In order to persuade people to support his health care reform plans, President Obama has sought to portray insurance companies in the role of the villain. A compelling story usually has good guys and bad guys and by fixating on insurance companies as the cause of the woes in our health care system, the president is setting up a dragon to be slayed by the progressive knight. While it makes for good (and easy) drama, the reality of health care is far more complicated than that.
In today's WSJ, Scott Harrington says that many of the president's assertions on the abuses of insurance companies dropping coverage are more based on fiction than fact:
These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies).
If existing laws and litigation governing rescission are inadequate, there clearly are a variety of ways that the states or federal government could target abuses without adopting the president's agenda for federal control of health insurance, or the creation of a government health insurer.
Like many of the other rationales that the president uses to justify the need for his reform plans, the problems with companies dropping coverage are exaggerated to foster fear and the false choice is presented that the only options to address the problems are the president's way or doing nothing.
One of the surest signs of the decline of political discourse in America in recent years is the rise of rhetoric by anecdote ("Let me tell you the story of..."). It's an emotionally manipulative and powerful tool and President Obama is a master at using it.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Untouchables
Scene from the Obama health care rally in Minneapolis today:
They bring a guy in a wheelchair, you bring a guy in a wheelchair missing an arm. That's the Chicago way!
For some reason this exchange also reminds me of an NHL bench clearing brawl where the two goalies end up squaring off. Unlikely combatants, not something you see every day.
For more on what you might have heard inside the Obama rally, check out this post at the Nihilist in Golf Pants.
A man in a wheelchair shouted at those headed inside: "Look at all of you - socialists! Shame on you guys!"
An Obama supporter, also in a wheelchair and with a missing arm, yelled back. "Who bought your wheelchair?"
They bring a guy in a wheelchair, you bring a guy in a wheelchair missing an arm. That's the Chicago way!
For some reason this exchange also reminds me of an NHL bench clearing brawl where the two goalies end up squaring off. Unlikely combatants, not something you see every day.
For more on what you might have heard inside the Obama rally, check out this post at the Nihilist in Golf Pants.
A Night To Remember
Last night, we attended the Linden Hills 911 Tribute at the Lake Harriet Band Shell in Minneapolis. The weather was fine, the crowd strong, the music moving, and the 9/11 remembrances were very well done. We've been at this event several times in the past and this clearly was the best one yet.
The sixty-four piece orchestra was conducted by Manny Laureano and they performed extraordinarily well, particularly on the 1812 Overture. The entire event was also unapologetically patriotic from the Pledge of Allegiance at the opening to the rousing close with God Bless America. In between, we were also treated to the Armed Forces Salute and a parade of flag-waving kids (including two of ours) stepping lively to Sousa's Washington Post March.
The tribute definitely achieved its goal of remembering and honoring those who lost their lives on 9/11. The "Flashback" featuring a reading of news reports from the 9/11/01 while banners listing the names of the victims were unfurled was an especially effective way to remember the powerful emotions of the day.
It was also refreshing to not have to hear from a single politician. A few years ago, a portion of the 9/11 Tribute was spent with Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak recognizing the first responders from the Minneapolis bridge collapse. There's a time and a place for that. This event is not it.
The event was not shy about religion either with an invocation at the opening and a lump-in-the-throat inducing rendition of Amazing Grace (a world premier of this particular arrangement) during the candlelight vigil at the end. The pipes get to you every time on that one.
Finally, the wonderful evening was capped off by a brief and unexpected fireworks display. While some might not consider it an appropriate way to remember 9/11, I thought it a perfect statement that while our country was deeply hurt by the attacks that day we are still the United States of America--the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The sixty-four piece orchestra was conducted by Manny Laureano and they performed extraordinarily well, particularly on the 1812 Overture. The entire event was also unapologetically patriotic from the Pledge of Allegiance at the opening to the rousing close with God Bless America. In between, we were also treated to the Armed Forces Salute and a parade of flag-waving kids (including two of ours) stepping lively to Sousa's Washington Post March.
The tribute definitely achieved its goal of remembering and honoring those who lost their lives on 9/11. The "Flashback" featuring a reading of news reports from the 9/11/01 while banners listing the names of the victims were unfurled was an especially effective way to remember the powerful emotions of the day.
