The Common Genius

2011-03-22T12:09:00.002-04:00

PRESS RELEASE --- march 15, 2011 --- Now Being Published -- from Lost Nation Books

WASTED GENIUS -- The Sequel to Common Genius

Learn why Darwin is so irrelevant when dealing with human beings. Discover why all children, of all races, everywhere on earth, are truly born equal, possess comparable potential, and must be accorded equal opportunity, nurturing, and respect.

Wasted Genius takes a new look at how we raise our children and shows the harm done by the inflated role given to test scores and school grades. Based on recent discoveries on how our minds develop, the author explains the relative importance of the four factors that shape each person: human nature, the environment, genes, and free will.

Greene has coined the term “TCQ” -- a new yardstick to measure all of a child’s abilities--capabilities that go beyond IQ, EQ, and people skills--aptitudes that our schools and colleges are neglecting. Current standards reward “test-taking” ability while neglecting the real objective of schools--to teach everyone the basic skills required to survive in the modern world.

For More Information, or to order the book, go to

http://www.thewastedgenius.com/

THE FALLACIOUS REASONING OF ABSTRACT THINKERS

2011-03-21T14:32:00.003-04:00

Margaret Tuchman's fine book The March of Folly reveals mankind’s propensity to follow disastrous policies to their most adverse ends. Her book, written in 1984, is about some of history's greatest blunders, and apparently has gone unnoticed by today's leaders for folly still permeates the world's capitols and the minds of those in power. The first decade of the new millennium, rather than showing a return to any measure of common sense, has indicated a continuation of folly among our leadership elites on the grandest scale.

In my new book, Wasted Genius, I attribute much of such folly to the rise of a new Ruling Class that is distinguished by their love of abstract concepts and theoretical reasoning which they arrogantly maintain is superior to the practical reasoning and simple common sense employed by the majority of Americans. Angelo Codevilla has written about how this new Ruling Class elite stands in stark contrast to the "Country Class" which includes most of the hard-working, less educated mass of common people. And, yet it is that country class of workers who make America run while the elites merely advise, criticize, commentate, and then initiate the disastrous policies that are bringing America to its knees and bankrupting the future financial well being of our children.

Our major problem comes from a previously unrecognized mental and moral deficiency in our intellectual elite, now exposed for the first time--for details go to http://www.thewastedgenius.com/

This new ruling class has been created by an educational establishment that maintains an almost religious Faith in the supreme importance of test scores and school grades. School policy and college selection has become a slave to the unfounded notion that IQ and SAT tests indicate an individual's worth. In fact, they merely reward abstract thinkers and hold back the practical minds needed to restore America's success story.

The tests are the darlings of academics and school teachers who like the ease of use and their seemingly scientific basis. Not to mention that a theory "proving" the stupidity of their students relieves the teaching establishment of responsibility for results. This long-standing infatuation with tests has been further cultivated by intellectual wanna-be’s who enjoy feelings of superiority, even if such pride is based simply on a good memory, a quickness with words, and well developed test-taking skills. And yet such academic virtuosity represents only a fraction of a person's total competency. We are neglecting the education of many superior students that possess more of several other essential cognitive abilities unmeasured by today's favored tests.

Because Americans have been hood-winked into respecting academic grades and abstract thought, and subordinate their visceral common sense to the apparent expertise of over-educated theorists, we have become dominated by a ruling elite that may appear very “bright” but is, in fact, subject to the worst kinds of folly. If there was a tipping point to this victory of abstractions over sense it may have been during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, the very revered and intellectual Princeton professor who (count these follies!) managed to launch us into “the war to end all wars,” invigorate the Progressive movement of big government, establish the IRS and Federal Reserve System, dream up the impotent League of Nations, and sign off on a Treaty that so crippled Germany that a subsequent World War became inevitable. No wonder the egg-heads loved him--he created a future for all the bright kids that didn't want to get jobs in the real workplaces of America.

Only an intellectual possesses the conceptualizing flexibility to believe in “a war to end all wars.” Similarly, it is primarily a mind crippled by abstractions that finds sense in such lofty phrases as “a war on poverty,” a war “to spread democracy,” a mantra about "hope and change," or foreign aid programs that give billions of dollars to dictators to “help” third world countries.

We currently are hearing an impossibly nuanced explanation about why our planes are bombing people in Libya--the administration claims to be "walking a fine line over the end game of the assault." It is avoiding for now any appearance that it aims to take out Gadhafi or help the rebels oust him, instead limiting its stated goals to protecting civilians, notwithstanding the fact that our bombers are killing many of those they seek to "protect."

We have just recently seen the folly in domestic affairs where our leaders in Washington took on a mission impossible--to boost the commendable goal of home ownership by subsidizing mortgages to individuals with little prospect of ever repaying the loans. Of course, this folly may have been perpetuated more by cupidity than by stupidity because the Ruling Class insiders stood to benefit financially by the conspiracy between bankers and politicians who rode the bubble in real estate to obscene profits and then dumped off the losses with securitized packages of worthless paper to unsuspecting investors, and ended by bailing out any favored insiders who got caught holding the worthless paper they had not yet succeeded in dumping on the public.

Only those with the cognitive agility to take great leaps of conceptual fancy will advance those kinds of incredible ideas as national policy and then forge ahead, convinced of the soundness of their reasoning, confident of the veracity of their theoretical justifications, enthusiastic with a confidence undiminished by any lack of positive results, oblivious or in denial concerning the adverse unintended consequences of their actions, but still managing to line their own pockets through it all.

Such persistence shows that this well-connected elite is empowered by an intellectual arrogance, a conviction that their critics are wrong and mean-spirited, and that the sheer power of their own intellect anoints them with the right to profit and rule over the common people, the Country Party to use Professor Codevilla's words, or what we have historically referred to as grass roots America.

Those are the kinds of minds that have usurped power in America. It is their new way of thinking that has reduced our leadership to community organizers, agitators, Wall Street speculators, and other self aggrandizing groups representing, not the ordinary people of this country, but the insiders concentrated on ripping off for themselves whatever they can get away with.

Unfortunately, many well meaning voters are in thrall to the supposed expertise of these frauds. And many voters are swayed by the promises offered, whether they be public employees, farmers, union members, grant recipients, subsidized businesses, or all the recipients of government hand-outs. Out of this muddled blend of self-interest and self-righteous compassion for others, half the country supports this elite's call for expanded government bureaucracies--even if the consequences bear constant witness to their folly.

Why Does Our "Naive" President Surround Himself with Wall Street Insiders!

2011-03-03T19:19:00.008-05:00

Paul Farrell has an excellent article on The Wall Street Website where he summarizes the Rolling Stones reporter, Matt Tabbi, who pulls no punches about who was to blame for the recent financial melt-down that wiped out the saving of many Americans. See "Four Time Bombs that will Blow up Wall Street," March 1, 2011

"During the S&L crisis two decades ago America had a backbone, indicted 3,800 executives and bankers. Today’s leaders have no backbone. Besides jail time won’t reform the darkness consuming Wall Street’s soul. We’re all asleep, in denial about the moral crisis facing America. Yes, we need a new revolution.

"Jail time? We’ve heard that many times before. Journalists have been beating that dead horse for three years. Jailing CEOs made sense in early 2009. But our naïve president missed that opportunity, instead surrounded himself with Wall Street insiders as Bush did with Blankfein’s predecessor. Trojan Horses manipulating a Congress filled with clueless Dems mismanaging tired Keynesian theories.

"Taibbi got it right: Washington’s error was in protecting Wall Street’s billion-dollar crooks when they should have been prosecuting CEOs for criminal behavior in getting us into the 2008 mess. So today, the political statute-of-limitations has run. Jail solution is wishful thinking, like praying to the tooth fairy for a miracle. Time for action. Time for a revolution on Wall Street."

