way, of introducing the issue. That is what this post, through its title, is all about.

In our mixed economy, some sectors are more government-controlled than others. Transportation is an excellent example. Roads must, in fact, be built and, while I am sure we'd be far better off on many levels if the government got out of the road-building business entirely, the fact is that many cost-benefit analyses will show that the government "should" build certain proposed roads.

What all such analyses fail to account for is the unseen cost of lost freedom, which is far and away higher even than the more commonly-known economic costs Frederic Bastiat has brought to our attention by identifying the Fallacy of the Broken Window. Some of that cost sometimes manifests as further government controls, economic or not, that arise once the damage of a given intervention becomes apparent enough.

But that remains only a part of the cost. The real cost is that any time the government does anything but protect individual rights, someone's freedom has been infringed upon. Indeed, such analyses fail to object to the fact that the government has no right to force citizens take the risks of such involuntary "investments" and furthermore, even when a cost-benefit analysis does show that some proposed course of action is "profitable" (and it turns out to be correct), those who might have invested of their own accord are deprived of the opportunity to profit. But the real failure of such analyses is that a longstanding, and very bad precedent is being allowed to become more firmly entrenched in our cultural milieu when we desperately need to destroy it root and branch.

Anyone who advocates capitalism should approach cost-benefit analyses with great caution, and should always qualify them by bringing up the hidden cost: Freedom. That is, government resources which should be devoted to protecting individual rights are instead being used to violate them. In the process, the body politic grows accustomed to its chains, and less likely to notice new ones.

-- CAV

Whole Foods Update

Recently, Paul Hsieh noted the good news that debate over physician slavery has shifted to a more fundamental level than politics, and become a moral debate. In addition to that encouraging development, there is also the matter of Whole Foods CEO John Mackey taking this debate to the home soil of the pro-slavery side.

As with all battles, each side fires shots, and forces join each side. According to the Huffington Post, two labor unions have decided to come to the aid of the pro-slavery side:

As the NY Times write-up of "the most unexpected" sideshow to the 2009 Health Care Debate put it: "Reaction from pro-reform [sic] Whole Foods shoppers was swift and vociferous." Now the Change To Win Investment Group and United Food And Commercial Workers Union -- both a part of the Change To Win federation of unions representing six million workers -- have put out statements criticizing Mackey and encouraging a boycott of the store.

CtW called for Mackey's removal as chairman of the board and CEO. "Mr. Mackey attempted to capitalize on the brand reputation of Whole Foods to champion his personal political views, but has instead deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base," the group's executive director Bill Patterson said in a statement. UFCW has begun handing out pamphlets to Whole Food shoppers. The group said Mackey's op-ed was an "attempt to undermine Obama's health-care reform." (Whole Foods is not unionized.) [bold added]

So a bunch of dumb thugs who can scarcely read are going to pass out paper with stuff printed on it?

That's potentially very good news: Let's hope this accelerates the process of "a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base" actually reading Mackey's editorial. Many of these shoppers now reflexively support "healthcare reform," but perhaps after they read the editorial and think about it, they will instead come to reflectively oppose physician slavery, as Ann Althouse recently suggested they might. (She posts an update of her own here, and points to a BBC story on the boycott as well.)

Perhaps, if a few of them think about the issue enough, they will come not just to oppose physician slavery, but support freedom for all individuals. Dumb opponents can be a godsend, so to speak.

This Southerner recently made his first post-transplant visit to Whole Foods here in Boston when he discovered that his usual grocery store, despite having a "Southern and Southwestern Cuisine" aisle, does not stock Tabasco sauce. (He also enjoyed confounding the checkout girl with a "third" (nearly-extinct) word beginning with the letter "P" when asked whether he wanted a bag for his purchase.)

On that trip, I remember thinking that it's nice to have a place for occasional purchases of the more "exotic" items in my diet, but now, I will make it a point to go there each week in support of its CEO. As Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post put it, "Now is the time for all good capitalists to shop at Whole Foods."

I don't have a car. I am on a budget. My usual store is ten blocks closer and I'm mostly happy with it. I couldn't do all of my shopping at Whole Foods even if I wanted to, but I am sure I can find an excuse to make the trip once a week. The excuse will be the food, but the reason will be to thank Mr. Mackey for standing up when it counts.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 461

"Why Craigslist is Such a Mess"

I read a very interesting article with the above title about Craigslist this morning. Several related strands struck me as noteworthy, but I found the following explanation of why it eschews many technical innovations quite compelling:

[CEO Jim Buckmaster] had specific objections to both [attempts to make Craigslist easier to use]. Listpic ran ads, it put a high burden on craigslist servers, and when he looked at traffic records he noticed that Listpic was being used mainly to enhance enjoyment of the sexy images people posted in their erotic-services ads. Universal search subverts craigslist's mission to enable local, face-to-face transactions; it increases the risk of scams and can be exploited to snatch up bargains, giving technically sophisticated users an advantage over casual browsers. But the very surfeit of these practical objections -- many of which probably have technical solutions -- hints that the real explanation lies elsewhere, and with a minimum of pressure Buckmaster will state it plainly. It is the same reason that craigslist has never done any of the things that would win approval among Web entrepreneurs, the same reason he has never updated its 1999-era Web design. The reason is that craigslist's users are not asking for such changes. [bold added]

This reminds me by contrast of the time Sitemeter did a 180 after annoying fans (including me) of its simple, elegant interface by introducing a needlessly complicated (if feature-rich) redesign.

Also interesting is founder Craig Newmark's personality and the fact that his success as a businessman may well be a textbook case of compartmentalization, assuming that the description of his political views as "liberal" correctly identifies him a leftist. At first blush, he sounds to me like a sort of cottage communist, but I am unfamiliar with his views apart from the article. [Update: I now have it on good authority that Craig Newmark calls himself a "libertarian pragmatist." See the comments.]

A Cult of Hyperefficiency?

And speaking of people with incorrect philosophical premises nevertheless coming up with good ideas, I found thought-provoking certain aspects of another Wired article, this one about David Allen of Getting Things Done fame.