It was also refreshing to not have to hear from a single politician. A few years ago, a portion of the 9/11 Tribute was spent with Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak recognizing the first responders from the Minneapolis bridge collapse. There's a time and a place for that. This event is not it.
The event was not shy about religion either with an invocation at the opening and a lump-in-the-throat inducing rendition of Amazing Grace (a world premier of this particular arrangement) during the candlelight vigil at the end. The pipes get to you every time on that one.
Finally, the wonderful evening was capped off by a brief and unexpected fireworks display. While some might not consider it an appropriate way to remember 9/11, I thought it a perfect statement that while our country was deeply hurt by the attacks that day we are still the United States of America--the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Searing Memories
The Common Cents Blog has collected some good videos that bring back the sense of horror and shock that we felt eight years ago today.
Beer Of The Week (Vol XXIII)
This week's Beer of the Week brought to you as always by Glen Lake Wine & Spirits. Their motto is "happiness is a full bottle."
Last week, I mentioned that it has been my experiences that American efforts to imitate Germany's Oktoberfest generally fall flat. There are usually a decent number of Oktoberfest events here in the Upper Midwest every year. One of if not the largest takes place in La Crosse, Wisconsin and is billed as "Oktoberfest USA."
It has been a few years since I attended La Crosse's Oktoberfest, but when I was last there in 2003 I found very little that resembled the real thing. All it really was exactly what you might expect to see on any given weekend in Wisconsin writ large. Well-fed Wisconsinites downing copious amounts of Miller Lite and stuffing their maws with brats is not exactly my idea of Oktoberfest. As I noted at the time:
In Munich, you have good beer served in one liter glasses, accompanied by roasted chicken, with traditional German music in the background.
In La Crosse, you have Miller Lite served in plastic cups, accompanied by brats, with crappy rock and roll in the background.
There are some American versions of Oktoberfest that do come much closer to capturing the original spirit. Usually they are not the big fair-like events, but rather smaller celebrations at places like Gasthof zur Gemutlichkeit in Nordeast Minneapolis. Although the venue is much smaller, the beer, music, and food at the Gasthof makes for a more genuine Oktoberfest atmosphere.
But if you can't get to Munich or even a night out in Minneapolis, you can still have your own Oktoberfest celebration. All you really need is the beer. This week we have two more Oktoberfest selections. I was able to review them concurrently (at the same time JB), which provided an opportunity for a side by side compare and contrast. While both beers are Marzens and share some similarities, there were a few notable differences as well.
First up is August Schell's Octoberfest from New Ulm, Minnesota.
Brown bottle. Attractive label featuring beer girl with flowers in her hair and big steins. With Bavarian flags set against the Schell's brewery in the background.
Beer Style: Octoberfest Marzen
Alcohol by Volume: 5.5%
COLOR (0-2): Light brownish red. 2
AROMA (0-2): Malt with hints of hop. 1
HEAD (0-2): Off-white color. Full with good lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Malt with light hops. Decent flavor, but not much there. 2
AFTERTASTE (0-2): A bit light. 1
OVERALL (0-6): Looks great in the glass, but comes up short in the mouth. Very drinkable, just not a lot of flavor. 3
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 11
Next up is Samuel Adams Octoberfest from Boston.
Brown bottle with a simple standard Sam Adams label with orange border and fall leafs.
Beer Style: Octoberfest Marzen
Alcohol by Volume: 5.7%
COLOR (0-2): Clear copper. 2
AROMA (0-2): Malty but faint. 1
HEAD (0-2): Light tan color. Little lacing and fades fast. 1
TASTE (0-5): Malt with caramel with a creamy texture. 3
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Smooth finish. 2
OVERALL (0-6): Good flavor and body. It's a little more interesting than many Marzens and although I'm not a huge fan of the style I liked this beer. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 13
Last week, I mentioned that it has been my experiences that American efforts to imitate Germany's Oktoberfest generally fall flat. There are usually a decent number of Oktoberfest events here in the Upper Midwest every year. One of if not the largest takes place in La Crosse, Wisconsin and is billed as "Oktoberfest USA."