The article can be seen in full at
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/four-time-bombs-that-will-blow-up-wall-street-2011-03-01?pagenumber=2

The fact that this important news comes from Rolling Syones and not the mainstream media indicates part of the problem: The American public is being perpetually misled by an elite group of leading politicains, financiers, and the media. But Tibbi reports the real stuff: "Put Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein in jail for six months, and all this will stop, all over Wall Street and America, a former congressional aide tells Matt Taibbi in his latest Rolling Stone attack, “Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail? Financial crooks brought down the world’s economy — but the feds are doing more to protect them than to prosecute them.

"Taibbi’s right, everyone knows Wall Street’s run by a bunch of dictators who are doing more damage to democracy and capitalism than North Africa’s dictators. But jail the CEOs of Goldman, Citi, B. of A. or my old firm Morgan Stanley? Too late."

It is incomprehensible why Obama keeps Goldman Sachs officials heading the United States Treasury Department and bails out the biggest wrong-doers on Wall Street. His administration paid out hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the perps. Of course they were all major contributors to his campaign coffers. Why else would a Democrat, a self-described man of trhe people, sleep with the enemy?

Is Obama Fit To Be an International Policeman?

2011-02-28T17:00:00.004-05:00

I have always enjoyed the old line about how even a stopped clock is right twice a day. After all, in view of the recent government induced mortgage melt-down and the ongoing trillion-dollar fiscal disaster that is our government's budget, one can seriously question whether our fearless leaders in the nation's Capitol are "right" even once a day!

Which brings up a point from today's international news: Libya's dictator Gadhafi, who has a reputation for deceit surpassing perhaps even that of our own politicians, was dead on right today about one thing. He questioned our own president Obama's right to meddle in the affairs of other nations.

For one thing, Gadhafi said Obama was certainly misinformed about the situation in Libya and should stick to his own problems at home. Knowing what we know about the unreliability of our CIA and State Department, it is a fair bet that Obama is misinformed and has no "exit plan" for what will come after Gadhafi. Bad mouthing Gadhafi and freezing his assets may just allow Islamic extremists more opportunity to take over. And why is Obama now complaining about Gadhafi's human rights violations that have been going on throughout Obama's various terms in office? Is Obama just indulging in a case of piggy pile on? And for what purpose?

For another thing, and, with a real sense of sound geo-politik, as well as international law, Gadhafi reminded the ABC reporters today that "America is not the international police of the world." There we can see the stopped clock at high noon, right-on with a truth that has escaped most American foreign policy experts--we are not so Holy or brilliant that we can tell everyone else what to do. And even if we were, would it pay to antagonize everyone with our self righteous bossiness?

Obama projects the same arrogance as the far left intellectuals who always see fit to tell even us Americans what we can and cannot do. Give Gadhafi credit--he called Obama out about his sophmoric meddling in foreign affairs. If there is a reason we are not loved around the world, the blame maybe should be born by the intellectual theorists that run our foreign policy as if they were Gods on high. Results in Libya may show they have clay feet.

Obama's Money Tree and Washington's Ponzi Schemes

2011-02-21T19:36:00.002-05:00

February 21, 2011

The latest news out of Washington indicates that our fearless leaders have not let the recent financial meltdown lessen their affection for Ponzi-type schemes. It may be recalled that the 2009 stimulus act saw the federal government lending the most bankrupt state governments billions of dollars to postpone their imminent financial crises. The loans were interest free for two years and "easily" financed by the feds because they can just print money as needed!

However, on this past December 31 the two years were up, 30 states owed $42 billion, with interest now accruing, and their resident businesses faced with increased mandated federal payroll taxes to help repay the loans. It appeared that the Ponzi scheme might unravel. The states are too broke to make any substantial repayment, and the Administration is leery of hiking taxes on the beleaguered business community. So, a tough and courageous decision was called for. Guess what we got?

The apparent "solution" will apparently come in President Obama's 2012 budget where he will propose waiving the tax increase and postponing the interest charges for two more years. Presumably he could also lend them more money and defer repayment till some future undesignated date. Thus the money tree at the Federal Reserve takes on the State deficits as well as the federal deficits. The problem is thus postponed, true to its Ponzian roots, and the escalating debt will only come home to roost at some future time.

We can only hope that some intrepid, brilliant, and unscrupulous Goldman Sachs employee will accumulate these "sub-prime" notes, securitize them, and sell them to the Chinese. Otherwise they will not go away quietly.

Is The Commerce Department Becoming the EPA?

2011-02-16T18:44:00.004-05:00

Recent events have revealed the huge disparity between what our leaders say in speeches and what they actually do behind closed doors. While president Obama has been giving speeches about helping business, removing restrictions, and encouraging entrepreneurs, his appointments within the federal bureaucracy are doing the opposite.

The New Bedford Standard Times featured an editorial today that illustrated how even such a Democratic stronghold is getting the shaft from the Obama administration. Columnist Jack Spillane directed a spotlight on the Department of Commerce and its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, documenting how “the Commerce Department‘s NOAA has become a wholesale arm of the environmental lobby under Obama.” He writes, “Unbelievably, the president appointed Jane Lubchenco, the former vice-chair of the Environmental Defense Fund, to head all of NOAA.” Spillane observes that the Commerce Department’s mission is to help business, but that it is not staffed by people from the aerospace, ocean, or marine business or scientific communities, but instead by extreme environmentalists.

Spillane reports that Obama has “packed the Commerce Department to the gills with former lobbyists for the environmental community.“ And, he gives the evidence--it isn‘t just the top job: Lubchenco’s director of policy and senior advisor is Sally Yozell, the former director of Marine Conservation for the Nature Conservancy’s eastern region. And her second in command, Monica Medina, is a former advisor for the Pew Environmental Group, a former lawyer for the EDF, and former head of the Justice Department‘s Environmental Division.

And, it gets worse: Monica Medina is married to Joe Biden’s Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, who was before that chief of Staff to environmental-whacko Al Gore. Columnist Spillane calls it a revolving door that has allowed the environmental lobby to become entrenched in every nook of our government, and blames “Obama himself who stacked NOAA with the powerful environmentalists who, by their own words, want to put small business fisherman out of business.” He also points out that Senator John Kerry “has certainly not tried very hard to stop it,“ because his primary allegiance is to his rich wife Teresa who uses her tax exempt Foundation‘s millions to bankroll most of the big national environmental groups.

It is a fair bet that all those appointees are not just activist members of the environmental movement, but have a few other things in common. They all probably were top students with high IQ’s and good college records. And their combined actual business experience is probably next to nothing. They are the well-educated, abstract-thinking, new Ruling Class that has taken over the levers of power in Washington. They love complex theories that don’t work and deficits that bankrupt us. They promote themselves to the best colleges and jobs by shilling their big brains. I call it “A conspiracy of the Egg-Heads” and it is destroying America.

Obama Blames Big Business and Lobbyists---what else is new?

2011-01-26T10:21:00.005-05:00

In his State of The Union Speech, President Obama surprisingly called for a reduction of corporate tax rates. Such a reduction would be a much needed reform, and including it in the big speech is a clear indication that the president has turned to the center in anticipation of a difficult re-election race in 2012. However, whatever his purposes may be, the change in tax policy would help America, and we can only say, It is about time.

Conservatives have been pointing to the high corporate rate for decades as harmful to America's economy. But, all we have heard from the Left is their attack on "big business" for having cruelly exported jobs to third world countries and thereby creating massive unemployment in the American industrial heartland--Thus, the Left criticizes big business for moving operations overseas, without seeing that it is America's high tax laws that drive the companies out. As usual, the problem is the government, and the flight of industry is largely caused by bad tax policy, and yet they blame the companies for reacting in a totally logical and sensible way to those policies.