That the inventor of their favorite system of personal organization has a decades-long devotion to New Age thinking causes fits of squeamishness among GTD fans. "If indeed GTD was conceived, implemented, and marketed with the intentions of drawing people into the MSIA cult," wrote one member of the popular productivity forum, 43folders.com, "how do we, as conscientious individuals, avoid becoming prey within the trap?" Allen explains that while he won't hide his beliefs, he doesn't want his personal faith confused with the message he has for people today. "The Marriott family supports the Mormon Church," he points out, but nobody refuses to sleep in their hotels. [original formatting dropped, bold added]

Both the emphasized passage here and the take of the article on David Allen's explicit belief system are symptomatic of the pervasive cultural influence of skepticism. (Here, I am speaking of the influence of a specific philosophical approach, and not the colloquial use of the term "skepticism" to describe a healthy demand for evidence and proof.)

Since man, according to the skeptic, can't know the truth, anyone professing a particular point of view must be up to something. Thus the cynical angle of the article. Conversely, if you accept something as true (or at least worthwhile), you must be ceding your mental independence in some way. (You judged Allen's system superior based on your own evidence? Do you even know that or that "evidence?") Thus you have a fan Allen's GTD system second-guessing himself. (This is not to say that Allen's system is necessarily unaffected by his worldview. Read on.)

Even more interesting to me is how the skeptical outlook destroys potentially fruitful paths of legitimate criticism of Allen's approach. For example, if, as the article seems to imply, Allen's organizational approach is ultimately supposed to be a way of achieving some trance-like state of "serenity," how might that compromise the better elements of his system? What might Allen be leaving out that he should include, or adding that he shouldn't? Do other aspects of his "New Age" worldview (or his method of thinking) compromise his system in any way? I've wondered about such things before because I independently judged GTD superior to other suggestions for improved organization and productivity, and yet because I evaluated it for myself, I also saw that it is far from perfect.

The only "trap" anyone can fall into is to fail to exercise, at all times, one's own independent judgment. The skeptic and the blind follower are thus two sides of the same coin: The first accepts nothing as true, the second accepts whatever happens to seem appealing at a given moment, and both fail to really learn or create anything because neither has an active mind.

Some Good Tips

On a more positive note, I found these free downloads from David Allen's site quite helpful. I was able to go over most of these articles one weekend afternoon and found numerous helpful elaborations on points he made in Getting Things Done.

Indeed

"The only problem I see with this plan is it lasts only 12 days." -- Doug Reich on Rhode Island's temporary shutdown of its welfare state

VOC

Via email, I have learned about the formation of a "Virtual Objectivist Club:"

I'm writing to let you know about the Virtual Objectivist Club, an online Objectivist study group that has just been started for students who don't have a local group in their area. We'll meet once a week online or over the phone to discuss an essay or topic from the Ayn Rand Reader or [other online Objectivist material].

All of the information about the group can be found here at: http://www.oclubs.org/voc [minor format edits]

Darren Cauthon, who sent me the email, is an organizer. There's also more information at Principles in Practice.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Removed second to last section. (2) Other minor edits. (3) Added a clarification to the first section.

Clinton vs. Obama

Three sources I check on a near-daily basis --RealClear Politics , The Drudge Report, and Fresh Bilge -- all point me to a William McGurn editorial in the Wall Street Journal about what Barack Obama ought to do to "save" his presidency.

Let's set aside for the moment the whole question of whether it might be a little premature to gloat over the failure of Obama's push for physician slavery. The article draws some interesting parallels with how Bill Clinton responded to the resounding defeat of his attempt to impose government control over your health (and with it, the Democrats) during his first term. It is these parallels and how conservatives might react to them that I want to consider.

McGurn writes from a pragmatist's (read: unprincipled) perspective and the assumption that political office is an end in itself. This causes him to misjudge the Obama situation in several ways. The root of his difficulty lies in the fact that this speculation about how Obama might "save" his Presidency ignores the fact that, as Clinton might have put it, "That depends on what the meaning of the word, 'save' is." I think that McGurn (and Clinton) have a vastly different idea from Obama of what "saving" his Presidency would entail.

McGurn sees the presumed defeat of central planning in medicine as an opportunity for Obama to become free of the farthest left reaches of his party because its agenda is unpopular. He cites another political writer on this score.

In his book The Pact, historian Steven M. Gillon puts it this way: "Ironically, Gingrich's revolution may have saved the Clinton presidency by freeing him from the control of his party's more liberal base in Congress, giving him the opportunity to return to the moderate message that helped him win election in the first place. [minor edits]

Alan Sullivan of Fresh Bilge gives what I think is at the same time a perceptive and tin-eared response: "[T]here's no way stiff Obama will suddenly morph into flexible Bill Clinton..." The good and the bad of this observation both come from the same notion, which McGurn shares, that holding the presidency is somehow worth it to Obama in and of itself. But yes, Obama could well turn out to be inflexible. Why?

Notice that I said "holding the presidency," rather than "holding power." That's an important distinction, and which side of this distinction Obama lands on will determine how he might react to a major setback. Bill Clinton learned from his defeat that he did not have the power -- perhaps a better term would be "political capital" -- necessary to enact his entire agenda. But for Bill Clinton, holding office made him feel like a big shot. In this way, I think that Obama is fundamentally different: It's all about imposing his vision on America. Bill Clinton was all about the office and Barack Obama is all about power. This means -- contrary to the blindness of pragmatism -- using power for a specific goal.

I doubt that just hanging on will do anything for Barack Obama.

Clinton could have reacted to his discovery in a variety of ways: (1) He could have evaded the lesson and kept working full bore, but fruitlessly, for the same agenda; (2) He could work to get parts of his agenda enacted with what power he had; or (3) He could pretend to favor a different agenda and bask in popularity for helping to enact it. Clinton mainly chose the third of these, as McGurn indicates:

Though he continues to deny GOP contributions to his success, after his 1994 health-care defeat, Mr. Clinton did what all smart pols do: He appropriated the most appealing parts of his opponents' agenda.