It has been a few years since I attended La Crosse's Oktoberfest, but when I was last there in 2003 I found very little that resembled the real thing. All it really was exactly what you might expect to see on any given weekend in Wisconsin writ large. Well-fed Wisconsinites downing copious amounts of Miller Lite and stuffing their maws with brats is not exactly my idea of Oktoberfest. As I noted at the time:
In Munich, you have good beer served in one liter glasses, accompanied by roasted chicken, with traditional German music in the background.
In La Crosse, you have Miller Lite served in plastic cups, accompanied by brats, with crappy rock and roll in the background.
There are some American versions of Oktoberfest that do come much closer to capturing the original spirit. Usually they are not the big fair-like events, but rather smaller celebrations at places like Gasthof zur Gemutlichkeit in Nordeast Minneapolis. Although the venue is much smaller, the beer, music, and food at the Gasthof makes for a more genuine Oktoberfest atmosphere.
But if you can't get to Munich or even a night out in Minneapolis, you can still have your own Oktoberfest celebration. All you really need is the beer. This week we have two more Oktoberfest selections. I was able to review them concurrently (at the same time JB), which provided an opportunity for a side by side compare and contrast. While both beers are Marzens and share some similarities, there were a few notable differences as well.
First up is August Schell's Octoberfest from New Ulm, Minnesota.
Brown bottle. Attractive label featuring beer girl with flowers in her hair and big steins. With Bavarian flags set against the Schell's brewery in the background. Beer Style: Octoberfest Marzen
Alcohol by Volume: 5.5%
COLOR (0-2): Light brownish red. 2
AROMA (0-2): Malt with hints of hop. 1
HEAD (0-2): Off-white color. Full with good lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Malt with light hops. Decent flavor, but not much there. 2
AFTERTASTE (0-2): A bit light. 1
OVERALL (0-6): Looks great in the glass, but comes up short in the mouth. Very drinkable, just not a lot of flavor. 3
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 11
Next up is Samuel Adams Octoberfest from Boston.
Brown bottle with a simple standard Sam Adams label with orange border and fall leafs. Beer Style: Octoberfest Marzen
Alcohol by Volume: 5.7%
COLOR (0-2): Clear copper. 2
AROMA (0-2): Malty but faint. 1
HEAD (0-2): Light tan color. Little lacing and fades fast. 1
TASTE (0-5): Malt with caramel with a creamy texture. 3
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Smooth finish. 2
OVERALL (0-6): Good flavor and body. It's a little more interesting than many Marzens and although I'm not a huge fan of the style I liked this beer. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 13
On Dissent Crushing
Rep. Betty McCollum, taking a breather from spending billions of US tax dollars on "empowering the ignored and alienated in every corner of our planet", briefly turns her attention to domestic issues:
The Minnesota Democrat, taking aim at instantly-famous Republican Joe Wilson, said his outburst "crossed a line of protocol and decency that may be acceptable for angry 'tea baggers' at a rally, but is completely unacceptable for a member of Congress."
Her personal political action committee (Betty PAC) is also giving $1,000 of its hard-earned donations to whoever is running against Wilson.
McCollum's stated motivation, of grave concern about the decorum required during political speeches, is absurd. As we've been told by them repeatedly, the Democrat party is in the business of dissent, speaking truth to power, getting in people's faces, etc. The difference with this situation is that these very same tactics were directed at the One who shall not be criticized and that will not be tolerated.
Her belief in this is so strong that she's willing to give a grand of her precious political donations to see this critic lose his job and be silenced (at least from speaking in an official capacity). And by the way, you citizens in Betty McCollum's district who attended protest rallies opposing Obama health care reform, you're not off the hook either. In case you didn't notice, you have been officially smeared by your Representative, using crude sexual innuendo against you. I guess the "lines of protocol and decency" don't extend to the common people. Remember that next time you think you have the right to speak out against what the government is planning for you.
UPDATE: According to Open Secrets, the Betty PAC has raised over $27,000 for the 2010 election cycle, already over twice as much as for the entire 2008 cycle. I don't know why that would be.
Biggest donors are: The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ($5,000), The Teamsters ($2,500), and, incongruously in this company, 3M ($1,000).
UPDATE: Speaking of crossing lines of protocol and decency, McCollum claims Joe Wilson did it by calling the President a liar. Those lines must have been redrawn since 2008, when Rep. McCollum said from that same House chamber regarding a different President:
"At a time when America is facing tremendous challenges at home and around the world, this is the best budget that the worst President in American history will agree to."
