The Price of Eggs

We're into a little F. A. Hayek today. Try to keep up.

There is a generic critique of market economics making the rounds these days, that goes something like this: a free market is no guarantee that, at any given moment, things will be priced correctly, and therefore, we need government intervention to 'nudge' things - and people - back where they ought to be. The acme of examples for this notion is health care, primarily due to the fact that health care is unarguably a critical need for everyone, and its cost has wildly outpaced the ability of most people to pay for it without financial ruin. It is clear that something needs to be done about health care, and it must be done now, and the only solution that makes any sense is to spread these costs among everyone by spreading the wealth around and government is the best way to do this … because socialism.

Well, let's back up a second. Is it true that the free market is not a guarantee of correct pricing for goods and services? The naysayers cite complex economic theories and studies of distorting influences on markets, things like friction, sticky-ness, monopolies, oligopolies, and plain old fraud and greed, to make their case. But this line of argument depends on one big unstated assumption: that we can establish what the 'correct' price is independently of the market. But what independent criteria are they referring to? This reminds of the original mistake of the blessed Adam Smith, when he put forth his theory for the correct price of labor in his classic book, The Wealth of Nations. His argument was simple and straightforward and makes eminent sense. Labor is performed by human beings and human beings need to earn a minimum amount to buy food and housing, so therefore, any employer that paid less than that minimum amount would soon have no more laborers. This established a floor to wages that could be determined without regard to any particular local market forces - one need only total up the costs of the minimally necessary food and housing, and divide that by the hours a typical laborer worked, and voila! That's what employers must pay.

As I said, this argument was simple and straightforward and made eminent sense, but it had one problem. It purported to establish an objective value - a value independent of market forces - for something as fundamental in economics as the value of labor, and thereby took that science down a long road of error for close to a 100 years.

In truth, employers do (and always have) taken into account their employees need for a living wage, for the simple reason that they want them to come back tomorrow. But the real correlation of wages is with productivity - employers will pay a living wage so long as it is equal to or less than the revenues he will get from the effort of the employee. If not, then the employer will not pay the employee anything at all; he will not hire him in the first place.

This puts the price of labor squarely within the dynamic of the free market, unhitched from any other criteria to establish a value. This, of course, bothers many people, who believe a living wage needs to be imposed on the market regardless of any other considerations. But, again, they give us no serviceable objective criteria (beyond a spleen induced moral outrage) outside of the market that can serve to guide in assessing the 'correctness' of the market value of labor.

And here is the reason why they cannot furnish an appropriate objective criteria, which also answers the question whether free markets can guarantee the correct pricing of goods and services: because there is no objective price to anything until the market discloses that particular data point. Or, to put it another way, a market price is information about the price of goods and services at this contemporaneous moment, but not the future price, and the future of any system as complex as the market and prices remains uncertain at any given point in time. Or to put it still another way, they have their causation backwards: market pricing is not caused by the value of goods and services, but instead is the cause of their value, in the sense that it discloses the value, moment by moment.

For example, take eggs. I can buy a dozen eggs today for less than a dollar. But two years ago, they were more than $2.00. Which is the true, Platonic, price of eggs that I will see tomorrow? Well, I certainly want the price to be less than a dollar, but I can't offer any reason why except that I am cheap and prefer to reserve my money for other things than eggs. And this is what everyone else is doing as well, and producers of eggs with their hard working hens are wondering why they are busting their literal and metaphorical tails to give me eggs when I value them so little. So, more people are buying the cheap eggs, while at the same time producers are cutting back on eggs and furnishing more material to Chick-Fil-A for sandwiches, and the upshot will be - the price of eggs will probably rise, maybe not tomorrow, but at some point.

CONTINUED …

The Predication Game

But, Easy, even assuming that Barr is sincere and intends to follow through, my concern is that I suspect he will find predication for the investigation. I think this because the intelligence and investigative agencies of our government are quite aware of what the 4th Amendment and Justice Department regs require before they can use the powerful tools at their command. And as I go over all the events of the last three years, it seems obvious to me that we are seeing a very sophisticated scheme to create a predicate and justification for an investigation. In fact, the scheme was so sophisticated that it beggars belief that this is the first time the FBI et al sought to begin an investigation in such a manner. This was obviously something approaching standard practice that the FBI et al had honed to near perfection for many years.

Consider: they want to investigate the Trump campaign to find collusion with Russia, but they have no evidence of such. What to do? Well, find a member of the Trump campaign and plant him with insider information about Russian involvement in the American election process, e.g. hacking Hillary's emails. Then, cover your tracks by having a seemingly independent source 'discover' that campaign member to have insider connections with Russia, and voila! You have the reasonable grounds you need to begin an investigation of the Trump campaign.