The result was a new Bill Clinton, embracing everything from deregulation and welfare reform to the Defense of Marriage Act. In his 1996 State of the Union, he even struck a Reaganite chord by announcing that "the era of Big Government is over." From this newly held center, Mr. Clinton advanced his presidency and pushed, both successfully and unfairly, to demonize Mr. Gingrich. Mostly he got away with it.

One might be tempted to scoff about Obama taking this option, given how far to the left he seems to be. In fact, one might also say, "What agenda is there for him to appropriate, this time?" The rotten parts. The ones that, perhaps, already exist in his agenda, but are on the backburner for now.

Most of the better parts of the Republican agenda have withered away, but I think that this Clinton-like turn is a more dangerous possibility than Sullivan apparently does. Recall whom Obama chose to deliver his inaugural invocation, and with whom he sojourns, so to speak. If Obama chose such a path, we might get our first taste of a religious left presidency. (Obama might also try this if he is sufficiently pragmatic.) And if he does, watch for some evangelicals to help him throw capitalism under the bus.

But what if Obama is more principled than Bill Clinton or less religious than he appears? He and the Democrats could well decide to enact physician slavery on moral grounds and take the electoral losses. (The word "repeal" wasn't in the Republican lexicon even in 1994...)

On Friday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said his boss was 'quite comfortable' with the idea that sticking to his agenda may well mean 'he only lives in this house' for one term.

We could get both option (1) and option (3). This could give us the worst of both worlds if the Democrats actually took over the medical sector.

We have to hope Obama is too secular to want to enact a religious agenda, and willing to take what he can get from a less friendly Congress, or that he continues going full bore, but sees little success in enacting his agenda.

In the sense of his Presidency offering anything of immediate political good to America, the Obama Presidency is beyond saving. I doubt we'll get a Clinton II, but not just on grounds that Obama is probably too inflexible to "pull a Clinton." Because the Republicans have learned nothing from their loss of power, they are ill-equipped to make Obama be a decent -- or at least harmless -- President. (That said, pro-capitalists will profit from not having to rebut the silly idea that the President is "pro-capitalist." This is an enormous long-range good that many conservatives fail to appreciate for a variety of reasons.)

And if you don't believe me, just look at what a couple of Republicans -- including the last presidential nominee -- recently said (via HBL) about health insurance "reform:"

Though one of the Senate's most liberal members, Kennedy -- and his ability to work out bipartisan deals -- was on the minds of a couple of key Republican senators in the health care debate Sunday. "No person in that institution is indispensable, but Ted Kennedy comes as close to being indispensable as any individual I've ever known in the Senate, because he had a unique way of sitting down with the parties at a table and making the right concessions, which really are the essence of successful negotiations," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, speaking on ABC's "This Week." "So it's huge that he's absent, not only because of my personal affection for him, but because I think that health care reform might be in a very different place today."

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch echoed the sentiment on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Well, Sen. Kennedy would, first thing he would have done, would have been call me and say, 'Let's work this out.' And we would have worked it out so that the best of both worlds would work." [bold in original]

With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

I don't think Barack Obama could turn out to be another Bill Clinton even if he secretly wanted to.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 460

More than a Surface Resemblance

I wish I'd been aware of the startling similarity between Barack Obama and this image of Nikolai Ezhov (aka, "Stalin's Loyal Executioner," pictured at right) when Comrade President was soliciting nominations for his enemies list.

Ezhov headed the Soviet secret police during the most ... intense ... phase of the Great Purge.

Update: Possibly related is the following link from Yahoo: "White House sets up unit for questioning terrorism suspects." The headline calls it an "interrogation unit."

Objectivist Carnival

In case you missed it -- or let it slip your mind like I did -- last week's Objectivist Roundup was hosted at Rule of Reason.

How Not to Fight Barack Obama ...

That would require integrity and courage, two qualities "Dr." James David Manning completely lacks, as seen in the below (possibly NSFW) video.

Sadly, this video has, according to one web site, "reached millions", and too many people seem to think his heart is in the right place. Just web search "Dr. Manning Mack Daddy" and browse.

... or Racism

Worse, the religious right has no monopoly in the violent fantasy department.

What Inconsistency?

Back when John Kerry was running for President, Ted Kennedy successfully pressured his state's government to change its succession law to prevent its then-Republican governor from being able to choose a replacement for the junior senator, had he won. Apparently, Kennedy now wants to enable its Democratic governor to choose his successor, should he die before the end of his term.

The Wall Street Journal derides Kennedy because his "motivation for changing the law is so obviously born of partisan interest, not principle." [bold added] I disagree, but not with the low moral estimate of Senator Kennedy. He and his party, with their open advocacy of ("single-payer" physician) slavery, are plainly (if not openly) opposed to the premise of the government protecting individual rights.

What better way to finish destroying freedom than to erode the premise that we are a country of objective law, rather than whimsical men? Kennedy is acting in accordance with the principles that now govern his party.

That said, I also vehemently disagree -- with the editorialist and President Obama -- that self-interest and principle (e.g., morality) are incompatible. The problem here is not that Ted Kennedy isn't being altruistic enough. It's that he's being too willing to commit sacrifices for the "good" of his constituents.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Updated first section. (2) Changed a link.

Williams on Profiling

Walter Williams has written a thought-provoking piece, posted at Capitalism Magazine, on racial profiling as a means of economizing on information costs -- thought-provoking, but not perfect.

On the one hand, Williams does successfully make the case that using race or ethnicity is warranted in some circumstances:

In a 1999 article, "Capital Cabbies Salute Race Profiling," James Owens writes, "If racial profiling is racism, then the cab drivers of Washington, D.C., they themselves mainly blacks and Hispanics, are all for it. A District taxicab commissioner, Sandra Seegars, who is black, issued a safety-advice statement urging D.C.'s 6,800 cabbies to refuse to pick up 'dangerous looking' passengers. She described 'dangerous looking' as a young black guy ... with shirttail hanging down longer than his coat, baggy pants, unlaced tennis shoes."

This is a very good example. Let the wrong character into your car and you could wind up robbed, beaten, and left for dead. Spend too much time trying to figure out whether to do business with someone and you starve.

