Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Concocted, Impeachment, Distract, Transparency, and Bullshit

A Vocabulary Lesson, courtesy of Grouchy Old Cripple blog.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/02 at 11:33 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

“May I Kill It” - Redux

Back in 2004 I posted some comments under the heading “May I Kill It” wherein I wrote the following.

In C.S. Lewis’ book The Great Divorce, in chapter 11, there is a ghost afflicted with a lizard which whispers biliously in the ghost’s ear.  The ghost is tormented by this lizard, but, all is not lost, as an angel offers to assist the ghost by killing the lizard.  The ghost hems and haws about this offer, even apologizing for the lizard, but finally yields and allows the angel to kill the lizard.

I added the following, after quoting and linking to a Jonathan Rauch piece titled The Forgotten Millions.

When I look around me today, I see the bloating of governmental entitlement programs, which is simply socialism, I see the Supreme Court allowing random police roadblocks and secret court proceedings, police state tactics used effectively in communism and facism, and, more dishearteningly, I see either an uncaring populace or a populace clamoring for the expansion of the state, for a socialist agenda.  Bah.

“May I kill it,” now?

I thought of this old post after reading a piece in American Thinker, written by Monty Pelerin, titled The End of Democratic Socialism, which begins this way.

The end of democratic socialism is at hand. The welfare states of the U.S. and Europe are financially out of control, spent and unsustainable. They have reached the point that Margaret Thatcher defined as the end of socialism: They have run out of other people’s money. These areas of the world are about to change dramatically.

Democratic Socialism should have been killed off long ago, and because it was not, its end will not be as clean a kill as the angel’s killing of the lizard in Lewis’ book.  Instead Democratic Socialism’s death will in all likelihood be as Pelerin notes at the end of his piece.

Brace yourselves. Our impending transition will not be quick, easy, or pleasant. We may soon learn the real meaning of “poor, nasty,” and “brutish,” but perhaps not “short.” Welcome to “The Real, New Normal.”

Link to Pelerin’s piece via Blazing Cat Fur’s Random Furballs for a Wednesday Morning.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/02 at 11:13 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

On Hating the Jews

InstaPunk has a post up, under the heading Why Do People Hate the Jews, which opens with a page image from Art Spiegelman’s The Complete Maus.

I found the subject matter interesting reading because it relays a portion of Instapunk’s conversation with a Jewish friend on this subject, and said conversation reminds me of my conversations on the subject with my friend Stu the Jew (that’s a term of endearment, folks, just ask Stu’s Uncle).

InstaPunk’s post begins this way.

I asked my closest Jewish friend to share the experience of anti-semitism. He usually blows it off. No big deal. But I said, “No. Really.” He said, “Forget it.” I said, “No, really.” He said, “Fuck you.” And I said, “Please.” Here’s what he gave me:

It has been said that the history of Jewish holidays can be summed up this way: “They wanted to kill us; we won. Let’s eat.” Why has anti-Semitism been so pervasive in so many countries, in so many time periods and for so many reasons? (One begins to wonder. Perhaps there is something wrong with the Jews and Judaism? After all, there is an old Yiddish saying—“If one person calls you a donkey, ignore him; if two people call you a donkey, buy a saddle.”)

Between the years 250 BC and 1948 AD - a period of 1,700 years - Jews experienced more than eighty expulsions from various countries in Europe - -an average of nearly one expulsion every 21 years. Jews were thrown out of England, France, Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Spain, Portugal, Bohemia, Moravia and 71 other countries. Historians have classified six explanations as to why people hate the Jews:

Economic—“We hate Jews because they possess too much wealth and power.”

Chosen People—“We hate Jews because they arrogantly claim that they are the chosen people.“Scapegoat—“Jews are a convenient group to single out and blame for our troubles.”

Deicide—“We hate Jews because they killed Jesus.”

Outsiders,—“We hate Jews because they are different than us.” (The dislike of the unlike.)

Racial Theory—“We hate Jews because they are an inferior race.”

Posted by John Venlet on 06/02 at 08:15 AM
(5) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Public Debt - “The Greatest of All Revolutions”

With public debt, meaning State funding of do-gooder programs to the latest utopian vision to save the world, piling up faster than the printing presses can print play money, it is no wonder that civil unrest is close to breaking the bonds of stoic sufferance which have held uncivility in check throughout the world.

Will revolutions result from this growth of public debt?  It is entirely possible, as individuals finally come to the realization that it is their names which the State is signing to the coming due promissory notes, whether they like it or not.  Which leads to the title of this post.

The Mises Economics Blog has posted an interesting excerpt from chapter 6 of Sir Ernest Benn’s book Debt: Private and Public, Good and Bad, which looks at the subject of public debt, under the heading The People Who Borrow.  Here are a couple of excerpts to consider, but consider reading the whole thing.

Where before 1914 a government would owe a hundred million, there would be some thousands of millions owing by the private individuals living under that government. Of all these millions every sixpence depended absolutely upon a personal signature, all of them were backed by goods or services, personal belongings, or personal earning power, and all of them therefore possessed such qualities and such defects as, we shall see, are wholly absent from the new sort of debt, public debt, about which we are here concerned.