And this is clearly what happened with George Papadopolous. He tells them in early 2016 that he is joining the Trump campaign, and in the course of a few days - a few days! - they are able to put together a global initiative - global initiative! - to set him up as the 'evidence' that the Trump campaign had nefarious contacts with Russia. There is evidence that the highest levels of the Italian intelligence agency introduce him to the mysterious Maltese academic, Joseph Mifsud, who gives Papadopolous the information that Russia has 30,000 of Hillary's emails. Then the highest levels of British intelligence along with long time CIA assets introduce him in London to an ostensibly innocent bystander, Alexander Downer, an Ambassador from Australia, where Papadopolous is induced to pass on the information he got from Joseph Mifsud about the Russians having Hillary's emails. It is then Alexander Downer who passes on the 'information' that Papadopolous, a member of the Trump campaign, apparently has insider knowledge about Russia and Russian interference in the American electoral process.

At this point, the loop is closed and the FBI et al has the 'independent' evidence from the Australian Ambassador that will permit them to begin a full boat investigation of the Trump campaign.

Stated like this, it's all an obvious subterfuge to skirt the 4th Amendment and public policy prohibitions against turning the tools of the government against an opposing political party. But that does not take into account the sophistication and expertise of our high government officials in 'laying a predicate' for an investigation. As I said, a troubling aspect of all of this is that this looks like a practiced operation that has been honed to perfection by the FBI et al for many years. So, I suspect that Barr will find enough of a 'predicate' such that all the parties stayed just over the 'right' side of the line in beginning this investigation, even though the overall circumstances point to corruption.

Compare, Barr's recent decision not to prosecute James Comey for leaking classified and other information. James Comey is a smart, experienced guy, and he knew exactly what the rules and regs required vis a vis internal investigative information. So he fashioned 7 memos with particular attention to the type of information contained in each, and then meticulously distributed them in such a way that he would always stay just shy of the line of a violation - or at least, a violation concrete enough to warrrant prosecution. As a result, Barr had to pass on prosecution, and Comey skates.

Put simply, I suspect Barr will be similarly powerless to do anything about the corruption he finds in his "predicate" investigation, except by instituting new rules and regs to hopefully prevent this sort of thing from happening again. Which is a good thing, a very good thing - but far from a satisfying conclusion to this whole tawdry affair.

The Predication Game

I am a weird guy; I get excited over predication. No, no, not the grammatical variety, but the legal.

Finally, after more than three years and multiple investigations by the CIA, the NSA, the DOJ, the FBI, and multiple Congressional committees, someone in Washington has come up with the clear and concise issue that has been staring us all in the face like a grim spectre.

Attorney General William Barr tells us that he is investigating whether the FBI had a 'proper predicate' for opening and conducting an investigation against then candidate Trump and his campaign way back in 2016, and/or perhaps as early as 2015. And with simple clarity, a clarity in short supply these days in Washington, he stated that he needs to know the predicate for the investigation because it is an extraordinary fact that there was surreptitious surveillance (aka 'spying') by the highest levels of the US government against the campaign of an opposing party during a Presidential election contest.

This is not a complicated issue. Presidential election or not, the government cannot investigate anyone without an appropriate reason to believe a crime has been committed. This is basic 4th Amendment jurisprudence, and not controversial in any respect. But when the 'target' for an investigation is the candidate and campaign of a Presidential election, then the standard becomes even more stringent - because not only is the 4th Amendment in play, but also the integrity of our fundamental system of government. This is why the DOJ has numerous existing rules and regulations covering investigations and prosecutions that might interfere with elections at all levels of government.

What has obscured this otherwise obvious issue for the last 3 years (and counting)? It's basically been a studied disambiguation in support of a particular narrative, that Trump colluded with Russia. It was definitely a fact that Russia meddled in our election;  since the time of Lenin, they always have and there was no particular reason they didn't this time. But that is not evidence Trump or anyone colluded. Despite that, the FBI et al commenced an investigation, and covered their tracks publicly, with media complicity, by muddling Russian meddling with Trump collusion to give the impression that they had reasonable grounds to investigate Trump, when all they had were reasons to investigate Russia. And the fact that all of this was designated national security allowed the FBI et al to insinuate they had grounds to suspect Trump, but never have to actually show us anything.

But Mueller has now spoken that there was no evidence of collusion, and the real, serious issue is finally getting the hearing it deserves: what was the evidence that started the investigation, and was it a proper ground for an extraordinary, secret investigation of a Presidential campaign?