My mild quarrel with Williams arises from his colloquial, albeit loose use of the term "racial." For example, he starts building his case that racial profiling is a way to cut the cost of gathering information by noting that certain medical conditions are more common among blacks than among other racial groups, and ends by shifting over to crime, for certain types of which blacks (at least in the United States) are much more prone.

The problem with this is that it lets slide too easily the fact that there is a difference between genetic makeup and cultural background. Differing racial incidences of certain diseases might, for example, simply reflect the fact that genetic susceptibility to these diseases differs among races. (Risk for some diseases could also (or only) reflect cultural differences, but for our purposes here, this is irrelevant.)

But what about crime rates? Barring certain rare mental conditions, individuals possessing free will commit crimes. What might account for a racial difference in crime statistics? Culture. While one always has free will, some cultures encourage civilized behavior better (i.e., make it easier for one to form rational habits) than others.

Owing largely to the history of slavery and legal persecution blacks have suffered in America, that group is not only genetically distinct, but culturally distinct, and failing to make such a distinction thwarts intelligent discussions about racial matters in two ways: (1) by making it easier (by failing to challenge the surface plausibility of their claims) for racial determinists to claim that the ills of black America are due to an inferior genetic makeup and, thus not soluable within an integrated society (i.e., one that respects individual rights); and (2) by allowing multiculturalists to insist that we all pretend that nothing is culturally wrong, by (incorrectly) slamming any and all criticism of black American culture as merely racist.

Both "alternatives" ignore free will (and, with it, morality) and short-change the individual, black or not. I agree with Walter Williams that practices like racial and cultural profiling are warranted sometimes, but failing to distinguish between the two makes it hard to address some of the very problems that so often make cultural profiling of a racial group necessary to begin with.

Perhaps "group profiling," as is done in non-racial categories (search term: prejudice) all the time, might be a better term.

-- CAV

Updates

8-23-09: Corrected a typo.

Quick Roundup 459

Sometimes, I like to mix things up a little...

No! This post won't be entirely haiku, but with the backlog I've got, I'm going to try one sentence or less per link...

Indentured Servitude for Physicians?

If the idea of mandatory pro bono work for physicians doesn't bother you, your time will come. (HT: Resident Egoist)

Not Effective for Long

I hope, for the sake of the "angry neighbors," that the sign at the top right is just a cute bluff: Since vigilantism is wrong and vandalism is a crime, it is they who will get into trouble, if anyone does.

Hard Times at HP

If you live by the razor-and-blades business model, you die by the razor-and-blades business model.

Mmmmm? Hmmmm!

Among the amusing gag tees offered by Pants Not Found are one pretending to advertise wafers and another displaying nutritional information for a common animal, but both match my nutritional ... requirements ... just a little too closely for comfort. (HT: Found on the Web)

Henthoff Quote

"I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will -- as some of the current bills seem to imply -- have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?" (link)

Another Text-Based List Manager

I already use one (todo.txt) I am reasonably happy with, but here's another.

Becoming the Villain You Don't Know About

If you're going to draw a moral lesson from a work of fiction, it helps to have read it, first!

-- CAV

A Stupid GTD Trick

A while back, I mentioned off-hand that I'd devised, "a really clever way to convert a hanging file drawer to one that can hold manila folders properly." Unfortunately, we hadn't finished that final, annoying ten percent of our post-move unpacking that always seems to take forever, and we'd misplaced our camera somewhere within that ten percent.

Reader Bill wrote in that day, subject line, "Publish It!" He wrote in twice, in fact, saying that he'd tried to do just that, and failed. I promised him I'd post it as soon as we found the camera, so here it is. My explanation follows the images.

Note: On smaller browser windows, the images may underlie the sidebar at the right. Just click an image to enlarge it and see it alone.

As you may recall, I was looking forward to finally completing the integration of all our home filing into one system, largely inspired by the one David Allen recommends in Getting Things Done. I had just over a full drawer's worth of manilla folders I wanted to store, but no suitable place for them.

1. Starting with the upper left image, we have your typical modern file drawer, which is designed to hold hanging file folders, but not the manila folders David Allen recommends. (I use both types, having found that hanging folders are better-suited for some of my purposes. I converted just two of the four drawers in this cabinet.)
2. Moving over to the upper right, we have a large steel bookend and a metal space saver that had lived in a kitchen cabinet in our Houston house. It and another just like it were sitting, unused, in a box, and probably destined for the trash. I'd tried a bookend (alone) for this, but it slid any time you opened or shut the drawer. I knew I needed a way to hold it firmly in place, and yet be able to adjust it as the number and size of the folders in the drawer changed. One evening, I saw one of the space savers from the corner of my eye. "That's what I need on the bottom of the drawer!" I decided to see whether it would fit into the drawer.
3. As you can see at the lower left, it fit exactly! I imagine you could also just cut a similar space saver to size with heavy-duty wire cutters or, perhaps a small hacksaw. (I'd be careful to file the ends down afterwards.) You want your "ladder" to be almost exactly the same length as the bottom of your drawer to prevent it from slipping out of place. Now that I think of it, you want it to be metal, too.
   
4. And finally, at the lower right, is the drawer in use!

We got the majority of our non-paper clutter taken care of this weekend. Unsurprisingly, it thumbed its nose at me in the process by yielding (spawning?) some new paper clutter. But at least I'm ready for it.

Now, all I have to do is pare down the contents of these drawers and add some as yet unorganized items, and I'll finally be as well-organized as I set out to be a couple of years ago when I first learned about GTD.

Perhaps I didn't look hard enough, or didn't come up with the right search terms, but I could not find a converter kit on the market to do this. Perhaps, for lack of demand, there aren't any. If you do know of any, feel free to leave a comment, preferably with a URL to the supplier. Otherwise, I hope you find this idea useful. And if so, let me know whether you come up with any improvements.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Several minor edits.