The same "blame big business" approach was re-affirmed yesterday by the President in his related remarks about having to close loopholes in order to pay for the corporate tax cuts. He explained the need to close those loopholes by stating: "Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries."

Now, we all know that lobbyists do not pass laws or change IRS regulations--such actions can only be taken by Congress. All the loopholes, which are just one of the many horrors of our Tax Code, are the work solely of Congress. Lobbyists may seek benefits, and we know they have to maintain continual lobbying efforts just to minimize destructive new taxes and regulations that would impair their ability to do business, but they can only ask--the politicians do the rest. Both the flight of industry overseas and the loopholes are caused by the actions of our elected government officials. It thus becomes clear, but not surprising, that the president is blaming others for his own harmful policy.

Workingclass Conservative: The Common-Sense GENIUS of the American Constitution....

2010-06-20T22:25:00.000-04:00

Workingclass Conservative: The Common-Sense GENIUS of the American Constitution....

Chomsky Turns To The Right !!!

2010-04-16T11:29:00.002-04:00

Chomsky Joins Fox News and Sarah Palin to Fight Obama and the Evil Bankers

Last week, Noam Chomsky may have taken the first step in a long-overdue search for personal redemption. Speaking to what can only be imagined as a very liberal audience in Madison, Wisconsin, he signaled a clear philosophical move to the political right. The audience must have been stunned since they were mostly from the very Leftist University community.

I have always used Chomsky as a poster boy for the radical intellectual elite. When I assert that the Leftist intelligentsias take their cues from such radicals, I can always point to Chomsky’s latest antics as evidence that they are hell-bent on destroying American traditions, values, and civil culture. But that easy target may be history. Perhaps Chomsky is aping Podhoretz? I recall that when Norman Podhoretz was asked in an interview on C-SPAN why it took him over thirty years to lose faith in Soviet Communism, he replied that, being an intellectual, it took him 30 years to see what an average person would realize immediately. Based on Chomsky’s lifetime of rant it is understandable that his conversion would take even longer.

Now, I don’t believe Chomsky is ready to lead the neo-conservatives, but he did take a swipe at Obama and his close ties with the evil bankers and speculators who just recently toppled our economy. In his speech, Chomsky endorsed a recent poll showing that half the unaffiliated voters identify with the tea party movement. “Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” Chomsky said, because their attitudes “are understandable.”

He even gave Fox News and Sarah Palin a pat on the back: After pointing out how voters’ indignation and rage was fueled by “the colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism,” he justified the Tea Party’s demand for answers. And, he added: “They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin.” Could even Rush be in there for an indirect compliment?

Chomsky took Obama to task for toadying to the Wall Street speculators and hedge fund traders. He accused Obama, after his initial tough talk about evil bankers might have scared off political contributions, of having reversed course: Obama changed his tune and said that bankers are “fine guys. . . I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.“ Obama’s sudden love of the “free-market” must have been enough to frost Chomsky’s butt and cool his support of the Obama administration!
These were extraordinary comments coming from Chomsky. He actually linked Obama, a radical leftist, to “state capitalism” and the evil bankers and suggests they caused the financial crisis that has wiped out the savings of millions of Americans and is now bankrupting the country. All Chomsky had to do was add in the fact that it was the Feds as a group that colluded with a few bankers and speculators and created the bubble and the crash.

After all, it was Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, and the House Banking Committee that all worked in tandem to have the government guarantee sub prime loans. That gave speculators and mortgage brokers a free pass to make obscene profits. Obama then came in and threw away a few trillion that will make things worse.

The main point of Chomsky’s talk was that this justified voter anger would lead to a fascist take-over of America. He likened our current situation to Germany’s when Hitler rose to power riding the crest of voter dissatisfaction. I disagree with that and believe that in America, current voter anger can be expressed at the ballot box and not by a fascist take-over as he predicts.

Unfortunately, the advocates of massive government spending are so vehement, and their dependent constituency has gotten so large, it will be difficult to remove them from power. If that turns out to be the case, Chomsky’s allusion to a fascist rise to power could become reality. Of course, there are fascists and there are fascists. A benevolent and enlightened fascist might restore sanity and order to the country. It happened under the recurring Medici Princes in the Rennaissance, and though not attractive, could save the country from something worse–the total collapse we are headed for if deficits are not eliminated.

To avoid such a dire alternative, it would be wise for America’s voters to rise up and demand a balanced budget. Major across-the- board cuts in spending would obviously cause some hardships and dislocations in the economy, but the pain would be less than what will happen if we continue escalating our national debt. Americans must accept the fact that there is no easy or painless solution. I would recommend that we all opt for some near term pain to avoid later total misery.

For Original article : Refer to http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/chomsky-warns-of-risk-of-fascism-in-america/

****

2010-02-16T19:37:00.003-05:00

Could Compromise and Non-partisanship Make a Better Congress?

Retiring Sen. Evan Bayh recently warned that Congress needs harmony and must drop its rampant partisanship. In a nationally broadcast interview, the Indiana Democrat said, "The extremes of both parties have to be willing to accept compromises" in order to accomplish things for the national good. He added that voters are in a mood to turn out many incumbents "until we change this town, until we reform Congress." Doesn't that sound grand? But haven't we heard such nonsense before, many, many times?

The American political scene has never been harmonious nor has political ambition ever taken a back-seat to civility. Such mere "words" have proven meaningless in the actual conduct of affairs of state. What is needed instead of harmony and fancy words is a rational and non-ideological approach to solving the problems facing the nation. And the biggest problem now and for the forseeable future is the economy. The recent record of government oversight and management of the economy has proven disastrous so a change is both obvious and essential. And the change needed is so drastic that "compromise" cannot be the answer.

Congress and the Presidents have been compromising over spending, taxes and the budget forever, and recently those three vital areas of government have spun out of control. The annual spending deficits and the national debt have escalated so grotesquely that the restoration of fiscal sanity should be the first order of business. Sadly, the goal of even the most prudent observers is to merely "reduce' the deficit within some 5-10 year future period, and THEN to reduce the debt. That is hogwash. It is merely defering the problem off conveniently into the future. That has been the modus operandi for too long. It does not work.

Partisans can argue over the merits of every conceivable government program and policy until the cows come home but the programs themselves are not our major concern. The major concern is that the programs, whatever they may be, must be paid for out of current receipts. A balanced budget provides a self-limiting control over the nation's finances. It doesn't matter whether we believe that all government spending is essential or totally wasted--just as long as it is covered by revenue and nothing is added to our national debt. It would be nice to think that our elected officials could streamline government, simplify and eliminate overlapping inefficient programs, and eliminate corruption, expensive junkets, pork, and bribery. But it is more important right now to just live within our income. We could actually survive with waste and pork if it was paid for without issuing phony paper money! Fighting over the way it is spent is just a diversion and hides the real problem of how do we pay for it.

A balanced budget that included actuarial computation of deferred mandate expenses would force a large reduction in spending and a big tax increase. The difference between what Congress is committing for and actual income is too huge not to require both. Such a policy would provide an important wake up call about how serious the problem is. And voters would be made vividly aware of both the curtailment of expenditures and the added burden of taxes. They would then be in a position to evaluate the issues at stake. But we would have stemmed the bleeding. Think of a gaping wound and the need above all else is for a tourniquet.

At present, the arcane chicanery of the Federal Reserve and its compulsive printing of money and issuing debt hides the perilous situation we face. What we have been doing is allowing foreign nations to own more and more of our national debt which will eventually give them an inordinate control over us. And hardly noticed, the escalating interest on that debt further burdens the annual budget, and grows larger every year.

