ricketyclick

…Or else:

From Bill St. Claire, via Billy Beck.

Experts discuss the best way for America to throw money away:

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?[link]

No less than The Ludwig von Mises Institute Economic Blog has this up as “The TV Gasbag Version of the Broken Window Fallacy”.

The Onion, to its enormous credit, is a) Swimming against the tide, and b) Asking legitimate questions the mainstream press is ignoring, and may not even be capable of understanding anymore.

Bravo.

An idea brought to my attention by Chris Byrne at Anarchangel.

Check out a few links at this Google Search.

As Chris points out, it’s ridiculous. Capitalism can’t break, anymore than evolution can break. Capitalism is the economic incarnation of evolution; they’re exactly the same process.

Watch the video Chris links to, featuring an interview with Amity Shlaes, author of The Forgotten Man. Everything you know about the Depression and FDR is wrong: FDR made it worse, and prolonged it horribly, by trying to replace the marketplace with government intervention.

The current mortgage crisis is not a failure of capitalism; it is itself a failure of government regulation, which thieves like Barney Frank and Chris Dobbs, themselves huge beneficiaries of the crisis, want to fix with even more regulation.

Would-be tyrants like Barack Obama, of course, simply want to dismantle the marketplace altogether.

If you listen to nothing else, listen to the story of the National Recovery Act and the Schechter family of chicken butchers, starting at about 16:00.
Quoting from the book:

To justify giving to one forgotten man, the administration found it had to make a scapegoat of another. Roosevelt and his staff were becoming habitual bullies, pitting Americans against one another.

The Schechters were Roosevelt’s scapegoats.

Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

[YouTube link.]

To summarize the fates of the executives in the Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom scandals:

• Bernard Ebbers, Worldcom: 25 years in prison
• Ken Lay, Enron: Convicted on 10 counts, died before serving sentence
• Jeff Skilling, Enron: 24 years in prison
• Andrew Fastow, Enron: 10 years in prison
• Dennis Koslowski, Tyco: 8 years in prison
• Mark Schwartz, Tyco: 8 years in prison

What’s happening to the two executives at the heart of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scandels, necessitating a $700 Billion bailout?

Franklin Raines never faced criminal charges, and instead settled a civil suit with a $2 million payoff — which came from Fannie Mae’s insurance company.  Jim Johnson didn’t even have to do that much. And where are they now?  The Washington Post reported twice that Raines was advising the Barack Obama campaign, although they denied it.  Jim Johnson still advises the Obama campaign and had briefly led the search for a running mate.

While I can’t be certain, I think a tiny part of the apparent discrepency might possibly maybe sort of slightly just a bit might have something to do with the fact that Fannie and Freddy were, and are, creatures of the government doing the socialist biddings of the Democrats in Congress.

Truth to tell, if Raines and Johnson were called to count, a number of Congresscritters would be frog-marched oout of the Capital; can’t be havin’ none o’ that, eh?

Yesterday, I mentioned the Cloward-Piven “strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis”, and “[hastening] the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse”.

Today, Myrhaf cautions that we should remain skeptical of thinking Obama is “The Cloward-Piven Candidate“:

Simpson’s theory reminds me of the John Birch Society’s old ways of finding a communist conspiracy behind, well, everything. As Ayn Rand wrote, the Birchers don’t understand the role of philosophy. Those who hold the same philosophic premises will tend to want the same political policies. Those who do not understand the role of philosophy in man’s life think conspiracy theories are at work.

None of my reservations refute the idea that there are radical groups out there that want to replace capitalism with socialism. No question, these leftist radicals exist, they have infiltrated to the heart of the Democrat Party, and Obama has had connections with these groups all his life, starting with his hard-line communist father. But the goals and machinations of the radical left are not the fundamental explanation of America’s stumbling from crisis to crisis toward socialism. No, at the root of the problem is the philosophy of altruism, which leads to government intervention in the economy to help the “little guy,” and which — rather conveniently for the acolytes of Cloward-Piven — does not care if its programs make the world actually better. With altruism, intentions are always more important than results.