It's Easier to Tear Down

Via Instapundit, I have encountered an interesting analysis, from an Alinsky-ish perspective of Barack Obama's current political difficulties. This occurs in the first item of a Best of the Web feature at Wall Street Journal Online. As is so often the case with conservative analysis, its strength is generally better on the less abstract levels, but get far enough away from the concrete level and it falls flat on its face:

Which brings us to a word of caution for those who don't want to see Obama re-elected: Inasmuch as the condition of being leaderless gives Republicans significant tactical advantages now, they will not enjoy those advantages in three years. Even if Obama's performance as president leaves much to be desired, he could win a second term if the Republicans nominate an opponent who makes an easy target for ridicule. Just ask John Kerry. [bold added]

Or the Republicans could win, and find themselves eaten alive as their leader, now suffering the same tactical disadvantages Obama currently possesses, flounders about. Non-ridiculousness will get you only so far.

Why is James Taranto so blind to this? I oppose Obama's agenda and find myself wondering whether, at the rate things are going, we might want him for eight years. The lesson Taranto draws in the first section of this Best of the Web is something like, "It's easier to erode someone else's power than to wield it for oneself." That's true enough, particularly when that power is held at the pleasure of a voting public.

Part of the answer, to which I suspect Taranto is oblivious, lies in the very next section of his entry. Here, he discusses a fascinating aspect of the predictable calls for a boycott of Whole Foods by its predominantly left wing clientele in response to a recent editorial by its CEO, John Mackey. Taranto quotes Ann Althouse, a regular customer of Whole Foods:

The place was packed as usual--here in lefty Madison. It occurred to me that the boycott will not only fail, it will backfire. Whole Foods shoppers won't give up their pleasure easily. If they are pushed to boycott, they will want to read the Mackey op-ed, and if they do that, they will see it is a brilliant and specific analysis that is stunningly better thought-out than what we are hearing from Obama and the Democrats. Moreover, once they do that, they should be outraged--or at least annoyed--by those who called for a boycott, who sought to enforce such strict obedience to the particular of legislation [sic] that the Democrats in Congress have been trying to ram through. Maybe some of the people who want to support Obama and the Democrats will stop and think for themselves about what health care reform should be. [bold added]

Besides the fact that possessing power carries with it the tactical liabilities of having to maintain it, there is also the simple fact that if the truth is on your side, you have a huge advantage. Perhaps, in addition to being gutsy, Mr. Mackey is amazingly shrewd. If this pans out, I promise to go easy on the patchouli jokes when mentioning Whole Foods in the future.

Taranto appreciates how this battle is shaking out, but does he see how it applies to the war for America's political future? I suspect not, for the Republicans, insofar as they have become a party of big government and theocracy, also do not have the truth on their side. Taranto has repeatedly made it clear that, while he is useful as an opponent of Obama having power, his positive agenda would be little better. The truth is not on his side, so he does not appreciate its tactical value and arguably even fears it.

In some respects, the fact that neither side is aligned with reality bodes well for those of us who understand that the key to a good future for America is to fight against both theocracy and leftist collectivism, its secularized twin.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 458

Controls Breed Sharia?

The city of Portland, Maine, is being sued by the Maine Civil Liberties Union for violating the religious "rights" of a group of Moslems who wish to use an existing building as a mosque.

The lawsuit filed Thursday says Portland denied the use of the building as a "church or other place of worship" under zoning ordinances.

The former TV repair shop property is zoned commercial. The Portland Press Herald reports conditional uses for religious purposes are permitted, but rules require such properties be at least an acre. The site is one-third of that.

The MCLU argued laws protecting religious rights supersede local zoning. Plaintiffs are the Portland Masjid and Islamic Center, the building's owner, Sadri Shir, and her husband, Nawad Shir. [bold added]

Zoning is wrong because it violates individual rights, the only rights men have. Clearly, the plaintiffs should be allowed to build their mosque on that basis, and on that basis alone. That said, to argue, wrongly, as they do, that a religious motivation should supersede the law is completely wrong, and their winning this suit would set a very bad precedent.

I hope they lose this lawsuit: If the law is to be superseded by religious "rights," what legitimate laws will the Moslems drag someone into court over in the next round? What crimes will they seek to have excused on the same grounds?

I oppose zoning, but the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. This lawsuit can bring no victory for property rights because its rationale undercuts the only legitimate basis for the law: the premise that the government exists to protect the individual rights that all men in a society inherently possess.

This case also illustrates how government controls, like mosquitoes in a swamp of cultural confusion, breed more controls. Most people erroneously accept the notion that the government ought to regulate land use through zoning laws, but also (properly) accept the idea that other people should be free to practice whatever religion they wish -- so long as they do not violate the rights of others. Thus, this lawsuit is not only possible in the first place, but a victory by the plaintiffs may raise little alarm, even as its success would, in the long run, endanger the very freedom it relies on now to proceed.

Zombie Research

I was amused to see, via Instapundit, that some mathematicians have modeled horror movie-style zombie attacks. (Their Matlab code occurs at the end of their paper so you can run the model yourself, if you really want to.)

Amusingly, the introduction of the paper is itself "infected" with (and propagating) a popular scientific urban legend: that tetrodotoxin from puffer fish has been used to create "real" "zombies."

I remember hearing this back in grad school, but it turns out, like the story of Phineas Gage, not to be completely accurate, despite its surface plausibility and its having, frankly, a certain level of appeal. (I also recall wondering at the time whether the reggae song, "Mr. Brown" might be about a zombie.)

I would suspect that there are some commonalities between zombie attacks and the spread of such ... memes (for lack of a better term). I'd be interested in seeing that modeled some time!

Exploding at a Safe Distance

If you breezed past this video the first time, like I did, watch it now. It's a real humdinger! (HT: Paul and Diana Hsieh)

Tactical Retreat

I see that Matt Drudge links to an AP story about Team Obama "retreating" on the "public option." Don't be fooled. If this is any kind of retreat, it is tactical

Does it not stand to reason that, if the government controls all the money your medical care depends upon, it doesn't even need to have "death panels?" This retreat is, in my estimation, being made specifically to make Obama's opponents look, to many voters and perhaps to themselves, like they have won.

For people who cannot think in terms of principles, this will seem to be the case. For those who can, it will not. I wonder whether Obama is hoping that enough of this will tire the public out enough that demands for him to "do something" will carry the day. How effective this move is will depend on how dumbed down our socialized education system has made the country on the whole.