The protocol! The decency! Oh, the humanity!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Down the (Communist) Rabitt Hole
I've been waiting.
Ever since I read the news early Sunday morning (late Saturday night if you're in Santa Monica) that the beloved founder of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement was no longer working at the White House. The victim of vicious smears, he resigned.
A tough environment for jobs, coming home to roost.
Nobody, no where, no how, has had the temerity to raise the issue of "Communists in the White House!" So passe is the notion of revolutionary Marxist-Leninist "intellectuals" in the academy, in the arts, in the unions and in the Democrat Party, that they no longer merit attention.
The notion of "smearing" someone with the label (of self-professed Communist) has lost it's cachet along with the long forgotten epithet of "McCarthyism". Today's thirty-second attention span generation can't be bothered to waste time texting or tweeting such terms, much less understanding their historical context or factual foundation, emanating from the "witch-hunts" of yore.
Let's be honest. The communist "threat" died with the glorious experiment formerly known as the Soviet Union. A moribund ideology, left on the scrap heap of history. (Hat-tip Ronaldus Maximus) And so it is. Except.
Except Communist China. Except Communist North Korea. Except Communist South Africa. Except Communist Zimbabwe. Except Communist Venezuela.
Except SEIU. Except ACORN. Except Code Pink. Except Move-On.Org. Except Bill Ayers.
And except Van Jones. The highly valued, highly regarded, widely respected (?) and highly sought-after (former) Special Assistant to the President of the United States of America.
"Sure, sure" say the sceptics and nay-sayers, groaning and rolling their eyes. "Thin gruel that, Crazy Uke. Hardly anyone noticed, and even less people care." Maybe.
Maybe professing allegiance to an ideology that consumed EIGHTY-FIVE TO ONE HUNDRED MILLION LIVES during a sixty to seventy year slice of the twentieth century no longer causes concern, or for that matter a raised eyebrow. (The Black Book of Communism)Most of this genocidal madness occurring during peace-time, and was committed against a compliant and cowering citizenry by it's own dictatorial rulers. How are these ancient historical events and long-forgotten tragedies meaningful today?
The reality of the situation is this. The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, has for his entire life has been surrounded, influenced, shaped, guided, advised and assisted by those who professed allegiance and swore fealty to that ideology. It is readily apparent that this unsettling phenomenon continues to this day.
No one, including your aghast interlocutor, suggests or intimates that devastation, destruction or death camps are imminent, resulting from the above noted current state of affairs. It is passing curious however, that no one (NY Times, CBS, MSNBC, et.al.) finds the situation disturbing on it's face.
Two more thoughts, for your individual consideration, before I leave.
The appeal and root core of the Communist creed is the notion of the perfectibility of man, by virtue of a perfected ideological understanding. Unfortunately the true-believers who are charged with delivering and administering our promised salvation, inevitably fall prey to human failings and human conceit. Leading to the devaluing of all other human thought, belief, ideology and faith. In fact, to the very devaluing of human life itself.
With predictable results.
And so it seems, in the face of odles and boodles of crisises hither and yon, the enlightened elite hasten us, the polity, towards urgent solutions, unavoidable actions and decisive decisions based on what THEY KNOW is best for US.
And those who question or oppose? Enemies, obstuctionsists, fear-mongers and worse.
Why hurry to pass legislation to solve a health-care "crisis" when the cure won't take effect for years?
Why hurry to pass legislation to stimulate (?) growth in the face of an economic "crisis", when that "stimulus" won't be spent for years?
Why hurry to pass legislation to shackle economic and industrial growth to solve a climate-change "crisis" when that policy won't be implemented for years? (A crisis whose central premise continues to disapate in the face of honest scepticism and true science.)
Because Van Jones says so, and he's a member of the elitist cadre that's been appointed (selected not elected!) to lead us to the Promised Land. He and his fellow travlers.
Understand also, that this cursed ideology is antithetical to the system of governance we enjoy, and to the philosophical underpinings that engendered it. Personal property. Personal liberty. Personal responsibility. Political, religious and philosophical pluralism.
Take Honduras for example. Is it inconceivable and unconscionable that the world's oldest democratic republic would reject the will of the Honduran people as evidenced by a free and fair election.