[My emphasis.]

Read the whole thing, and read the comments as well.

What I’m taking from this, aside from a bracing hand against my chest, preventing me from leaping off Conspiracy Cliff, is that McCain will not save us from socialism, either. He, too, has bought into the altruistic philosophy, as have most voters since FDR, and therefore the entire government. The debate is no longer whether or not, but how much and where.

This is extremely depressing: it means that we can’t expose the conspiracy, root it out, and save ourselves. It means that we’re swimming in it, that it’s endemic, that we ourselves are members.

That there may, in short, be no way out.

We’re not talking here about personal altruism, meaning you’re willing to help others at your own expense.

We’re talking about government altruism, meaning that you know who the disadvantaged are and what they need better than they themselves do, you’re going to give it to them whether they want it or not, and you’re willing to take as much money from everyone else as necessary to make it happen.

No good. No bueno por ca-ca.

[Belated update: Thanks to Hecate for the link!]

From Time Magazine’s Notebook/Verbatim/Back & Forth/Media:

‘Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization.’
– STEVE SCHMIDT, spokesman for John McCain, accusing the Gray Lady of being “150% in the tank” for McCain’s Democratic presidential rival, B. Hussein Obama

‘It’s our job to ask hard questions.’
–BILL KELLER, the newspaper’s executive editor, saying candidates are “not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny”

Bill, you lying apparatchik .

The problem isn’t that you’re asking hard questions of McCain/Palin.

The problem is exactly and precisely that you are not asking hard questions of Obama/Biden.

Next question: Does Time think that they have exposed the hypocrisy of the Fishwrap of Record?

Or does Time think Bill has squashed the objection?

‘Why Obama Could Be the Next President’

Time covers for Obama: 7. For McCain: 2 [as of 21 August]

‘The Incredible Ignorance of White Americans’

That probably means there aren’t really any hard questions to be asked about Obama, correct?

It’s not like he’s some kind of socialist radical, right?

No, seriously, the idea that Obama is being backed by hard core subversives is just right wingnut crazy talk, not worthy of serious media scrutiny, isn’t it?

It’s not as if Obama, his colleagues, and his mentors are deliberately pursuing the Cloward-Piven “strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis”, and “[hastening] the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse”, is it?

I mean, that’s the sort of paranoid thinking that results in hard-to-understand diagrams that make your head hurt, isn’t it?

Of course, when questions are asked, Obama is completely forthright with documentation, right?

1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
12. Your Record of baptism — Not released or ‘not available’
13. Your Illinois State Senate records — ‘not available’

His media buddies at Google and, my gosh, Time/Warner wouldn’t be so petty as to quash a YouTube video linking Obama and his comrades to the credit crisis because of copyright claims on the background music, would they? [Here's a version without the disputed music.]

And certainly, if hard questions were asked, Obama wouldn’t pursue  a scorched earth policy of muzzling critics through smears, intimidation, and censorship, would he?

Yes. They. Can. And Did.

Follow the links. Read the articles.

And understand: If you vote for Obama, and lose your home, your money, your investments, and your freedom, I will not just laugh at you. I will blame you.

Be careful what you wish for.

As I’ve said before, my Mom, an Illinois native and a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, will not be voting for Obama because she simply can’t believe he got to where he is without being beholden to Mayor Richard Daley. She’s right, of course, but I still have had a very hard time understanding why, exactly, Daley would support a socialist radical who promises to bring down capitalist power mongers like Daley.

Today I finally realized: Daley has no politics. Democrat, Republican, capitalist, socialist, Nazi, Communist — Daley doesn’t give a sour dog fart for any of it.

The key thing about Daley is that he is utterly corrupt. That means that he can be bought. All you have to do is promise Daley that you will leave him Chicago as his personal fiefdom, that you will not allow the rest of Illinois to rid itself of him and his Machine, and that you will see to it that he will receive an obscene amount of pork, which he can then plaster with “A Gift From Your Beloved Mayor” stickers and dole out to friends and cronies.