Sen. Evan Bayh says partisanship and gridlock made it time for him to quit. It would have been better for him to enter legislation to keep all spending within the amount of revenue taken in. Then Congress would be free to fight over whether those expenditures would go to farmers, single moms, the aged, the injured, the homeless, the military, or the schools. Where it went would be secondary compared to the fact that we would be living within our means and the costs would be visible to everyone. To gain this essential situation every voter should look chiefly for a politician's pledge to balance the budget "now, not in the future sometime." The candidate's stated position on gay rights, foreign aid, welfare, and the war on terror, will not be terribly important if America goes bankrupt and is owned by foreign nations that have learned to save rather than just spend.

Swastika Carvings--Much Ado About Nothing?

2009-10-14T12:57:00.004-04:00

My local newspaper has the Obama swastika story as a major front page news item, and the same story has dominated the news on most papers and TV shows for several days now. The lurid headlines refer to "An Act of Hatred," and everyone is falling all over themselves to express outrage at what they identify as "racism." Even the Secret Service and FBI are inspecting the carvings!

Are the politically correct commentators over-reacting to what could well be a schoolboy prank? No one knows why someone carved the word Obama and the ancient symbol into the grass on the 18th hole of the Lakeville golf course, but everyone is horrified. In this new age where words and symbols have taken on more significance than acts or deeds, one might well ask, 1)- is the angst over this presumed desecration justified, and, 2)- whether there is not more important news for the front pages of the papers? Is this very hyped and over-exposed incident another sympton of how the American media is so rapidly and steadily losing influence, readers and advertisers?

There is, after all, little useful discussion over the detail, history or meaning of the swastika. It may be useful to recognize that for thousands of years, the swastika has meant happy life and good luck. Today's schools and media appear ignorant about history and this is a good example, for they seem to only look at the Nazis who briefly (for about 15 years) used it to connote their idea of conquest and hate. But for buddhists and Hindus, as well as American Indians, the swastika has been a benign and religious symbol. There is in fact two completely opposite meanings for the symbol.

Furthermore, no one seems concerned about the direction of the swastika and whether the one carved in the grass was a clockwise swastika or the counter-clockwise sauvastika. Some people have tried to differentiate the two meanings of the swastika by varying its direction - trying to make the clockwise, Nazi version of the swastika mean hate and death while the counter-clockwise version would hold the ancient meaning of the symbol, life and good-luck. It is the counterclockwise presentation that was carved on the grass in Lakeville, so it is conceivable that the carver was attempting to associate good things with President Obama and should not be condemned but praised by the thought police trying to make news out of this event.

It is also conceivable that we as a people should pay more attention to actual deeds and results than the more insignificant world of utterances, promises, and statements of good intentions.

2009-08-07T15:32:00.002-04:00

The Follies of Woodrow Wilson--

An Intellectual in Search of An Abstraction

This site celebrates the wisdom of common people, and as we know, the positive forces that make a society prosperous always come from the bottom--its people, for they are the “Ultimate Natural Resource” of any nation. Conversely, we know that the most harmful decisions come from the top--from those people in governing elites who try and direct national energy in some “ideal” direction. That isn’t to say that common people don’t make mistakes--it’s just that any one individual’s mistake does not significantly impact society as a whole, whereas decisions at the top, mandated by governmental law and regulation, have wide and often unintended repercussions.

Barabara Tuchman’s excellent book “The March of Folly” provides an interesting recap of some of the worst cases of governmental folly during the past 3,000 years of societal history. Her survey identifies those times when decisions were made by leaders that did not advance the interests of their nation. She concentrates on cases where there was compelling evidence that the decision would be detrimental but the leaders still proceeded on a predictably doomed course of action.

Her examples provide proof, if any is needed, that sagacity, character, and an ability to admit error and change course are much better assets in a leader than high intellect. That is why common people make better leaders than intellectuals. For example, she cites the “best and brightest” men serving with President Kennedy in the early 1960’s : Although they were mostly demonstrably brilliant “Harvard” men, they displayed extraordinarily little evidence of sound decision-making during the three years they kept escalating the conflict in Vietnam.

Regarding the onset of WWI, Tuchman points to the folly of German leaders when they deliberately provoked America into entering the conflict. By 1916, both sides were nearly exhausted, and had sacrificed millions of lives at Verdun and the Somme. The allies saw no hope of winning unless America added its muscle with troops on the continent. German leaders, also faced with a probable stalemate, would not accept an end to hostilities unless they got the best of the settlement. Without American intervention, an eventual deadlock was fairly predictable.

Some German leaders saw their only hope lay in aggressive naval operations-- first to remove the blockade keeping food from reaching Germany, and secondly to help shut down supplies reaching England. But that meant using their submarines to sink American supply ships with the downside risk of bringing America into the war. In spite of many high level German ministers’ warnings, the decision was made to send out the U-Boats, and, as a result, America sent millions of troops to fight in Europe and Germany suffered an agonizing total defeat.

Tuchman indicates that the folly of the Germans was in not accepting the alternative-- “A better outcome could have been won” by accepting President Wilson’s offer to negotiate a peace, “knowing it would be a dead end, thus preventing or certainly postponing the addition of American strength to the enemy. Without America, the Allies could not have held out for victory and, as victory was probably beyond Germany’s power too, both sides would have slogged to an exhausted but more or less equal peace.”

Thus, the German leaders unwisely chose the gamble, and lost--but although Tuchman, does not mention it, didn’t President Wilson display equal folly by taking up the challenge and sending millions of American men to die in France? If the alternative was to let both sides fight it out to an exhausted equal peace, should not any wise American leader have avoided entry? Many “isolationists” effectively argued that case. That we had little to gain and much to lose.
We could have continued a naval “war” and used the convoy system to continue helping Britain. The loss of shipping, no matter how severe, would have been a lot less than what we suffered by sending ground forces. Instead, we had to pursue Wilson’s abstract goal to “win the war to end all wars.”

Of course, Wilson's “vision” of world governance failed to end wars, and, it sent millions of young Americans to their death--just to swing the tide among nations that had been battling each other for a thousand years. So, could WWI also be called Wilson’s folly? And wasn’t it a bigger folly than the Germans? One can understand the authoritarian Prussian generals’ Machiavellian motivation, but Wilson led a democracy that had always honored the Monroe Doctrine of not interfering outside the Western Hemisphere. And we had little to gain!

Equally intriguing, is Tuchman’s suggestion that if the Europeans had been allowed to fight it out, the long-term consequences would have changed history for the better--”no victory, no reparations, no war guilt, no Hitler, possibly no second World War.”
After all, it was the total defeat of Germany that bred the seeds of WWII. The French diplomats at Versailles, having been rescued by America, demanded the most severe reparations and punitive actions against Germany, and these harsh measures sowed the seeds of vengeance that helped Hitler‘s rise to power. Thus Wilson’s entry into the war served no purpose except to create a fire within Europe sure to boil over in a greater conflagration than ever.

It is an interesting sidelight that the French diplomats took advantage of President Wilson’s obsession with the League of Nations to gain their ultimate revenge on Germany. Before the French would support Wilson’s League, he had to allow France to impose the severest penalties on Germany. Wilson knew that burying Germany under impossible reparations would breed future conflict, but he allowed the French to do that in order to gain their approval of his utopian dream-- the League of Nations.

As a former Ivy League professor, Woodrow Wilson was a predictable intellectual in the pursuit of an abstraction--the League of Nations was “designed” to ensure world peace and didn‘t. Indeed he “bought” its approval from French diplomats only by sowing the seeds for the next war! Wilson’s Follies compounded into three: 1.) leading America into its first foreign war, 2.) giving up on sensible peace terms to gain the League, and, 3.) allowing the French to dictate terms that were unbearable to Germans and led to WWII.