Here's hoping that AG Barr is serious about all of this. If not, it won't be the first time we've seen the Washington insiders deep six a matter of public importance. But let's wait and see.

Iconic Ignorance

I am not a Southerner by birth, descent, or location, but I have to say a few things against the statue smashing know-nothings currently exulting in the spotlight.

Most if not all these statues and monuments were erected to honor the soldiers who fought for the South's Terrible Cause in the Civil War. The know-nothings have one simple rule: hate the cause, then hate the soldiers and tear down their statues. And if you've got a little hate left over, expend it on all the rest of the Southerners today.

But as has been amply pointed out to largely deaf ears, most Southerners (95% or so) did not own slaves. Certainly many of these non-slave owners supported the institution, but this support was not for them the protection of their wealth and economic status. It was more in the nature of loyalty to the people and institutions one grows up with; solidarity with their own family, towns, cities, and cultures.

Misplaced loyalty? Perhaps; but a virtue nonetheless, as we can see in these divisive times where community fellow feeling is at a disastrously low ebb. If people exhibited a little more loyalty to the general community rather than banding together in their tight little identity tribes, it might help in hashing out our differences.

The second and more important fact is that, various provocations notwithstanding (principally Fort Sumter), the North invaded the South with massive armed force. Nothing the South had done before that time was of such a scale as this military response by the North. In our day, we talk of a 'proportionate response' as the only acceptable level of warfare. Well, I don't necessarily agree with the theory, but on any measure at all, the North's response was about as disproportionate as it gets.

Thus, the primary reason that massive numbers of young men leapt to their guns and joined the Confederate Army was to protect their very homes and families against an invading force. In this context, whether the South was to blame for provoking the North, and even the odiousness of the ultimate cause being served, was irrelevant.

Such times as were faced by the sons of the South were terrible and tragic. In the face of an invading army, a sudden decision was demanded of them, a decision that would show where their honor and loyalties lay and whether they were willing to sacrifice their very lives. Spoiler alert: the Southern young men stepped up. And they proceeded to serve not only with great courage but with a skill in battle that made them one of the most effective fighting forces in recorded history.

In the face of monuments to such men as these, the Social Justice Warriors ought to scuttle in shame back to their parents' basements.

Tracking the Wild Rino

With the continued carping from the Republican back benchers, the NeverTrumps, it seems like a moment to clarify who is and who is not a republican in name only - a Rino.

Rino's have been a Republican bane for upwards of 40 years now, weeping and moaning and gnashing their teeth at other Republicans at whatever inopportune moment they can find. They appear to have originated in the northeast of these United States, and that remains their natural habitat, but have spread across the fruited plains into almost every political jurisdiction in the land. Over the years there have been confirmed sightings in Florida, Ohio, and also Arizona, and now Utah has drawn this grumpled beast to its jurisdiction.

And many other places as well. Wherever they are, they never boast significant numbers, but are hard to ignore because of the characteristic incessant, loud, grating noises they make.

So, what exactly makes a Rino rino-like? …

The Meaning of Meaning

I stumbled on this interesting exchange the other day - a bit late, but it touches on an issue near and dear to my heart. It is between Alan Dershowitz and Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia is dead, you say? Quite right, but it seems that early in Justice Scalia's term on  the Supreme Court, members of Mr. Dershowitz Constitutional Law class felt he, as their teacher, was a bit lopsided in his criticism of Justice Scalia's Supreme Court opinions, so they issued an invitation to the Justice to come debate Mr. Dershowitz. Nino, as Justice Scalia was nicknamed, promptly accepted. Would  that I was a fly on the wall of  that confrontation, but in lieu thereof, we have Mr. Dershowitz' report:

"So, in my classroom debate with the justice, I challenged him with the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ended racial segregation of public schools in the Southern states. As a matter of indisputable historic fact, following the Civil War the “people” who “adopted” the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment had to take into account what would surely be the continued segregation of public schools, and not only in the Deep South …

I asked Justice Scalia, whether if had he been on the court in 1954, he could have joined the unanimous court without violating his principle of originalism. He was both candid and self-effacing in his response, saying that no theory of constitutional interpretation — including originalism — was perfect. But he still insisted that originalism was “better” and “safer” than any other theory, because it precluded honest judges from substituting their own philosophies for those of the founding generation. In his own provocative words: “Show Scalia the original meaning, and he is prevented from imposing his nasty, conservative views upon the people. He is handcuffed. And if he tries to dissemble, he will be caught out.”