And yet this stands as the current foreign policy of our elected government. Cleary a position based on the enlighted understanding and superior intellect of the perfected ideologues currently steering our ship of state. And not so much the citizens of Honduras.
Beware!
There are Socialists, Communists, Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries imbeded in our government apparat. And what if you don't personally fear their ideology, or share concern over their beliefs?
Be aware.
They are striving mightly to impose their enlightenment on you.
Ever since I read the news early Sunday morning (late Saturday night if you're in Santa Monica) that the beloved founder of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement was no longer working at the White House. The victim of vicious smears, he resigned.
A tough environment for jobs, coming home to roost.
Nobody, no where, no how, has had the temerity to raise the issue of "Communists in the White House!" So passe is the notion of revolutionary Marxist-Leninist "intellectuals" in the academy, in the arts, in the unions and in the Democrat Party, that they no longer merit attention.
The notion of "smearing" someone with the label (of self-professed Communist) has lost it's cachet along with the long forgotten epithet of "McCarthyism". Today's thirty-second attention span generation can't be bothered to waste time texting or tweeting such terms, much less understanding their historical context or factual foundation, emanating from the "witch-hunts" of yore.
Let's be honest. The communist "threat" died with the glorious experiment formerly known as the Soviet Union. A moribund ideology, left on the scrap heap of history. (Hat-tip Ronaldus Maximus) And so it is. Except.
Except Communist China. Except Communist North Korea. Except Communist South Africa. Except Communist Zimbabwe. Except Communist Venezuela.
Except SEIU. Except ACORN. Except Code Pink. Except Move-On.Org. Except Bill Ayers.
And except Van Jones. The highly valued, highly regarded, widely respected (?) and highly sought-after (former) Special Assistant to the President of the United States of America.
"Sure, sure" say the sceptics and nay-sayers, groaning and rolling their eyes. "Thin gruel that, Crazy Uke. Hardly anyone noticed, and even less people care." Maybe.
Maybe professing allegiance to an ideology that consumed EIGHTY-FIVE TO ONE HUNDRED MILLION LIVES during a sixty to seventy year slice of the twentieth century no longer causes concern, or for that matter a raised eyebrow. (The Black Book of Communism)Most of this genocidal madness occurring during peace-time, and was committed against a compliant and cowering citizenry by it's own dictatorial rulers. How are these ancient historical events and long-forgotten tragedies meaningful today?
The reality of the situation is this. The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, has for his entire life has been surrounded, influenced, shaped, guided, advised and assisted by those who professed allegiance and swore fealty to that ideology. It is readily apparent that this unsettling phenomenon continues to this day.
No one, including your aghast interlocutor, suggests or intimates that devastation, destruction or death camps are imminent, resulting from the above noted current state of affairs. It is passing curious however, that no one (NY Times, CBS, MSNBC, et.al.) finds the situation disturbing on it's face.
Two more thoughts, for your individual consideration, before I leave.
The appeal and root core of the Communist creed is the notion of the perfectibility of man, by virtue of a perfected ideological understanding. Unfortunately the true-believers who are charged with delivering and administering our promised salvation, inevitably fall prey to human failings and human conceit. Leading to the devaluing of all other human thought, belief, ideology and faith. In fact, to the very devaluing of human life itself.
With predictable results.
And so it seems, in the face of odles and boodles of crisises hither and yon, the enlightened elite hasten us, the polity, towards urgent solutions, unavoidable actions and decisive decisions based on what THEY KNOW is best for US.
And those who question or oppose? Enemies, obstuctionsists, fear-mongers and worse.
Why hurry to pass legislation to solve a health-care "crisis" when the cure won't take effect for years?
Why hurry to pass legislation to stimulate (?) growth in the face of an economic "crisis", when that "stimulus" won't be spent for years?
Why hurry to pass legislation to shackle economic and industrial growth to solve a climate-change "crisis" when that policy won't be implemented for years? (A crisis whose central premise continues to disapate in the face of honest scepticism and true science.)
Because Van Jones says so, and he's a member of the elitist cadre that's been appointed (selected not elected!) to lead us to the Promised Land. He and his fellow travlers.
Understand also, that this cursed ideology is antithetical to the system of governance we enjoy, and to the philosophical underpinings that engendered it. Personal property. Personal liberty. Personal responsibility. Political, religious and philosophical pluralism.