Then, to pay for it all, he gave us the IRS and the income tax.

Abortion-- Is it about "rights" or genetic controls ?

2009-07-12T16:20:00.003-04:00

It appears that in the mind of at least one leading female liberal, abortion is not about women’s rights, but about eliminating the types of people that “we do not want to have too many of.” On July 12, 2009 a Newsmax posting describes an interview between NY Times writer Emily Bazelon, and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. On the matter of abortion, Ginsburg said she had always assumed the Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion was intended to aid population control among lower-income Americans. Thus, from her point of view, the liberal mindset was focused more on eugenics and genetic engineering by government fiat than on any concern about freedom or the “right” to choose.

Ginsburg pointed out that many states had already legalized abortion prior to Roe v Wade so it was no longer a problem for women, at least those of some financial means, to obtain a legal abortion if they chose to have one. So, she admits, the pro-choice mantra was used for a more insidious purpose: to increase abortions “among those who we don’t want too many of.” And the activists goal was to 1.) have the taxpayers pay for everyone’s abortions, and, 2.) extend the practice to all states whether the state’s voters wanted such “freedom” of choice or not.

In the same interview, Ginsburg expressed her disappointment with the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Harris v. McRae, the 1980 case that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions for poor women. "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of, so that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." Clearly the goal was not just to allow abortions, but to bless them in every state and pay for them out of the government checkbooks--all to halt reproduction rates among the most undesirable populations.

Ginsburg admitted to the NY Times reporter her own state of confusion over the issue after the Harris v McRae case was decided. That case came out the wrong way for Ginsburg. The Supreme Court appear to be saying there could be choice, but no funding: “Then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong." Of course her perception wasn’t wrong--the activists wanted Government encouragement and payment for all abortions, but the Court just stopped short of giving them everything at once. After all, the majority of Americans were and remain against the wide-spread practice of abortion.

Ginsburg’s admission that she had been “altogether wrong” in her thinking is worth noting. Of course the mental processes of members of the liberal fringe have often appeared confused or contradictory. But, it may be she had reached a point where the logic of retirement was overwhelming, because there is really no confusion over the goals of the pro-life activists she supported.

Those fanatical activists will not settle for the simple right of a woman to have an abortion. Instead, the pro-life activists have continued to demand 1.) late-term abortions, teen age girls’ rights without parental notification, partial birth abortions, government funded abortions, teen counseling about their right to abort, and suppression of alternative solutions such as adoption, abstinence, and the personal responsibility of caring for the life created. If their concern was primarily over the right to choose, they would not demand such a broad advocacy of every abortion scenario. Their agenda is so sweeping that it can only indicate the desire to kill as many people as possible--especially those from the poor and other types that they “do not want to have too many of.” It is this type of racial Nazism, or fascism, that links the Far Left to all authoritarian systems of government.

Whether a system is labeled communism, socialism or fascism doesn’t matter to this new elite--as long as they can rule and dictate policy from the top without any input from the common people. Indeed, Ginsburg admits their goal is to create less “common” people.

ARE MUSLIM CLERICS THE PUPPETEERS OF TERRORISM ?

2009-06-14T21:32:00.003-04:00

Robert Burns (AP) had an interesting article shown on AOL News June, 14, 2009 which points out a little known "dirty little secret" about the real leaders of Islamic politics in the Middle East. Western media have paid little attention to the degree to which Islamic terrorism and anti-Israel policies are not simply cultural and political issues, but are the declared policy of many Muslim Clerics. Quite incorrectly, our media have regularly endorsed the Cleric's claim that they deplore violence and have nothing to do with the fanaticism of the terrorist organizations. And yet we know many of the Islamic schools throughout the Middle East, and especially in Saudi Arabia, teach their children to hate the West as "The Great Satan."

And, in dealing with Iranian news, American media have concentrated coverage on the supposed leader of Iran, but Burn's paints a very different picture: "Ahmadinejad is Iran's political face to the world, but the clerics and their military wing, known as the Revolutionary Guard, are the real masters of the country's destiny. They dictate every important policy and decide who is allowed to run for elected office."

Burns goes on to quote Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has been a close observer of the Iranian scene for decades. "Obama's advisers know the limits of change in Tehran as long as the country is ruled by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his supporting cast of theocrats. They realize that it is the supreme leader and those around him who shape any movement in terms of U.S.-Iranian relations," Cordesman said. "This was going to be true regardless of who was elected as Iranian president. I don't think anyone expected that in an election where four candidates were allowed to run — who all had to conform to the control of the supreme leader — the outcome was going to produce dramatic changes in Iran's nuclear posture or its relations with other states in the region."

The American war on Terrorism has been hampered by the apologists for Islam who insist that religion has nothing to do with terror. They regularly excuse the Moslem leaders for any part in the terror, even though many such clerics, even those in mosques within the United States, play a part in the recruitment, training and financing of terrorists. We must understand that we are dealing with theocracies, where religious leaders actually control policy, and political fanatacism is an expression of religious zeal. Otherwise we give a blank check to those groups that simply stay in the background and direct others to execute their policy.

Western nations found a way almost a thousand years ago to separate political and secular affairs from religious and spiritual matters. The strength of Western Civilization was enhanced ever since by applying Logic and practical Reason to matters of State, while preserving the personal benefits of Faith for their citizenry. And, the very diversity of Western religions, all available by free choice to religious people in the West, added further strength and spiritual sustenance to our culture. But only the uninformed will believe that the Muslim Faith is in any way comparable to Christianity-- Muslim policy, being an integral expression of their religion, will not be restrained by Reason and Logic, but will seek to prosletyze, convert, and conquer all unbelievers to further their Faith.

The failures of Clerical control in the Middle East has been demonstrated by the almost 1,000 year slide in their nations' economic and political standing. Their people have remained uneducated, unskilled, and taught only to obey their religious leaders. Ever since Al-Ghazali won the favor of clerics over his fellow Islamic scholar Averrhoes, in the twelfth century, Islamic nations have been in a tailspin. The clerical establishment liked Ghazali because he argued that all causal events simply represent the doings of God, and rejected Greek thought, opposed the Mutazilites' call for reform within Islam, and led the return to Fundamentalism in Islamic Society.

Averrhoes, a leading Islamic scholar in Moorish Spain, advocated the scientific method and separation of Reason and Faith, but he found no following in eastern Islamic cultures. Instead, his teachings were valued by Western Europeans who called for a separation of church and state and initiated modern scientific inquiry --the Domincan and Franciscan monks that manned most of the first European universities around 1200 AD. The result was progress for the Christian West, failure for the Islamic Middle East--and this pattern has persisted for 800 years! As scientific experiments go, 800 years of consistent results represents compelling evidence.

It is this ancient process of control over the masses by the clerical elites in the Middle East that lies at the heart of today's problems. Kudos to Robert Burns of the AP for making one small reference in the major media to this fundamental issue. It is ironic that many of the Far Left in America, who generally champion, or at least excuse the Islamic religion's role in terror, would be horried if our Religious Right could dictate American policy.

The Radzewicz Riddle--The Rise and Fall of Nations

2008-12-15T20:32:00.003-05:00

The 17th century English pamphleteer Cato ranked among the great enemies of Kings and champions of the common people. Like Algernon Sidney, John Trenchard, Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, and John Dickinson, he advocated an end to the Divine Right of Kings, and a beginning for the Rights of Men. They were the talk radio of their respective eras and helped fashion the 17th century Glorious Revolution in England and the even more glorious Revolution in America in the following century.