I feel sure that the Justice had a bit more to say than that about the subject, but that is all Mr. Dershowitz gives us, which is not to say Mr. D was being unfair to Nino. His review is uniformly affectionate, and he is trying to give the flavor of his relationship with Scalia in light of the significant differences they had on Constitutional interpretation.

But it raises my own  thoughts on Scalia's theory of Constitutional interpretation of originalism, and what a proper response to Mr. Dershowitz should be. For there is no doubt in my mind that originalism is the only proper interpretative theory for a purported Constitutional Republic. If the original meaning of the foundational document of a Republic is not determinative of its ongoing application, then the whole idea of a Constitution becomes essentially meaningless. You might just as well set up any small group of people and give them generic principles like 'justice' and 'fairness' and then wait for them to tell you what to do next. As we have seen, that is the net result of the 'living constitution' interpretive school which we have suffered under these many years.

But Brown v. Board of Education did conclude in a good result. Would originalism have precluded that result? And if so, what does that mean for constitutional interpretation?

Continue .....

The Problem with Trump

Yuval Levin gets us to the heart of the problem with Trump. In doing so, he actually pinpoints the problem with the conservative movement the last decade or so.

"Chaos is the essence of [the Trump] problem ... even more than his failure to quite grasp the role of the president in our system of government, or his petty malevolence, or his nasty inclination to punch downward, or whatever in the world the Russia madness is about. It is the simple inability to keep his attention focused, to be disciplined and ordered in a persistent way, to resist even the smallest provocations and insults, and to see decisions through, that has been undermining his administration."

Keeping his attention focused, maintaining discipline and order in a persistent way, and especially resisting the smallest provocations and insults, is what George W. Bush was good at. So much so that he and his administration (and via association the modern conservative movement) were engulfed to the point of oblivion by the Democrat/media attack on his integrity. "Bush lied, people died" is all but a fixed truth in history for much of the American public, in large measure because Bush resisted the impulse to respond to this outrageous lie, this terrible slander, on his reputation and legacy.

And now, Trump is facing a media complex that is so much worse than the one George Bush faced, precisely because the media learned and honed their character assassination tactics on that largely quiescent administration. The media complex is at the top of their destructive game now, and the only one who seems to realize it is President Trump. The lies, the smears, the outrageous slanders and libels roll daily across the news, and the wonder is that Trump is still standing and fighting long after a George Bush or John McCain or Mitt Romney  or Bob Dole would have lain prostrate, waiting for retirement to  a post-Presidency.

Meanwhile, the stalwart conservatives who should know better, like Yuval, mischaracterize Trump's push back against the media as "petty malevolence," a "nasty inclination to punch downward," or a "Russia madness." As if punching the immensely powerful American media is in any  way a downward stroke. In truth, if there is any madness out there, it is the media that is all but frothing at the mouth. Is there one single reason why Trump should not push back, with all the strength he has, against the outrageous idea that his campaign 'colluded' with the Russians to deny Hillary the Presidency? It's been more than a year since the investigations into this allegation have been  pursued by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, Homeland Security, and various Congressional committees. We either have supreme incompetence in all these investigations or willful maliciousness, but in either case, we have zero  evidence of any collusion by the Trump campaign, and even some evidence that the Russians did not hack the DNC or anyone else for that matter. And yet the media still runs this story, breathlessly reporting that real evidence of collusion is within days of surfacing.

I do not know  why smart guys like Yuval continue to  obsess over the Trump eccentricities, when they ought to  be outraged over the absolute malefactions of the Democrat/media complex. I am by no means a Trump guy; he was not my preferred candidate. Could another candidate have run this administration better? More tightly focused its messaging? Better managed the roll-out and execution of its legislative agenda? Undoubtedly; Trump is after all a novice at this sort of  thing, and has much to learn. But for the life of me I cannot see any other candidate confronting and enduring such a media assault, and most definitely cannot see any of the  others being able to push back as effectively as Trump has.

Unlike Yuval, I can separate out his personal ticks from the substance of what he is facing - and what Trump is facing is nothing less than a brutal all-out assault on the will of the American voter last November. Thank God we finally have someone who  will fight back against that sort of thing. 

Re: Monumental Mistake

It's nice for the Left that they have finally found an opponent who won't fight back. They have been shouting 'Shut up!' at anyone who disagrees with them and are noticeably frustrated at the lack of cooperation they usually receive.

But statues are perfect: the Left knocks them down and they quietly stay down, in complete compliance with the Left's wishes. They are the perfect political opponent, surpassing even the servile acquiescence of their other favorite opponent, the Straw Men. Straw Men however can occasionally tie the Left up by exposing their illogic and hypocrisy, but not statues. Statues are stoically quiet and accepting, whether attacked by pigeon droppings or their political equivalent, the vituperative rage of a Social Justice Warrior.