-- CAV

Projection vs. Power

Left-wing radio commentator Ed Schultze -- whose voice and delivery, at least in the linked clip, bear a bizarre resemblance to Rush Limbaugh's -- claims he "sometimes think[s]" that conservative pundits "would love to see Obama taken out," because they "fear socialism [and] Marxism."

Another link at RealClear Politics claims that Schultze himself had once "Wishe[d] Death On Dick Cheney."

For this post, I will leave aside the lowness of this insult on Schultze's part. He is basically attempting to dehumanize his opponents by claiming that we have no regard for human life, and cannot see our political opponents as human beings. I am sorry, but this is still a civilized country. I want Obama to go down in flames, politically, but I have no desire to see him murdered.

That said, I will address a few other aspects of Schultze's remarks...

Although I am no conservative, I share with the likes of Rush Limbaugh a fear Obama's agenda of government control of the economy. If fact, I would say I fear it even more than many conservatives do because I understand it better than they do. In fact, I understand it so much better than they do that I am very ambivalent about the prospect of the Republicans returning to power in Congress in 2010, only perhaps to save Obama's healthcare agenda, among other things.

The GOP, still a party of intrusive government and, as such, no friend of individual rights or capitalism, only opposes Obama controlling the reigns of improper government power, and not, as it ought, anyone having such power on principle. Nevertheless, I doubt many conservatives want "Obama Clause" shot for this very reason. He is saving the GOP from having to do what it cannot do at present: make a positive appeal to the American voter. One would need command of a set of principles consistent with freedom to do that. (Sadly, too many conservative pundits do not appreciate how ineffective the GOP may turn out to be in putting the brakes on Obama's anti-American agenda.)

That said, Schultze's charge is still ludicrous on its face. This is the first peep I have heard of such an idea, and I am more familiar with conservatives by far than with leftists.

Speaking for myself, as one whom Schultze has inexcusably smeared, I have to say that the murderous impulse he projects onto people like me -- people who abhor tyranny -- is not only unjust, but objectively incompatible with our goals and the current political context.

We still have freedom of speech here in America, and Barack Obama has done wonders for making certain issues so clear that Americans can finally discuss them intelligently. I, for one, am thrilled that I now no longer have to start almost any discussion with something like, "Bush's policies are not really capitalist because, ..." Not only that, but Obama has opened up the debate on ethics!

The two parties are both against individual rights anyway -- just like all the major political parties of an earlier time once supported slavery. What the United States must have, as history shows, is an intellectual debate, and the resulting rise of a pro-individual rights group of voters that the parties ignore only at their own peril. Obama has unintentionally accelerated progress in this crucial debate, rather than allowing the United States to continue sleepwalking towards the same fascist measures under a "pro-capitalist" Republican President.

In addition to the above, the event Schultze claims Obama's opponents want could end public debate even more effectively than Obama's threats or the Democrats' "enact first, read later" approach to government. Obama would become a martyr, and the timid Republicans, altruists to begin with, would be more likely to cave to an agenda subsequently cast as a way to honor the legacy of our First Black President.

Ed Schultze's comment indicates that all he can see in politics is a king-of-the-mountain struggle for momentary power over others. Perhaps that is what he would do were he an opponent of Obama's. But for those of us sincerely interested in freedom, the better part of power -- as with valor -- lies in discretion.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Added third and fourth paragraphs shortly after initial posting.

Quick Roundup 457

Wider, Please!

With apologies to Michael Ledeen, I am happy, as a supporter of the Ayn Rand Institute, to see that one of its bloggers has earned an Instalanche (HT: Dismuke) -- something about "Government Motors" -- but at the same time, I am sad to see that its web server is being pitted rather than helping get the word out.

Clearly, ARI's amazing recent progress is coming at a price: the need for more bandwidth.

You can help with an email or a donation, or perhaps both, with the one directing the flow of the other. As if to underscore my point, I was hoping to link to the donations page of ARI, but find that I can't go there to get the URL at the moment.

I'll put that in here later, as soon as I can. And once I do, I suspect that the link to the article will be working again.

[Update: As of about 1:15 Eastern Time, the ARI/ARC website appears to be working.]

Heh!

I think I might know who this guy is!

The anecdote at the end reminds me of a fairly recent occurrence here, in which I posted the picture of someone I know from Houston, leading to him re-connecting with an old college friend.

We live in a world at once small and limitless!

Vote-Buying

A news story about a blatant vote purchase (HT: Billy Beck and Alan Sullivan) by the Obamessiah reminds me somewhat indirectly of Letters from the Earth.

(Obama was aided by "philanthropist" George Soros, whose inexcusable moral sanction was far more valuable to Obama than the chump change he gave.)

First, we have one of Obama's ne'er-do-wells reveling in the "free money" that came, mostly, out of your pocket:

"It's free money!" said Alecia Rumph, 26, who waited in a Morris Park, Bronx, line 300 people deep for the cash to buy uniforms and book bags for her two kids.

"Thank God for Obama. He's looking out for us." [links dropped]

Now, consider the above in light of the following passage of Mark Twain's.

Noah and his family were saved, yes, but they were not comfortable, for they were full of microbes. Full to the eyebrows; fat with them, obese with them; distended like balloons. It was a disagreeable condition, but it could not be helped, because enough microbes had to be saved to supply the future races of men with desolating diseases, and there were but eight persons on board to serve as hotels for them. The microbes were by far the most important part of the Ark's cargo, and the part the Creator was most anxious about and most infatuated with. . . . If [God] had had a motto, it would have read, "Let no innocent person escape."

To Obama's alleged "beneficiaries," I would ask, "Why did Obama leave you still so poor that a few hundred measly bucks is such a big deal? Why won't he do more? Is there a point at which you're 'rich enough' and is that point above or below the one at which Obama will decide to help himself to your money so he can buy votes from 'the poor' in the future?" Either Obama is all-powerful and wants you to remain miserable, or he isn't, and he ought to explain exactly where (i.e., from whom) he got that money.

And then, to all the outraged Republicans out there, I would ask, "Why didn't you object even more to the Bush stimulus checks?"