Take Honduras for example. Is it inconceivable and unconscionable that the world's oldest democratic republic would reject the will of the Honduran people as evidenced by a free and fair election.
And yet this stands as the current foreign policy of our elected government. Cleary a position based on the enlighted understanding and superior intellect of the perfected ideologues currently steering our ship of state. And not so much the citizens of Honduras.
Beware!
There are Socialists, Communists, Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries imbeded in our government apparat. And what if you don't personally fear their ideology, or share concern over their beliefs?
Be aware.
They are striving mightly to impose their enlightenment on you.
MOB Myth Busting
MOB Party: Myths Exposed!
The Minnesota Organization of Bloggers (or MOB) has been a going concern for five years now. And we'll be having our fifth anniversary gala this Saturday at Keegan's, just west of Hennepin on University in northeast Minneapolis, from 6:30 'til whenever we're done (usually around 11 or so).
The Minnesota Organization of Bloggers (or MOB) has been a going concern for five years now. And we'll be having our fifth anniversary gala this Saturday at Keegan's, just west of Hennepin on University in northeast Minneapolis, from 6:30 'til whenever we're done (usually around 11 or so).
Nothing To Kill Or Die For
At First Thoughts, Keith Pavlischek notes that when it comes to their views on whether war is every justified, the differences between Americans and Europeans are much more significant that using mayo as a condiment with french fries:
The most striking difference between Americans and Europeans is reflected in answers to the following rather cautiously worded statement:
Please tell me to what extend you agree with the following: Under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice.
The American response:
Strongly agree: 37 percent
Somewhat agree: 34 percent
Somewhat disagree: 11 percent
Strongly disagree: 14 percent
For those who are counting, that's 71 percent who agree to 25 percent who disagree.
By contrast, the Europeans answer:
Strongly agree: 8 percent
Somewhat agree: 17 percent
Somewhat disagree: 22 percent
Strongly disagree: 49 percent
That's 25 percent who agree to 71 percent who disagree.
The UK is the only European nation that could muster a majority who agree that under some conditions war is necessary to obtain justice, but only barely at 55-40 percent, coming in at percentages of: 20, 35, 15, and 25 respectively.
On the Continent one finds a rather dismal picture. Worth mentioning is the high percentage of Europeans who strongly disagree, suggesting that they believe that under no conditions can war ever be necessary to obtain justice: 57 percent of the French (5, 13, 24, 57), 55 percent of the Germans (6, 13, 25, 55), 64 percent of the Italians (4, 12, 20, 64), 55 percent of the Spanish (4, 10, 30, 55), and 60 percent of the Belgians (3, 14, 18, 60). Only 47 percent of the Dutch strongly disagree (10, 19, 22, 47), which makes them, I suppose, the warmongers of the Continent.
Or perhaps the ones more mindful of what it's like to be occupied by powerful neighbors.
Pretty bleak, but then again, let's look on the bright side. Who wouldn't prefer having a nation of German pacifists than a nation of goose-stepping Nazis traipsing through Europe? Certainly, the German pacifism of the first part of the twenty-first century is to be preferred to the German militarism of the first half of the twentieth.
But militarism and pacifism, of course, don't exhaust the range of moral options (and I would argue that they tend to go together like Tweedledee and Tweedledum, but that is for another day.) If they thought real, real hard, and reached deep into their heritage, Europeans just might be able to come up with a few conditions under which war should be waged for the sake of justice. Or maybe not so deep, maybe just as far back as, say, Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald. A visit to the American cemetery at, say, Normandy, for example, might also serve to jar their collective conscience. But I doubt it.
Back in aught-two, I shared my thoughts on the rise of post-war European pacifism in a lengthy post. Most of what I wrote at the time still holds up pretty well today based on the latest survey results that Pavlischek cites:
Because the Germans did suffer tremendously in the World Wars and the Cold War they tend to view themselves as victims of war and proof that war is never justified. And when you see the evidence of how thoroughly their country was ravaged, particularly from the aerial bombing in Word War II, it is possible to understand the basis for their belief. They witnessed the horrors of World War II firsthand and the fact that they are now able to peacefully coexist with their past enemies from that conflict leads them to believe that the war was avoidable and so are all future wars. The nearly sixty years of peace that they have enjoyed since 1945 is attributed to their diplomacy and communication and they feel that the fall of Communism was inevitable.