I would caution them however. When approaching a statue, don't turn your back, don't look away, and don't blink. If instead of a statue honoring some dead white male you have stumbled on a Weeping Angel, you could find yourself back in time facing a live confederate soldier who most definitely is willing and able to defend himself against your puny sledgehammers. Live white males were made of sterner stuff back then, and they will not be intimidated by some basement boy wearing sandals and a Che Guevara t-shirt.

So, don't blink; don't even blink.

Re: Monumental Mistake

Well done, Whit. And although you make cogent points, I'm a little more straightforward about this whole affair.

Whoever owns these statues, whether it's the state, local governments, local communities, the Feds or whoever, I want a democratic process of public discussion in which all sides are heard from. Then whatever a majority of the people decide, I want a proper law or ordinance passed by politicians who have voted and gone on the record. At that point, I for one will be satisfied, whatever action is taken, whether to leave them standing or tear them down.

But if we've got to do something about vestiges of slavery immediately, then I would be all in favor today of dismantling that greatest vestige of slavery in the world today - the Democrat Party. Regarding slavery, the Democrat Party is about as vestige-ridden as they come. It was the Democrat Party that was the political party of slavery, supporting it,  promoting it, and trying to expand it before the war. It was the political party that advocated for secession and war. It was the political party that refused to accept the results of the war. And it was the political party that invented and enforced Jim Crow segregation laws, and created its own paramilitary wing, the Ku Klux Klan, in order to intimidate both blacks and whites in the South to maintain a one party political hammerlock on the region for more than a hundred years.

As Mark Steyn has said, the Democrat Party is the one segregationist and white supremacist organization that has survived into the modern world. You go to South Africa, you go to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, and the formerly powerful white segregation parties have long since disappeared.

But the Democrat Party has survived and they've done so by telling lies about their sordid history and their political opponents and engaging in demagoguery to provoke fear among blacks.

This is a vestige of slavery that we could all do without.

Monumental Mistake

And now, for the next chapter in the Left's continuing story of the desecration of all things American. As the chapter unfolds, we find a seemingly indefensible piece of American history being targeted for elimination - the 1,000's of memorials and monuments, mostly in the South, but also dotting the rest of the Country too, of the Confederacy.

Except, as the estimable Arthur Herman (Pulitzer Prize finalist historian, bestselling author, to name a few of his achievements) reminds us, the statues are not of the Confederacy per se, but of the dead soldiers who fought on the Confederate side. This is an important distinction - we do not generally ascribe the wrongfulness of a war against the soldiers thereof, for the simple reason that soldiers in whatever cause are doing those things that characterize a soldier: acting on the virtues of duty, honor, courage, and self-sacrifice even to the point of death. This kind of behavior is laudable, whether exhibited by a fighter of the Confederacy or the Union, the Allies or the Germans, the Cowboys or the Indians. Courage in the face of death is rare and always eminent, especially when that courage is in the service of the protection/preservation of others - even if 'the others' are not deserving of protection (x-reference Russians who died protecting Stalin's Russia, a bloody regime without parallel in history to that point, from the German Army).

This was the original shameful stain among many in the Leftist movement of the 60's, which openly despised and dishonored the Vietnam soldiers because the Left hated the war they fought. And then flash forward to the Left's attempt to do the same to the soldiers in the 2000's - e.g. John Murtha, John Kerry, and Hollywood, slandering our people as rapists and terrorizers of women and children in Iraq - and it is obvious they have learned nothing, and indeed, do not want to learn. They simply want to tear down America, beginning with its most obviously impressive part, its soldiers.

Let's get straight about what monuments and memorials are. They are historical memory markers. A society bent on erasing all artifacts of its history is in a state of denial, and thereby (as the saying goes) doomed to repeat its mistakes. None of us appeared pristine into the world upon birth, but instead are a complex product of the history which preceded us. And that history contains mistakes made and lessons learned that, if we are to leave the world better after we are gone, will inform and guide us.

And that points us to the dynamic essence of a monument: a statue is sculpted and the materials used are thereby frozen in time. But beyond the materials, what is sculpted is also a hope, a hope that the reasons this statue was made will endure to remind and inspire those who come after, that it will be an enduring memory marker. But the original meaning of the statue changes and morphs with the changing times in a way that mirrors all other interactions between the present and the past. In the flux of time we seek eternal verities, and over time certain meanings from the past reveal themselves as cheap flint to be chipped off and discarded, others as rough stone that need rounding and smoothing, and some, very few, as fine cut diamonds that cannot be improved upon, only admired.