Rather an impressive picture comes up to the mind when looking at the money markets of the world in 1914 and noticing the astronomical figures of the dealings in London, Paris, New York, Berlin, and elsewhere, if it is remembered that behind every fraction in these figures was some very personal little problem. The security and smooth working of the whole were due to the fact that there were reputations to be lost, bankruptcy to be faced, personal degradation or personal success hanging on every transaction however large or however small…

The picture is worth reconstructing in these days when we have entered a new world, and the old has almost disappeared. There is a good deal of talk about revolutions. In our capacity as politicians we are proud or worried about the way in which we have improved or altered all sorts of things: the widening of the franchise, the status of woman, or whatever it may be. We think of Russia when we talk of revolutions and are inclined to attach an importance to the substitution of one tyranny for another, which is of very minor consequence compared with the substitution of one financial system for another by the new habit of piling up public debt. The greatest of all the revolutions has proceeded almost silently in our very midst, and the great majority of those who are quite prepared to talk glibly about world affairs are simply and wholly ignorant of much more important things going on day by day under their very noses…

When the financial revolution of the last 20 years begins to have its effects the politicians will have some pungent things to say about this public credit. In the careless manner of the postwar period we have hurried along with a new slogan on our lips, and public credit has seemed to us to be quite a good idea. A little later we shall have time to think it over, and it will dawn upon us that the credit of the state is only the sum of the credit of all the individuals who compose the state. When we have completed the process of destroying the credit of those individuals the state will have no credit left. There was a public credit at a time when the individuals were left in their own responsibility with resources which could, in case of need, be commandeered by the state. We are approaching the stage when, those resources having been collected by the state and the state having spent them, the phrase “the public credit” will be full of bitter disillusionment.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/02 at 07:28 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Sand Lake, Michigan Domestic Terrorists and Civil War

According to The Grand Rapids Press, there is a civil war underway in the village of Sand Lake, Michigan.  This alleged “civil war” results from certain residents of Sand Lake desiring to dissolve the village in order to relieve themselves of the tax burdens the village imposes upon them.  I say good for the residents pushing to dissolve the village of Sand Lake, and I would label them patriots.

Sand Lake Village president Kirk Thielke, though, labels them as domestic terrorists, stating,

“This is domestic terrorism. It’s an attack on small town USA. I have a personal anger against these people. Their purpose is not the good of the village.”

I wonder if Thielke is considering calling in the National Guard, or the FBI, in order to control these rabblerousers and village destroyers and make examples of them?

If calling for the dissolving of the village is domestic terrorism or civil war, it’s terrorism and civil war of a type I can wholeheartedly support.  I hope they succeed.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/01 at 03:04 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Strategic Default or Pre-meditated Criminal Action

Since the subprime lending financial boondoggle, much has been written about what homeowners should do if they are underwater on their mortgages.  Strategic default is one avenue that has been suggested by many respected publications and individuals.  Karen DeCoster has a very good series of posts and articles on the subject of strategic default, and though I think her advice is sound on the subject, I, personally, would have to vigourously wrestle with my principles if strategic default was my only option to remain financially viable.

I thought of Karen’s ideas regarding strategic defaults after reading a New York Times piece headlined Owners Stop Paying Mortgages, and Stop Fretting, wherein we read the following.

For Alex Pemberton and Susan Reboyras, foreclosure is becoming a way of life — something they did not want but are in no hurry to get out of.

Foreclosure has allowed them to stabilize the family business. Go to Outback occasionally for a steak. Take their gas-guzzling airboat out for the weekend. Visit the Hard Rock Casino.

“Instead of the house dragging us down, it’s become a life raft,” said Mr. Pemberton, who stopped paying the mortgage on their house here last summer. “It’s really been a blessing.”

A growing number of the people whose homes are in foreclosure are refusing to slink away in shame. They are fashioning a sort of homemade mortgage modification, one that brings their payments all the way down to zero. They use the money they save to get back on their feet or just get by.

This type of modification does not beg for a lender’s permission but is delivered as an ultimatum: Force me out if you can. Any moral qualms are overshadowed by a conviction that the banks created the crisis by snookering homeowners with loans that got them in over their heads.

Though the NYT piece does not reference the homeowner actions described in their piece as strategic default, in reality the homeowners referenced in the piece are strategically defaulting, and profiting from their strategy, and thus I find their actions criminally premeditated.

If an individual homeowner/mortgagor objectively considers a strategic default as their only option and acts accordingly, they only way I could consider their action as not criminal would be if they packed up their belongings, signed over the deed to the mortgagee, turned over the keys to the house, and moved on down the road.

UPDATE: A Daniel Foster post at The Corner, titled Welcome to Moral Hazard, USA. Population: Us, has some interesting commentary and letters from NRO readers on this subject.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/01 at 01:30 PM
(5) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Miranda Rule Tip of the Day

Criminal defendants won’t get the benefit of the Miranda rule against self-incrimination unless they specifically invoke it, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.

In other words, if you are being arrested, the only words out of your mouth should be I am invoking my Miranda rights to remain silent.

Supreme Court Says Suspects Must Disclose Intent to Remain Silent

Posted by John Venlet on 06/01 at 11:55 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Life Saving Aid for Gazans

NickM, responding to the news about the Gaza “aid” flotilla dustup, in a post titled They Never Learn, provides life saving aid, and a dose of reality, to the Gazans.

If you dump the vicious thugs of Hamas (the people who are really oppressing you by using you as sacrificial porns in their wider Islamist game) and if you decide to live peaceably with your neighbours (not just Israel, you’ve managed to hack the Egyptians off something chronic too*) and live by the rule of law (and not Allah’s) then I’m sure the rest of the world will be more than happy to trade and invest in you. You’ll be happier earning your own way in the world rather than relying on hand-outs and being governed by people who deliberately keep you in squalor for their own ends. Their ends Gazans, not yours.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/01 at 08:15 AM
(14) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 8 of 8 pages « First  <  6 7 8