This view seems to ignore the fact that it was not diplomacy or communication but rather war that ended the terrors of Nazism. It also does not recognize that the fall of Communism was not a historic inevitability and that only the threat of war (the U.S. nuclear umbrella, 350,000 American troops in West Germany) ensured the security of Western Europe during the Cold War.
The Germans, the Italians, other small European countries, and even the French were at one time or another defeated on the field of battle, occupied by foreign powers, and to differing levels had their countries devastated during World War II. Even the countries that were on the victorious Allied side, emerged beaten down physically and psychologically from the conflict. The French were allowed to be a part of the Allied coalition that reestablished peace in Europe but they knew in their hearts that they had lost the war and that their country was much weaker as a result of it. So for most of the countries of continental Europe the Second World War was a disaster for their peoples, their economies, and their national psyches. After what had happened many lost their faith in their national identities and patriotism was seen as outdated and unnecessary. The ensuing Cold War cloaked this uneasiness as the U.S. rebuilt the economies of Western Europe through the Marshall Plan and the Iron Curtain descended on Eastern Europe.
But the end of the Cold War and the rise of the European Union has brought this lack of confidence in their individual countries to the forefront of European attitudes about themselves. Like insecure school children they crave acceptance by the group (in this case the world) and so are unwilling or unable to stand on their own. Besides they are not really sure anymore about what is right or wrong so they go along with the majority seeking safety in numbers. They want disputes to be handled by the U.N. rather than having to become involved and individually pass judgment or take action. The fact that many European countries have already ceded much of their national sovereignty to the E.U. (currency, banking system, etc.) makes this surrender of power to the will of the "international community" all the easier.
The one thing that may no longer be quite as true--at least based on this data--was my belief that the British were different. While a majority of Brits (55%) still believe that war is sometimes necessary to obtain justice, that number is hardly overwhelming and far short of where American public opinions stands.
While the Europeans will likely be able to carry on with these pacifist attitudes for some time without consequence, you have to wonder (and worry) about what will transpire when they are faced with a threat from people who do believe that there are still things worth fighting and dying for.
UPDATE: Another data nugget from the survey that caught my eye:
People on both sides of the Atlantic were concerned about climate change, but respondents in the European Union (48% very concerned) were more intensely worried than Americans (40% very concerned). The most anxious were the Portuguese (62% very concerned), while the least apprehensive were the Dutch (just 23% very concerned) and the Poles (29% very concerned).
It's interesting that the country in Europe most threatened by the rising sea levels that are predicted to accompany climate change are the least worried about it. Hard to beat the Dutch when it comes to being practical.
The most striking difference between Americans and Europeans is reflected in answers to the following rather cautiously worded statement:
Please tell me to what extend you agree with the following: Under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice.
The American response:
Strongly agree: 37 percent
Somewhat agree: 34 percent
Somewhat disagree: 11 percent
Strongly disagree: 14 percent
For those who are counting, that's 71 percent who agree to 25 percent who disagree.
By contrast, the Europeans answer:
Strongly agree: 8 percent
Somewhat agree: 17 percent
Somewhat disagree: 22 percent
Strongly disagree: 49 percent
That's 25 percent who agree to 71 percent who disagree.
The UK is the only European nation that could muster a majority who agree that under some conditions war is necessary to obtain justice, but only barely at 55-40 percent, coming in at percentages of: 20, 35, 15, and 25 respectively.
On the Continent one finds a rather dismal picture. Worth mentioning is the high percentage of Europeans who strongly disagree, suggesting that they believe that under no conditions can war ever be necessary to obtain justice: 57 percent of the French (5, 13, 24, 57), 55 percent of the Germans (6, 13, 25, 55), 64 percent of the Italians (4, 12, 20, 64), 55 percent of the Spanish (4, 10, 30, 55), and 60 percent of the Belgians (3, 14, 18, 60). Only 47 percent of the Dutch strongly disagree (10, 19, 22, 47), which makes them, I suppose, the warmongers of the Continent.
Or perhaps the ones more mindful of what it's like to be occupied by powerful neighbors.