No one looks at a pyramid or the Sphinx and sees an eternal paean to the value of a slave working class, nor as an example of the greatness we could all achieve if we just brought back Pharaohs and their gods to rule us. Something like that may have been the original impetus to these massive projects, but these meanings are consigned to  the dustbin of history. Today, they represent the marvel of human society, what it can do if it has the will and strength to strive for something great.

And so too with Confederate statues. It is not disputed that many of these were built to revere the Lost Cause of the South, which in large measure (albeit not totally) was the maintenance of slavery as an institution. But this is a meaning that has not survived subsequent history; whatever hope the creators may have had in this respect has been dashed against the confirmed Southern belief that slavery was an evil and had to end. So, these statues,  some begun with infamous purpose, have morphed in their meaning as a diamond core was discovered after chipping away the flint.

A diamond core of multiple, enduring meanings.

First, reverence for our forebears. These statues were made to last. As such they were created by our forebears essentially as a conversation with the future, or better, an offer of a dialogue that we entertain out of respect for those who came before  us.

Continue ..... 

Re Trump's Faction

So, what's happenin', as they say in the vernacular?

Easy's patriotism argument is a gesture in the right direction. But it is more organic than that. Patriotism for all its nobility - or perhaps because of its nobility -  is an aspiration, an ideal to be achieved. But the founding of this blessed country was not only an example of patriotism of the highest order, as Whit tells us, but also a congruence of cultural forces ingrained in the America colonialists by their peculiar history and traditions.

The Glorious Revolution in England some 150 years earlier that established true representative government as a political ethos; the sturdy self-reliance demanded of a people who literally had to hack their existence out of the wilderness; and perhaps most important of all, the uniquely American Protestant Christian emphasis on the primacy of Christian conscience before God, that issued forth as a commitment to toleration of religious and political plurilism.

All of this congealed to form a people that were quite committed to democratic reform, the popular will, the rule of law, and civil order, but extremely obstreperous and jealous of their prerogatives ... when the political hierarchy appears to be over stepping its proper jurisdiction.

And thus the American Revolution. So what connection do we find with that singular event of 200 some years ago to Mr. Trump?

Issues change, politicians change, people change, rhetoric changes, even principles morph and transmute over time. But culture has an inertia all its own that resists change. And this exceptional culture of the United States has been building up mass for some 200 years and will not go away quietly in the face of political challenges.

The American culture operates mostly on the visceral level; but it makes its appearance in response to specific political programs that enable it to express itself in the body politic. It is this that has bollixed up conservative pundits about the Trump Faction. Inasmuch as Trump is no true blue conservative, then his supporters must not be conservative and ipso facto, the people are not as conservative as we all once thought.

But this puts the cart before the horse; or better, it puts the principles before the passion. Conservatives are nothing if not principled, so much so that they actually think their principles are sufficient in themselves to motivate people. But life does not proceed purely en raison. There must first be a given passion in the culture to which reason might appeal, or more properly, convince to give vent to itself. In Platonic terms, the Charioteer can crack his whip all he likes, but if there is no snorting horse of Valor or Desire at the ends of the reins, then he will go nowhere.

The key is that American cultural passion generally finds its best expression in conservative principles and policies. This is so simply because conservatism is nothing more than a return to the Founding principles of this country, and hence it resonates profoundly with the culture that Founding nurtured. But it is not self-activating; you can't just stand up and shout "Liberty!" and expect to move the American viscera. You need leaders capable of articulating conservative principles, effectively communicate the same, all within the context of the current political moment.

That is what Reagan did so effectively. And notice that he did so without relentlessly invoking the Constitution or the Founding or Enlightenment principles of freedom per se. He did not give a history lecture. He spoke instead of policies and a future that would unleash the energy of the people to solve problems of his day, in ways that excited the populace. He himself was clear about what kind of country he wanted to bring back, and was well versed in the Constitutional scheme that needed to be reinstated. But he knew that he needed to move people. And he did; boy, did he.

There is the Republican/conservative problem we have had since Reagan in a nutshell. We have had no leaders capable of instantiating conservative principles in a robust policy prescription for contemporary problems. No one capable of tapping into the unique American cultural passions. And so we've wandered politically, finally falling exhausted to the mat in the failing Presidential bids of John McCain and Mitt Romney

Then Trump came down his escalator with a straightforward political program: build the wall, make better trade deals, spur economic growth, and quit entering into stupid foreign entanglements. His overarching theme was putting America and the American worker first, and it's corollary, winning once again.