That’s why Obama’s puppet masters ran him through Daley’s Sausage Grinder: Daley is apolitical, corrupt, and has no ambition beyond the Illinois borders, but his Machine is capable of launching a robot onto the national stage.

Daley will make a fine member of the Nomenklatura.

Congress does its part to increase biodiversity with the Endangered Species Act:

Ferraro, McIntosh, and Ospina (2007) find that the ESA has, in fact, failed to protect endangered species. Indeed, their evidence indicates that for a large majority of the species studied, listing under the ESA has actually harmed the species’ chances of recovery.

Ferraro et al examine two different elements of the ESA’s operation: the impact of listing a species as being endangered, and the effects of species-specific government recovery expenditures. After taking both listing and spending into account, the authors find that the overall effect of the ESA has been to reduce listed species’ chances of recovery, although this negative effect is small. They go on to show that there are quite dramatic differences in outcomes depending on the level of spending on species recovery programs. For the 25 percent of the listed species that garner about 95 percent of all government recovery funding, the ESA seems to have produced improvements in the chances of recovery. But for the other 75 percent of species, those that are largely ignored by the funding process, the ESA has sharply reduced species’ viability, compared to unlisted species that are otherwise similar except for listing status. Thus, for most of the species studied, the ESA has had perverse consequences, reducing rather than enhancing survival chances.

…

It may seem odd that a law ostensibly designed to protect species could end up harming them. Yet there are at least two mechanisms through which this may occur. First, there is the well-known “shoot, shovel, and shut up” response to the ESA: When species on private land are listed, property owners may attempt to rid themselves of the species to avoid government restrictions on the use of their land.

But there is a more subtle effect that may be at work here. Some species are under threat from other non-human species or from climate-forced habitat change, rather than from assaults by landowners. The best long-term hope for these species may be proactive assistance (e.g., control of exotic species) from the owners of the land on which they reside.

…

This brings us back to the importance of species-specific recovery expenditures. Enforcement activities might well deter active hostility toward listed species on private land. But only spending for programs such as habitat acquisition is likely to boost private efforts to aid maintenancedependent species.

Although Ferraro et al have left some important loose ends, their message is ominous. The ESA does not merely fail to provide widespread species protection; it is positively harmful for most endangered species. Given the widely acknowledged costs of the ESA, perhaps it is time to change the way we think about—and behave toward—species conservation.

[Via Overcoming Bias.]

Three approaches here:

1. Leave it alone.
2. Throw money at private initiatives.
3. Deprive landowners of the full use of their land without compensation.

The first two work. The last actually defeats the stated goal — but does usurp property rights. Ask me if I believe your average congresscritter actually gives a rat’s ass about spotted owls or snail darters. Ask me if I think your average congresscritter can pass up the chance to usurp property rights — or to take your money in service to a cause a handful of whacko activists make a lot of noise about.

Tell me again, tell me exactly, why you think these greedy, powermad sons of bitches need to be anywhere between you and your doctor.

Or between you and your mortgage, for that matter.

So, Donk Congresscritters call a meeting on the financial crisis they created, don’t invite but a handful of Republicans, pack the meeting with their own rabidly partisan firebrands — and then Pelosi stands up in front of the DNC’s propaganda machine (a.k.a., The News Media) and calls the Republicans unpatriotic for not showing up in larger numbers.

Not, mind, that the Donks are playing politics or anything….

Details and video at Gateway Pundit.

Les Jones has a great picture up:

Click to see the punch line.

I wish we knew who rides around in this beast. This picture isn’t quite a career-ender, but boy it could cause some campaign sweat.

Retired engineer Steven Den Beste reprints a valuable checklist for plausible alternative energy sources:

…For too many people “alternate energy” is more about religion than about physics. They believe that if we are just creative enough, we can overcome fundamental physical limitations — and it’s not that easy.

In order for “alternate energy” to become feasible, it has to satisfy all of the following criteria:

1. It has to be huge (in terms of both energy and power)
2. It has to be reliable (not intermittent or unschedulable)
3. It has to be concentrated (not diffuse)
4. It has to be possible to utilize it efficiently
5. The capital investment and operating cost to utilize it has to be comparable to existing energy sources (per gigawatt, and per terajoule).