This is an object lesson on why one must consistently stand up for rational principles. Rather than properly note that Obama's payouts were made possible by larceny carried out on a stupendous scale, all GOP officials can now do is sputter about how the governor of New York, "should spend the money to reduce property taxes." This is because they failed to speak up when it was "our guy" buying votes with government checks.

Quoth another: "It is a plan that is ripe for fraud and abuse." Too effing late -- and wrong anyway, now that I think about it.

This plan is fraud and abuse, and the spineless GOP finds itself in a poor position to object to it.

This -- Obama's "opponents" having to let him get away with this -- is what I find appalling.

Whole Foods CEO vs. Obamacare

Although not exactly the call to repeal all government meddling in the insurance and medical sectors that we really need, I have to admire John Mackey's guts here (HT: Dismuke).

[T]he last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction--toward less government control and more individual empowerment.

This guy could lose lots of business for making this stand, considering the political leanings of the bulk of his clientele -- if, by "lean," you mean, "lie prostrate at the feet of Barack Obama," that is.

I could support some of Mackey's policy recommendations, but only as initial steps towards altogether disengaging the government from medical insurance.

Objectivist Roundup

Be there or be square.

-- CAV

Switch and Pitch

Barack Obama could have passed -- to many Republicans, anyway -- as an advocate of capitalism recently when he noted that, "UPS and FedEx are doing fine," as they "compete" against the US Postal Service. This he said while addressing a crowd friendly to his plan for health insurance "reform," but at a time when his congressional henchmen are being surprised across the country to learn that real Americans do not want said plan.

His remark is clearly intended to assuage the public, and to make his plan seem harmless to us. But other video, of earlier remarks by him and by Democratic members of Congress plainly indicates that he does not really believe his own words and that his plan is, in fact, a "Trojan horse," (as he once put it) for a goal he has repeatedly endorsed over the years: single-payer health care (i.e., government control of the medical sector of the economy).

It is nevertheless worth stopping for a moment -- before we report him for it -- to consider the full meaning of Obama's comparison of the plan he wants to foist on us with the Post Office. If it's going to be such feeble competition for the insurance industry, why implement it at all? And why would we want it? And why would Obama leave himself wide open to such a glaring policy failure?

To really understand any utterance, one must always step back and consider its full context. In this case, it might be worthwhile to consider the nature of the "competition" Barack Obama claims the Post Office is participating in. An old column by Edwin Feulner over at Capitalism Magazine will do us nicely:

We know we can count on private services such as FedEx and United Parcel Service to deliver on time. If they didn't, they'd go out of business. And we also know--many of us from bitter experience--that we always can't count on the post office.

That's because the post office is a government-protected monopoly; 19th century laws make it illegal for anyone else to deliver letters. It's also exempt from state and federal taxes and free from most government regulations. That combination is a recipe for disaster.

If you read the whole thing, it will become plain as day that the only reason there even exists a Post Office to "compete" is federal protection. It would be for similar reasons, as John Lewis recently indicated, that Obama's plan could exist. Here's just one example:

By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.

For a similar reason you can't just post a letter for, say, a quarter, at FedEx (or even a Post Office that really had to compete), you won't be permitted to find more affordable health insurance than Obama's even if a free market could provide it. When the government disallows consumers the choice of less-expensive options, inferior enterprises like the Post Office become "viable."

And, as Lewis indicates further down the line for this plan, enough government aid to such an enterprise will artificially make it not just viable, but the cheapest "option" we will have. This is why, when you hear Obama say he wants single-payer coverage by the end of his term and when you hear him talk about his plan like it's a Post-Office-like "loveable loser," he seems to mean it both ways.

It is because, to him anyway, it is both ways: The Obama Plan is a sort of Medical Post Office -- but on steroids. Government protection will make it ineffective by shielding it from real competition, and put better options out of reach of the public.

Too bad he underestimates the intellect of the American people. I don't want, "The doctor can see you now," to have the same level of reassurance as, "The check is in the mail." That is why I don't want Barack Obama's plan, and I thank the President for making it clear from which direction that fishy odor is coming.

Barack Obama implies that his plan is "self-sustaining." If that is the case, why doesn't he just resign, slightly increase his "premiums," and make millions selling it on the open market? I'll even help his cause by demanding that the government stop strangling the insurance industry with regulations.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 456

Trial Balloon

LB informed me the other day of a story in the Nashua Telegraph concerning someone turned in to the White House snitch line for posting "fishy" comments.

On Thursday morning, NashuaDan found himself on the phone with a Secret Service agent explaining that his remarks were only philosophical and not intended to threaten Obama, he said.

While NashuaDan's comments did not strike me as implying a threat to the President, it is the job of the Secret Service to protect the person holding that office, and I have no problems with them erring on the side of caution.

However, ...

NashuaDan's subsequent phone conversation seems so innocuous that one just about can't help wondering whether the call itself was orchestrated, right along the lines of NashuaDan's comments. Let me explain...

Yes, the Secret Service ought to investigate threats made against the President, but don't forget about how they learned of this "threat." And don't forget that it isn't as if informant SLRNashuan could not have found another way to tip off the Secret Service to a legitimate threat against the President.

But the lack of a media ruckus indicates to me that this is exactly what is being forgotten or ignored. As a result, now that the snitch line has been used for an arguably legitimate purpose, it has an undeserved air of legitimacy. If President Obama is not called on this one, watch for his snitch line to gradually be used for its intended purpose, which is to end all public debate that hurts Barry's feelings.

The Secret Service exists to protect the President, not to monitor political debate. President Obama's snitch line is blurring the distinction between the former and the latter. Whether that is intentional is immaterial. That is the effect.

The Janitor-in-Chief

Our President seems to be a little bit confused about his job description ...

I don't know what I find most annoying about this silly pronouncement.

First, it is not his job to be "cleaning up" the financial catastrophes caused by the economic interventions of past administrations -- but to get out of the way himself so that the free market can function properly.

Second, his metaphor of people just shutting up and getting to work does not apply to a situation in which the first order of business is to have a frank discussion about what we ought to be doing.