Manifestly, there is nothing unconservative about this agenda. But manifestly, Trump has not attempted to back up his agenda with a political manifesto of American principles and ideals. Instead, he has offered his program as sheer red meat, to an electorate starved for something more than the bare subsistence on offer from the Republican leadership class. And hungry Americans have flocked to him, ravenously.

This, then, is the Trump Faction, visceral conservatives as only the exceptional American culture can produce. In this context, what has been startling is how truly conservative Donald Trump has remained - even after winning his prize. Principles, after all, are the guardrails of behavior when you are navigating twisty mountain roads of events, and most men uninterested in principles (which is different, be it noted, from being unprincipled) will lose their way as the rush of political events sweep over them.  But our President seems to be clear and focused about the way forward, as evidenced by the way he has assembled one of the most conservative cabinets in the  history of cabinets, to give but one example (See also Judge Neil Gorsuch).

The  answer to this is that Donald Trump is culturally an American and as such is unmoved by the cheap rhetoric and anti-American tactics of the Left. He is no mental light weight as his adversaries think, but he is comfortable with his instincts and willing to give them their head, and those instincts are shaped and formed by the American culture he grew up in. And that culture, as I said above, is basically conservative, as conservative as was the Founding itself.

And that is why Trump has a Faction: like is attracted to like, and Trump is nothing if not authentically himself, and that self is American, through and through.

Facebook Strikes!

It is official: Facebook is unusable.

It's the algorithm. I don't know what rationale Facebook uses in its shadowy corporate rooms to determine which of my friend's posts will show up in my news feed, or which of the (very few) posts I write show up on theirs, but I woke up this morning to non-stop, wall to wall, postings from the few liberal family/friends I have, utterly dominating my feed with their particular obsessions. Or rather, the obsessions of Facebook's algorithm.

I get it, Facebook, Trump is a liar; Trump is a Nazi; Trump is a rascist, bigot, homophobe. And, of course, Trump hates women, and all women (except Pro Life women) must take to the streets and brandish cute and/or profane signs about how bad the Orange Man is.

But all I wanted was my usual update on what my family and friends are about, together with some cute puppy videos. But instead, ..... Sigh. Looks like its going to be another few years of all politics all the time, brought to us by the party of a Special Kind of Stupid, the Democrats.

To Save the Republic

We've seen bombs and fire-fights in Boston, mass slaughter of children in schools, and (another) month of murderous mayhem in Chicago. So it's nice to know our stalwart police force is upping their game to secure our safety. From Fox News, we learn that last week the police put an 8th grader in jail - IN JAIL - on criminal charges - CRIMINAL CHARGES - for wearing a politically incorrect, but nevertheless legal, T-shirt to school.

Now, we know that if he had worn a T-shirt with a picture of a racist sadistic psycho like Che Guevara, or of bomb-throwing environmentalists, or even of cop-killers (sans, of course, images of the guns and bombs these people routinely employ), he would have been okay with the school district. But instead he chose a rather routine political message from the largest gun safety training organization in the United States in the world.

Ah, the naivete of youth. 

Re: Equally Gay

"Framing problem" is right, Whit.  Because of the way this issue is approached, it produces all kinds of confusion - even (if not especially) on the Conservative side.

Here is Aaron Goldstein in The American Spectator: 

Now I happen to support same sex marriage.

What he really supports, if I may peer into his heart of hearts, is the same thing I support: Gays can do anything they want, including committing to a life-long relationship and calling it a marriage. This comes from that All-American strain in me of libertarianism, which is decidedly non-interventionist when it comes to what my neighbors want to do with their lives.  Live and let live, I say, to each his own, and etc. and so forth.

But because of the way the debate is framed, Goldstein and others translate the issue as if there are some sort of laws suppressing Gay choices, and feel compelled to associate themselves with the "freedom" side of the issue.  But Gay "freedom" in the political sense is not the freedom to marry, which they already have, but the additional right to sue people (insurance companies, employers, hospitals, and governments, to name a few) for refusing to give lip service (and preferences and dollars and tax breaks) to their personal self-concept.

Well, I want lip service, preferences, dollars, and tax breaks, too.  But my own personal self-concept has gained little approbation over the years, and I don't expect society to change much in the future.  So I say to Gays, welcome aboard! Get over it and get on with your life. And quit bothering the rest of us about it.

Equally Gay

Since our President has finally finished his deep meditations on the question of Gay marriage, it would seem apropos to reiterate some thoughts I have had on the subject. First, this line from President Obama's recent remarks:

I've just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

I also note all of the headlines and commentary on the passing of Amendment 1 to the North Carolina Constitution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which describe the Amendment as "banning" Gay marriage.