It is impressive to consider the lengthy time periods that were required to throw off the shackles of aristocratic authority from the shoulders of the common people. The Magna Carta had been signed by King John in 1215, six to seven hundred years before these more final revolutions occurred in England and the American colonies. The ordinary citizens had been striving for that long to make headway. And even the Glorious Revolution of the 1680's didn't grant enough rights to dissuade millions of Englishmen from leaving their homes and going to the New World.

It is even more humbling to recognize that that slow centuries long process of gaining freedom for a majority of English speaking citizens was the best there ever had been--anywhere on earth. England's democritization was painfully slow, but at least it happened--and led to America's full blown freedoms. Aside from a few other European nations, there was no movement to free individuals anywhere else on the Globe!

Now there had been antecedents in a few isolated outposts where there was no aristocracy or autocrats to tyrannize the people. Phoenicia, Greece, Rome, Venice, Holland, Iceland, and the Hanseatic cities had flourished while they remained free and open societies, but that's only about a fraction of 1% of the world's population! However, if you look at each of those rare free societies, even though they all Rose for a while to great affluence, sooner or later they all matured, withered, and Declined to obscurity.

The Riddle of History is Why, when these nations were small and isolated, with limited resources, poor school systems, struggling to grow food and manufacture tools and equipment, they somehow did all that, gained prosperity, and yet later, with better schools, a growing elite intellectual class, and expanded governmental systems in place, they commenced a Decline? Did adversity make the people work harder at first? What happened to end the upward progress of these successful enclaves?

And why was the existence of free societies restricted to this tiny handful of the world's people? What was unique to those few "laboratories of history" that showed the way to personal liberty and affluence. The Radzewicz Rule suggests that it was economic freedom and an empowering Faith that allowed the common genius of a citizenry to flourish. But those conditions were extremely rare throughout history for all people. If you had been born somewhere at random on earth during the period from 3,000 BC to 1,775 AD, your odds or chance of gaining personal freedom would be akin to winning the Massachusetts mega jackpot! That is why the pamphleteers for liberty were so praiseworthy--where they were allowed to speak and write they demanded freedom.

Those scribblers, sneered at by the great Philosophers, wrote simply. They laid out the case for liberty in brief essays that were widely read by common people.. There was no need for academics to explain what they wrote. They knew of the actual cases in history where people had gained freedom and they called for more of the same.

Cato wrote, "The People, when they are not misled or corrupted, generally make a sound Judgment of Things. They have natural Qualifications equal to those of their Superiors; and there is oftener found a great Genius carrying a Pitchfork, than carrying a White Staff."

In those two sentences, Cato attests to the fact that common people are often wiser than their intellectual and over-educated betters. However, Cato went on to make a key point about the Rise and Fall of Nations; he echoed the Radzewicz Rule axiom that successful societies were created by common folk only when they were free and unburdened by intellectuals.

Cato wrote: "Besides, there are not such mighty Talents requisite for Government, as some, who pretend to them without possessing them, would make us believe; Honest affections, and common Qualifications are sufficient; and the Administration has always been best executed, and the Publick Liberty best preserved, near the Origin and Rise of States, when plain Honesty and common Sense alone governed the public Affairs and the Morals of Men."

There, in Cato's fine words, is the answer to the Riddle-- Young, vibrant societies are not burdened by non-productive elites that advise and consult but do no real work. They are unregulated, unrestricted, and the citizenry are forced to innovate and free to produce. Only after those ordinary people have created abundance can their society have the where-withall to support parasitic classes--mostly academics, utopianists, government employees, foundation employees and special interest groups.

All those new elites that emerge in successful nations are parasites--they were not present in the building--but now they have to carve out a comfortable niche for themselves. Since they are by definition non-productive, their only role can be found in directing the efforts of the remaining productive citizenry. Since they bring an inexperienced vision to the task, tainted with utopian abstractions, the resulting direction will always be counter-productive. This process continues and escalates over time. One mistaken policy requires another worse policy to correct the results of the last failure --and Decline sets in.

The amswer to the Riddle is counter-intuitive. But only if you have an undue respect for the intellectual elites that presume to control the nation from lofty non-productive perches on high. Remember that it was the Honest Affections of the common people at the beginning that made for Efficiency and the maintenance of Publick Liberty. And, sadly, it is the complex ideologies of the new elites that undermine the sturdy foundation built by those honest and simple people.

Do colleges help or hurt America ? ---- The Radzewicz Curve

2008-12-15T19:14:00.007-05:00

There is a growing recognition that America's colleges are more and more influenced by the politically correct agendas of the new liberal Left--The vast majority of professors promote a world view that:

1- Supports large governmental bureaucracies that seek to solve everyone's needs.
2- Sees most citizens as victims instead of independent self-reliant individuals.
3- Looks more to foreign nations and laws than to our own traditional principles.
4- Favors socialistic policies and condemns the capitalist system and free markets.
5- Attacks corporations that actually deliver the goods better than any government.

In order to sustain this attack on the very nature of America these ideologues have to resort to abstractions and utopian dreaming. They do not examine the actual record of human advances under free economies -- instead they create grand philosophical theories on how it could be made better. In short, they abandon common sense and a factual analysis of historical progress and resort to theoretical projections, promises, and statements of intent.

Because these jealots place themselves in a position of wanting to make things better they appear to the young or uninformed as "reformers," "progressives" who seek change, and advocates of improvement. This appeals to youth and to those who hope to be on the reciving end of such policies. Unfortunately, since they rely, not on past proven practices, but on arm-chair concepts, the promised "solutions" almost always fail.

There is a type of individual who ignores the nitty-gritty mechanics of how things get accomplished and refuses to come to grips with such hard realities. Instead their minds skip such details and leap to grand conceptualizations of how things should be. They fail to accept the fact that improvements come from fine tinkerring in the shop, office, or the field, by workers who understand how things get done, and work with what they have and try and improve its performance. And those improvements are created in the private labs, factories and offices of entrepreneurial business men and scientists. Governmental planners have rarely if ever created new and better ways of making or delivering a product. But those with that idealistic or utopian mind set never give up dreaming about how it oughtta be--if only their ideas were implemented! And these are the people who teach our youth!

Now, in the hard sciences, American colleges do a good job. Those subjects rely on the scientific method--observation, tests, measurements, and repeatable results. Not so in the soft-sciences, where most American college students enjoy a fun-filled academic life devoid of real scientific or logical inquiry. The weaknesses in those soft-sciences are not the students' fault--the professors have abdicated real teaching for indoctrination. The facts of history, cases in economic policy, and analysis of comparative political systems is OUT. Criticisms of the United States is IN. There is no balance or proportion to what is taught. The two prisoners that were water boarded at Guantanamo are compared to the millions slaughtered by Nazis in WWII. Some professors have on that basis equated Bush with Hitler! The internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 is compared to Russian Gulags. Critical thinking and comparison of possibles is neglected. Instead, unsubstantiated policies that are claimed to be helpful are promoted. Programs are measured by the stated intent of those promoting them, not by the likelihood of their achieving the stated goals.

Students leave college with the idea that the biggest problems facing America are pollution, giant corporations, gender rights, animal rights, gay rights, oil spills, and the lack of a world government. The result is that today's students are actually being hurt by their education, their thinking processes dulled, and their attitudes corrupted. The controversial new theory embodied in the Radzewicz Curves indicates this direct relationship between years of schooling and a decline in common sense and wisdom, also known as "EQ".

In a graph, if you make the horizontal line represent the number of years of schooling in soft-sciences, and the verticle axis represents wisdom and common sense, you will almost always find a steeply sloping line--common sense declines or is extinguished gradually by the teachers' teaching. For simplicity, the statisticians have divided students into two broad categories, although refinements might provide further insights.