Third, his condescendingly common (if affected) air of doing us all a favor by cleaning up for us clearly distracts his most vocal fans in the audience from the fact that his idea of "cleaning up" is no different from the "solutions" his predecessors have had.

Having Barack Obama for President is like we hired an un-paper-trained puppy to do a janitor's work when we should have hired a security guard.

Don't "Do a Lot of Talking" ...

... if you have a disabled son and are worried about one of the "cleaning" methods -- i.e., rationing -- the Janitor-in-Chief wants to employ with the medical mess.

I am unfamiliar with Mike Sola's overall position in the medical care debate, but his inexcusable treatment at the hands of "Representative" John Dingell and the late-night harassment he has received at home are worth noting. (HT: Dismuke)

The Democrats plainly have abandoned the ideal of representative government: Who in his right mind would want to put his medical decisions in the hands of the kind of people who would insult him (at best) over a difference of opinion and show up at his home to threaten him at night?

And if those hints aren't enough, Sola asks why Congress won't use the plan themselves and Mike N reports that the plan won't go into effect until the Democrats have gotten to run another election first. But if all that isn't enough to make you not want this clunker of a plan, then I suggest reading it. John Lewis did, and he has posted a fine executive summary over at Principles in Practice.


Mike Dingell and President Obama would do well to consider the above political cartoon, but they will not. Will their bosses, the American people, have the sense to fire them?

And Speaking of Cleaning up...

The American electorate need look no further than about ninety miles south of Florida to see where socialism can take us if Obama gets his way:

Cuba, in the grip of a serious economic crisis, is running short of toilet paper and may not get sufficient supplies until the end of the year, officials with state-run companies said on Friday.

To use a metaphor of my own, central planning has made Cuba unable to wipe its own behind.

Vendor Lock-in Hell

Glenn Reynolds notes that an Apple netbook has the potential to introduce the iPhone commercial model to computing in general. I'm not happy to hear that, but no, I don't want Obama to step in to "save" personal computing.

-- CAV

Flag Me

As sent to flag@whitehouse.gov just prior to posting.

Dear President Obama:

I am having writer's block because, as an opinion writer, what motivates me is to win minds over by rational argument. Your asinine program of taking the names of people who disagree with you has confirmed for me that you are impervious to reason and have no regard for facts or rational principles. It has also removed any shadow of a doubt on my part that you are an enemy of freedom and, therefore, of my country. You have informed me that you regard the way I would one day hope to earn my livelihood as a criminal enterprise.

I am having writer's block because I have no respect for you: I have better things to do with my time than to speak to you.

I am having writer's block because speaking to you at all is a waste of my time. I write all the same, but not for your blind eyes, your dead mind, or your empty soul. I write only to register my name in the Patriot's List you are unwittingly compiling.

I am having writer's block because the thought that my country has an enemy instead of a leader occupying your office is difficult to process.

I am having writer's block because I am speaking, not into a microphone, but into the point of a gun held by you, and because you have threatened me. I am not afraid of you, but I do despise you. I would rather you finish pulling that trigger than live in the hellish world you want to force on me. You have violated freedom of speech, the most crucial freedom men possess and the very freedom that such men as John Adams -- whose memory you desecrated the other day -- used to win minds over to found my country.

I am having writer's block because I am speechless. You have committed an unpardonable sin against my county. I know I cannot reach a mind like yours, but justice demands that I publicly make my opinion and my opposition to your tyranny known. I send you this letter only as a formality, and because I am a man of my word. Were you truly an honorable man, you would do my country the only service you can now possibly render it: You would apologize for what you have done and resign your office as soon as humanly possible.

Patriotically,

Gus Van Horn

The Patriots List

Senator John Cornyn of Texas has rightfully asked President -- and I mean no disrespect to the office here -- Obama what he intends to do with the list of political opponents he has begun compiling. Naturally, the reactions from those quarters -- the quarters where I live -- has ranged from indignant to concerned, and those reactions are entirely appropriate.

Indeed, there is no exaggerating the seriousness of the threat that Barack Obama poses to our freedom. His actions, thanks to modern database technology, are not just petty: They are actually dangerous, as Byron York of the Washington Examiner indicates (via John Hinderaker) when he examines the legal ramifications of that despicable move.

The White House request that members of the public report anyone who is spreading "disinformation" about the proposed national health care makeover could lead to a White House database of political opponents that will be both secret and permanent, according to Republican lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are examining the plan's possible implementation.

Hinderaker reacts:

A secret and more or less permanent dissident database--in America! That's quite an accomplishment for an administration still in its seventh month. It seems longer, somehow.

This is chilling, but if this is something to keep in mind at all, it is only in a tactical sense. A few people have tasted the possible short-term consequences of opposing Obama at various town hall "meetings" across the country, as reported yesterday: One man was attacked for bearing what


Nancy Pelosi might call a "swastika," (above, HT: Alan Sullivan) and another was pushed or slapped in the face (Click through images 9-16.) simply for defending the same health care system that Ted Kennedy used when diagnosed with brain cancer.

Now imagine what the man in charge of the executive branch could do, were he so inclined, and bear in mind the violent metaphor he used last night while speaking to his constituency of union thugs and ne'er-do-wells. This is what he wants you to imagine -- while forgetting that the consequences of failing to stand up to him will be far worse in the long run. (Here is one example.)

Myrhaf is right:

The left is statist, and therefore more authoritarian. It is the party for "control freaks." The pro-freedom right (as opposed to the pragmatist welfare staters and the religionists) is a leaderless phenomenon of America's tattered tradition of individual liberty. The left is the party of totalitarian cynicism and lies. The opposition -- call it the Tea Party movement if you will -- is an honest reaction by millions of good people to the shocking loss of freedom in America. All the left can do is hope to "define" their opponents with smears that are actually a self-portrait.

The slaps and punches are just the start, regardless of what we do. Now is hardly the time to back down.

We will survive Obama only by successfully fighting him. Do not be deterred by his pathetic scare tactics or the public confession that is his "enemies list." This is a roll of honor: Be sure to join it today.

Is anyone out there selling Gadsden Flag armbands? I'd happily buy one.

-- CAV