If it fails to satisfy any of those, then it can’t scale enough to make any difference. Solar power fails #3, and currently it also fails #5. (It also partially fails #2, but there are ways to work around that.)

The only sources of energy available to us now that satisfy all five are petroleum, coal, hydro, and nuclear.

Den Beste garnered a few good comments on that post (and quite a bit of attention elsewhere), but the best comments I’ve seen that answer some of the objections to this list are over here.

Of course, you should read Neo-Neocon’s article concerning T. Boone Pickens’ wind power project that SDB linked to, and SDB’s original detailed 2002 essay, which ought to be required reading for anyone discussing this topic.

And the 2002 essay links to SDB’s discussion of scale here:

My dad was an electrical engineer and he worked on power generation. (He spent most of his career on the hydro projects on the Columbia river.) He lived in an entirely different world than I did, a world where units like kilofarads and kilohenries were actually useful. That’s the kind of numbers you see when you’re describing long distance transmission lines. In my world, a microfarad is huge. In his world, a farad was tiny. (If you don’t know what that means, just let it pass.)

You’ve got to start thinking really, really big.

Anything which, when fully deployed, generates less than ten gigawatts average (10¹⁰ joules per second) is useless for our purposes in terms of actually making a meaningful contribution to the total amount of energy we consume.

SDB then goes on to discuss some of the more esoteric proposals for obtaining energy. It is a very depressing essay, because the scale is…bigger than most people can fit in their heads, the problems are hard, the cost is astronomical.

Steven’s preferred solution is coal, because it works and we’ve got plenty.

Still, burning carbon is stupid–it’s filthy, there is only a limited supply, it’s going to become increasingly expensive, and we need the chemical feed stock. (In my mind global warming is still very much, heh heh heh, up in the air, but I tend to discount it. We humans are simply not that significant on a planetary scale. See Copernicus and Darwin.) Simple conservation will not work for long — most of our energy systems are already extremely efficient, and “cutting back” to any significant degree would involve essentially rebuilding our society from the ground up.  Most likely, we wouldn’t like the results very much.

(Al Gore’s proposal to completely wean ourselves off carbon fuels in…am I remembering this right? Ten years? — yup, ten years, is simply stupid, particularly since I doubt nukes are even on the table in his plan.)

Everything we can do has at least a ten year lead time. First we need to open our domestic oil to drilling, including offshore and ANWR, so we can at least start to be somewhat self-sufficient. Start planning the nukes now.  There are several reasonable designs, but it will probably take at least five years to build pilot plants and choose two or three that can be standardized to reduce cost and increase competency. We also need to start pressing on fusion — not even uranium will last forever, and we don’t have good local sources, anyway. (Nearest is Canada, if I’m not mistaken.) However, fusion will involve new physics as well as fabulous engineering, and I note Steven’s response is, “Wake me when it works.”

Not that we should give up on trying make cheap solar cells and the like, but there’s a fundamental limit on how much energy comes down from the sun in a given day, and all of those solutions require an infrastructure with a huge surface area (see SDB #3).

Irena Sendler passed away at 8AM (Warsaw time) on May 12th, in Warsaw, Poland at the age of 98…. Irena was one of 180 others to be nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace prize. In the height of irony, the award that year went to a man who has done nothing for peace, but instead threw the world into chaos and fear, while enriching his bank account - Al Gore.

Read the whole article, and honor someone who could have re-sanctified a prize that has never been washed clean of the blood from Yasser Arafat’s hands.

Originally, though, “The Cold Equations” comes from Tom Godwin’s notorious science fiction short story about orbital mechanics forcing a space craft pilot and a stowaway to make some hard choices. Wiki entry here, but beware, almost any discussion you find will necessarily involve spoilers. Let it be said that there’s some deep resonance with the current problem at hand: “Good physics, bad engineering.”

Ooh, here it is in full. It’s one of this collection of the stories that built the Golden Age of SF.