For normal, or average, students, the decline in wisdom continues with each additional year of schooling in the soft-sciences but at a declining rate, because such individuals have a significant degree of resistance to abstract concepts that defy reality. Consequently their descending line levels off and continues at a steady if low level of common sense. The final level at graduation is almost always below the good-sense they arrived with.

However, for students with a predilection for abstract thinking, the decline is linear, more precipitous, and there is very little levelling off. Students with the highest SAT test scores that get accepted into the prestigious Ivy League colleges tend to most frequently follow this linear pattern, while students at the less prestigious schools are more apt to have concave lines as they progress through years of advanced schooling. This is explained by the fact that the former are good at and love abstract conceptualizations. And, the latter, God Bless Them, get confused by theoretical ideas and seek a more practical and demonstrable common sense understanding.

Thus, there is a concave line for normal students, and a straight line for the more intellectual types. Although the concave line never reaches zero on the vertical scale, there have been cases where some of those in the other group have penetrated the zero point. In either case, children concentrating in the soft-sciences are left scarred from ever being able to think logically on governmental issues--which is exactly the object of their teachers!

Columbia Univ. Dean: "Honor Killings Not a Problem"

2008-07-09T13:52:00.006-04:00

CNN cable news ran a long story on July 8th headlined "Georgia Man Charged in 'Honor Killing.' A Pakistani man is charged with killing his 25-year-old daughter in Georgia (U.S.A.) because she wanted out of an arranged marriage, police said.Chaudhry Rashid, 54, of Jonesboro, an Atlanta suburb, appeared in court Tuesday afternoon to face murder charges in the death of Sandeela Kanwal, according to court records.

Ligature marks were found on Kanwal's body and police found an iron and cord by the doorway of her bedroom, where she was found. A necklace was found downstairs next to what appeared to be a prayer table."Apparently she and the father had argued over the marriage and the fact that it was arranged, and at some point during the altercation he did end up killing his daughter," said Clayton County police spokesman Tim Owens. "Honor killings" -- the slaying by family members of a woman or girl thought to be bringing them shame -- are usually kept quiet, making it difficult to determine how frequently they occur. The United Nations Population Fund estimated in September 2000 that as many as 5,000 women and girls fall victim to such killings each year."

In a 1998 study the same number was given by the UN-- 5,000 women killed by their fathers or brothers, mostly in Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. The practice carries on an ancient Bedouin tradition to maintain the honor and supremacy of male family members, and is established in the statutes of most Arab/ Islamic states. Its popularity among the leaders of those states is illustrated by the fact that: In November 2000, twenty countries abstained from signing a draft resolution condemning crimes of honor, most of them Islamic nations, where tradition calls for a family to kill a daughter who has shamed them. However, individuals in the free world are mounting a campaign to abolish it.

Norma Khouri recently published a moving and gripping book, "Honor Lost," to protest the practice after her best friend who had grown up with her in Lebanon was killed by her father for talking to a non-Isamic boy. She writes with the passion born of first hand observation: "I must find a way to expose honor crimes for what they are: legalized murder; to break through the official Jordanian code of silence and find a way to make all Arab women's cries for justice and freedom heard around the world."

Ms. Khouri's passion was fueled also by the examing doctor's description of the murder scene: Her friend Dahlia was dead, the doctor reported, when she arrived at the hospital. She had been stabbed twelve times in the chest by her father Mahmood, "driven in again and again, going beyond honor to the most primitive brutaility. . .after the stabbing he had waited before calling the ambulance to make sure that she could not be saved." Thus, he allowed her to slowly bleed to death on the floor of their home, waiting for her to die. And Dahlia would have no coffin--part of the harsh end for honor-crime victims. Workmen merely dug a hole, dropped her body in, and shoveled dirt to fill it up. "These grunting men were the only witnesses at her gravside. No visitors, no flowers or tears were left on this unmarked grave.

Mr. Rashid in Georgia may have a harder time escaping punishment for this "traditional ritual killing," since it happened in the United States, but such barbaric and semi-religious practices in the Middle East seem to be off-limits to our scrutinizing press. It is interesting to note that CNN never mentioned an Islamic or Arabic connection in their story--they merely referred vaguely to Asian customs. And they chose an equally opaque and politically-correct academic to comment on the murder:

"My immediate reaction was that this is an anomaly in the South Asian community," Ajay Nair, associate dean of multicultural affairs at Columbia University, told CNN on Tuesday. "Most South Asian-American families enjoy wonderful relationships within their families.""I think there's ways that we can rationalize it and make sense of it, particularly in thinking about new immigrant communities in the U.S. and thinking about some of the struggles that they face and the generation gap and the cultural differences that children do face," he said. "I think there are some issues there, but by and large, this isn't a rampant problem within South Asian communities. What is a problem, I think, is domestic violence, and that cuts across all communities."Nair said he believes a "significant human rights campaign" is needed to address such killings."I think more people need to recognize this as a global issue. It's not just a U.S. issue. I think it happens across the world, and I think people need to recognize domestic violence and any kind of violence related to women as a serious, serious issue."

As a dean of "multi-cultural affairs" Professor Nair hues to the party line that all cultures are equal, never mentions the actual devotees of this abomination except as "South-Asian," dismisses it as not a rampant problem, but simply "an anomoly." He continues his apologia by saying "we can make sense of it" and rationalize it! Then he quickly moves on to critique domestic violence throughout the world and basically changes the subject.

Only at Columbia could such a lame white wash occur--an extreme form of intellectual dishonesty designed to sustain their current love affair with multiculturism and moral relativism. If this murder had been perpetrated by a Christian it would have been excoriated at length as a sign of the horrors of Western civilization and Christianity. On a related note, the UN has also recently disclosed numbers concerning the trafficking in human beings--AKA the slave trade-- and the numbers of female circumcision and mutilation victims worldwide--and the vast majority of both of those gross abuses of human rights are also confined primarily to the same Arab/Islamic nations.

While generalizations must be guarded, nevertheless, the fact remains that slavery, genital mutilation, and the stabbing of children to death, are all supported as respectable traditions in one part of the world. Americans and Christians should take pride that that part of the world is not ours. Americans and Christians have been condemned for things they did hundreds of years ago--but we reformed- The Middle East hasn't. That differential in progress stands out as a testament against the tenets of multi-culturalism and moral relativism. In more concrete terms, The Differential in progress means that people are being murdered, mutilated and enslaved in one area of the world and not in another.

I suggest we can conclude four things from this sad story:
1.) Those three barbaric practices common in the Middle East place a big black mark on their civilization and make "The West" look good.
2.) Professor Nair is guilty of glossing over major distinctions between different societies, sacrificing both intellect and honest empathy, in order to hue to the established double-speak of his university colleagues.
3.) CNN News remains unchanged in never broadcasting pro-American news, but avoiding at all cost any slurs against our enemies. We can do no right, our enemies can do no wrong.
4.) American academics and reporters are deliberately presenting distorted news and faulty interpretations of politics and history that undermine any belief in their crdibility.

America -- The Myth of Limited Government

2008-07-02T14:08:00.007-04:00

The Question:

Is America a paragon of Limited Government or Does it Owe its Success to a Big Strong Central Government ?? This question was recently raised by Bill Novak and was posted at "History of American State Power."

THE ANSWER lies in pieces-- Generalities never make for good analysis. If we are talking international affairs, clearly the Power and Influence of America throughout the world, both financial and military, lay in the centralized might of its many States. However, the innovative and enterprising nature of its individual inhabitants, operating in a free and competitive economy, bubbled up from the bottom to create the nation's vast industrial and institutional success. Because every nation must protect its people from foreign threats the need for centralized power in foreign affairs is without question. The remaining question then is in domestic affairs-- how much did the nation's success depend on a centralized government vs. the actions of individuals operating as the invisible hand of economic progress?