Tut, tut to all of this. Contra the President, same-sex couples right now, today, have the right to get married in every State in the Union. In 2010, I posted the following:

Gays in California (and every State of the Union) have every right to get married, whenever they want, with whoever they want. They can go out and start their own church - or get a friend, like Joey Tribiani of Friends, to go on the Internet and become a bona fide priest of the "Church of Agnostic Hope" or some such - get a group together and have a solemn ceremony. Bingo, marrried. And then they can cohabitate to their hearts content and tell everyone that they are married.

Continue.....

Andrew Breitbart RIP

Andrew Breitbart died last night, from natural (and unspecified) causes.

What a loss for the conservative movement.  It is no accident that his first and most influential website was 'Big Hollywood,' as he was one of the few who understood that conservatism was a cultural war as much as it was political, and battle needed to be drawn on all fronts, not just in Washington. 

Does he have able successors to carry on his groundbreaking work, to push his 'Big' websites (Big Hollywood, Big Peace, Big Journalism, Big Government) to the next level in the national debate?  And if so, can they do so with the same zest and infectious enthusiasm that Breitbart brought to the task?

I don't know.  But I do know that Breitbart did his part, and much more besides. 

Rest in peace, Andrew.

Six Degrees of Separation from You to Success

As everyone knows, after passing the most important legislation of the century, Obamacare, the Administration has been spending the last year granting 1,000's of waivers from the most onerous provisions to various and sundry businesses and unions.  Now some details are coming out as to exactly who is getting those waivers.  Would you be surprised to know that a bunch of waivers were expedited for upscale restaurants, night clubs, and anybody else in San Francisco who happens to be a friend of Nancy Pelosi?

This type of stuff gives crony-capitalism a bad name. 

It is said that there are at most only 6 people connecting each of us with anyone else on earth.  If this is so, then everybody better start firming up their links to Nancy Pelosi. 

You Can Run, But You Can't Hide

And run he did right up until Sunday afternoon, yesterday.  Osama bin Laden, that scurrilous cockroach, born into untold Oil riches, who then turned those riches into a trail of bloody death, met his own bloody end - and his Maker, who I am sure will have a thing or two to tell him before his ultimate consignment to Hell.

RIP?  I think not.

Of course, 'tis odd that he was found hiding in plain sight, in a million dollar, security intensified residence, within a mile of a Pakistani military academy.  Mayhap our Pakistani friends will turn over a new leaf now that this embarrassment has gone public?  That is, assuming they are capable of embarrassment.

And beyond odd, Osama's remains were buried at sea?  What, our government wants to give the Birth Certificate brigade something to do now that our President has produced his long-form?  Expect many tedious Death Certificate conspiracies in the coming years.

All that said, this is a great day, too long in coming, and congrats are in order for our Commander in Chief.

Breaking: Divine Right of Kings is Back.....

....if the Church of the UN has anything to do about it.  That reverent organization is preparing to consider a global Treaty brought forth by its most zealous proselyte, Bolivia, which wants to establish the rights of Mother Earth against ..... oh, I don't know, I guess all of us.  I can't think of any other animal or vegetable who might care what the minerals need or desire. The formula is simple: pick a god, any god, and posit that its interests supersede the interests of human type people.  Of course, the god's interests can only be divined by the holiest of human type people.  These are then appointed King or 12th Imam or Commissar or President for Life or something, and proceed to make sure the god's Commandments are carried out on earth, usually from the comfort of some plush Palace.  For now, the God Gaia's will is being channeled through such devout stalwarts of human happiness as the beloved Leaders of Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Nicaragua.  What could go wrong? Look for the next major revelation from the divinely inspired: God Gaia likes dinero, especially Yankee dinero.

Hot Time in Cancun

The Climate Conference has taken it's carbon emitting show on the road again, this time to Cancun. After several long, lazy days frolicking in the sun, you would think it might occur to them that a big, hot ball in the sky plays some role in warming trends on Planet Earth. However, you would be wrong:

The Cancun deal commits all countries to keeping temperature rise below 2C (3.6F) by reducing emissions. Rich countries have agreed to consider an extension of the Kyoto Protocol while poor countries will sign up to emission cuts for the first time. There are also a series of key decisions on setting up a green fund to help poor countries cope with climate change and halting deforestation.

"Reducing emissions." That's climate-speak for "reducing economic activity," which is in turn a policy wonks way of saying "reducing human attempts to survive and prosper."

These Climate worshippers are nothing more than Luddites with expense accounts.

 Continue.....