THE DOMESTIC INTERNAL RECORD requires a look back at the 400 years of American history. It cannot be answered by analyzing today's opposed forces of centralized power and private interests. We must recognize the time frames involved and the gradual transformation of America over the last 400 years. From 1620 to 1860, there was 240 years of extraordinary growth. American settlors went from a small group on the Eastern seaboard, carving log homes and rustic farms out of a wilderness to the transcontinetal railroads of the mid-nineteenth century. By the early 1700's people such as Benjamin Franklin's parents arrived, seeking relief from the centralized despotism that still persisted in England, and their children took advantage of the opportunities for all in the new "open" and unrestricted New World. John Witherspoon arrived in the 1750's from Scotland, escaping Hume's new secular "enlightenment," to build Princeton University on the back of the Great Awakening religious revival. In the last half of the eighteenth century, Franklin's generation combined with those of an age with two of Witherspoon's famous students to secure independence from England and shape the new Constitutuion. In 1850 Andrew Carnegie arrived from Scotland, was apprenticed out as a "bobbin boy," and quickly demonstrated the upward mobility available in America by founding the largest steel industry in the world. These were extraordinary times, the foundations of a great new super-power were laid. During this period, the central government's role was primarily restricted to securing international interests and providing the legal and judicial systems needed to moderate disputes and protect private property. The 240 years of success in advancing domestic well-being and economic affluence owed little to the powers of a strong controlling central government. Indeed, the 240 year period ended with the Civil War where for the first time the power of the central government was asserted as supreme over more local rights. This was a worthy cause, to the extent that it ended slavery, but it marked the split in time between original limited government and the subsequent expansion of central power.

EARLY AMERICA VS MODERN AMERICA-- America's history is not of one cloth. The early colonists built a great nation quickly because they were not burdened by oppressive regulations or a despotic government. That "country" of independent and self-reliant citizens was already 150 years old when the Constitution was written--and it was written to keep the nation's people free of oppressive government. That entrepreneurial and laissez-faire beginning remains true, but since 1850, it has been gradually weighted down by limitations on freedom imposed by an ever-expanding central government. The spirit of that 240 year period of unshackled growth can be seen throughout history--such an empowering environment created other "new" and vibrant societies in early Greece, 13th century Venice, 16th century Holland, 18th century Scotland, etc. America was modelled after such successful republics of history. As Cato had already observed by the 17th century, societies always faired better in their early days when free and open, than they did in their latter days when they became oppressed by new ideologies, regulations, and oppressive governments.

Novak's article points out the many arguments of those who say America is great, but after all, we have a huge powerful central government that "manages" and directs almost everything happening today. So, they conclude, we need an even bigger and stronger central government to make things even better. These same theorists claim that America's free enterprise and capitalistic nature is a myth. However, the only reason they can now call this a Myth is that over the past 150 years our government has grown to the point where it is limiting the freedom and initiative of its people. But the so-called "myth" was very much in operation when we enjoyed heady growth, and it has not been demonstrated that the more recent expanded role for government has helped. In fact there are signs that it has hurt. The tax rates are creating inequities and a growing burden on all those who work. The expanding governmental programs lay a burden of regulations, licensing, and paperwork on everyone. The Leviathon of Big Government is piling up debt, deficits, and abasing the value of the dollar. There are signs of decline, and other nations, copying the free and unregulated techniques of our past success are catching-up. Because of the momentum of a successful past, and the accumulated wealth and infrastructure slowly built, it takes a long time to destroy a prosperous nation. So, we can conclude, yes, we are not (anymore) a really free capitalistic society flourishing under a very limited government. But we cannot conclude that the change is for the better. Someone wrote that a long lived parasitism requires a sturdy host, and it is possible that the foundations of America, laid during its first couple hundred years, has provided the host for that growing burden of parasitic government.

HAVE AMERICANS CHANGED ?? If our economic and governmental character has changed during the last few hundred years, what if any, was the impact on the attitude of the nation's citizenry. One might expect that as government's role expands, so the individual's role contracts. It is important to consider such a change on our citizenry because, after all, it is simply the individual citizens that make everything happen. The government can influence and regulate the people but only the people man the production lines, grow the food, and make the sale, collect the proceeds, and give the government half to cover its costs. Today, with almost one-half of the populace on welfare, retired, on disability, or working for the government, there has been a big change from early colonial days when almost nobody was in those ranks. It follows that many Americans no longer possess the independent and self-reliant attitude of those who settled and developed the continent. They have been encouraged by utopianists to become victims and accept governmental largesse. American history has followed past examples of free nations that gradually succumbed to populist democratic notions of a "nurturing and controlling" central government. To the extent that an ever-growing portion of the citizenry opt to accept or take advantage of such largesse, the ranks of the producers will shrink. Any understanding of human motivation suggests that if the largesse is ample, easily obtained, and without stigma, the ordinary person would be considered a fool to choose the alternative--working for a living. If the supply of welfare funds and programs increase, the demand for same will inevitably follow, and grow, to always exactly equal the supply. While the individual who opts for welfare may be showing a shrewd and wise common sense, there remains a debilitating impact on the children who never see their dad go to work. And that is how the citizenry's "attitude," the all-important measure of a society's vigor, usually enters a deteriorating tailspin.

GOOD GOVERMENT VS HARMFUL GOVERMENT -- In evaluating government power, it is the distinction between two critically different types of intervention that must be looked at. We need a strong government, but its power must be only directed in a way that empowers individual action. A laissez-faire society needs a "strong" government to maintain and protect the institutions that allow free competition--such as an equitable legal and justice system, a strong international presence to protect its citizens, police to protect personal and property rights, and an efficient system of deeded property and financing rights. What the nation does not need is a strong governmental role in banning cigarettes, licensing every trade, handing out taxpayers funds to every special interest group, and a Congress that spends an inordinate amount of time investigating the use of strength enhancing drugs for athletes. Alan Deshowitz' book "Rights from Wrongs" makes that distinction-- between such rights that protect individuals from the government (negative rights) and the "positive rights" that have gradually come to pre-occupy the government with such things as free drugs for the elderly, monetary rewards to single moms with illegitimate children, and huge personal injury awards to people who spill hot coffee on themselves! This same division of government authority has been clarified by Joseph Johnston in "The Limits of Government:" In a "protective" state, ". . .officials concern themselves with preserving the conditions under which private interests may be pursued. The affirmative state, on the other hand, chooses a goal to be pursued on behalf of everyone. . . the vocabulary of the affirmative state tends to be military (the 'war on poverty'), and it relies on the organizational structures of administration, command and bureaucracy rather than adjudication and arbitration of disputes. It spawns overseers, bureaucrats and inquisitors, whose function is to supervise adherence to the path of virtue and conformity. Civil law gives way to administrative command. People are treated not as free individuals but as subjects to be treated, hospitalized and nurtured--and of course, taxed to pay for all these privileges." Clearly such a change in American governmental philosophy has had and will continue to have a debilitating effect on a growing number of its people.

THE LESSONS OF HISTORY show that what Novak is trying to recap--the varying role of government--follows an age old pattern: Successful societies that presaged the American miracle of affluence and freedom had to originate in an environment of economic freedom but as they grew in affluence and were seduced by new elites that championed centralized governments offering more and more "positive rights," each successful society entered a period of decline. It is no "myth" that America was started by free and independent people and it is no "myth" that we are approaching an ending as the docile dependent sheep that every advanced welfare state breeds. This historical pattern can be illustrated by posing "The Radzewicz Riddle" : "If simple young societies can grow rapidly, why is it that when their people become better educated, more intellectual, and more compassionate, their early success falters and Decline sets in ?"
Posted by: bill greene July 01, 2008 at 09:57 AM
hostName = '.typepad.com';