Pretty bleak, but then again, let's look on the bright side. Who wouldn't prefer having a nation of German pacifists than a nation of goose-stepping Nazis traipsing through Europe? Certainly, the German pacifism of the first part of the twenty-first century is to be preferred to the German militarism of the first half of the twentieth.
But militarism and pacifism, of course, don't exhaust the range of moral options (and I would argue that they tend to go together like Tweedledee and Tweedledum, but that is for another day.) If they thought real, real hard, and reached deep into their heritage, Europeans just might be able to come up with a few conditions under which war should be waged for the sake of justice. Or maybe not so deep, maybe just as far back as, say, Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald. A visit to the American cemetery at, say, Normandy, for example, might also serve to jar their collective conscience. But I doubt it.
Back in aught-two, I shared my thoughts on the rise of post-war European pacifism in a lengthy post. Most of what I wrote at the time still holds up pretty well today based on the latest survey results that Pavlischek cites:
Because the Germans did suffer tremendously in the World Wars and the Cold War they tend to view themselves as victims of war and proof that war is never justified. And when you see the evidence of how thoroughly their country was ravaged, particularly from the aerial bombing in Word War II, it is possible to understand the basis for their belief. They witnessed the horrors of World War II firsthand and the fact that they are now able to peacefully coexist with their past enemies from that conflict leads them to believe that the war was avoidable and so are all future wars. The nearly sixty years of peace that they have enjoyed since 1945 is attributed to their diplomacy and communication and they feel that the fall of Communism was inevitable.
This view seems to ignore the fact that it was not diplomacy or communication but rather war that ended the terrors of Nazism. It also does not recognize that the fall of Communism was not a historic inevitability and that only the threat of war (the U.S. nuclear umbrella, 350,000 American troops in West Germany) ensured the security of Western Europe during the Cold War.
The Germans, the Italians, other small European countries, and even the French were at one time or another defeated on the field of battle, occupied by foreign powers, and to differing levels had their countries devastated during World War II. Even the countries that were on the victorious Allied side, emerged beaten down physically and psychologically from the conflict. The French were allowed to be a part of the Allied coalition that reestablished peace in Europe but they knew in their hearts that they had lost the war and that their country was much weaker as a result of it. So for most of the countries of continental Europe the Second World War was a disaster for their peoples, their economies, and their national psyches. After what had happened many lost their faith in their national identities and patriotism was seen as outdated and unnecessary. The ensuing Cold War cloaked this uneasiness as the U.S. rebuilt the economies of Western Europe through the Marshall Plan and the Iron Curtain descended on Eastern Europe.
But the end of the Cold War and the rise of the European Union has brought this lack of confidence in their individual countries to the forefront of European attitudes about themselves. Like insecure school children they crave acceptance by the group (in this case the world) and so are unwilling or unable to stand on their own. Besides they are not really sure anymore about what is right or wrong so they go along with the majority seeking safety in numbers. They want disputes to be handled by the U.N. rather than having to become involved and individually pass judgment or take action. The fact that many European countries have already ceded much of their national sovereignty to the E.U. (currency, banking system, etc.) makes this surrender of power to the will of the "international community" all the easier.
The one thing that may no longer be quite as true--at least based on this data--was my belief that the British were different. While a majority of Brits (55%) still believe that war is sometimes necessary to obtain justice, that number is hardly overwhelming and far short of where American public opinions stands.
While the Europeans will likely be able to carry on with these pacifist attitudes for some time without consequence, you have to wonder (and worry) about what will transpire when they are faced with a threat from people who do believe that there are still things worth fighting and dying for.
UPDATE: Another data nugget from the survey that caught my eye:
People on both sides of the Atlantic were concerned about climate change, but respondents in the European Union (48% very concerned) were more intensely worried than Americans (40% very concerned). The most anxious were the Portuguese (62% very concerned), while the least apprehensive were the Dutch (just 23% very concerned) and the Poles (29% very concerned).
It's interesting that the country in Europe most threatened by the rising sea levels that are predicted to accompany climate change are the least worried about it. Hard to beat the Dutch when it comes to being practical.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Robbing Peter To Stimulate Paul
Good piece by Brian Riedl in the Septenber 7th edition of National Review reminds conservatives that rather that criticizing the stimulus package for its size or timing, they should focus on the fact that the entire premise behind government spending stimulating economic growth is inherently flawed (sub req):
This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested, and it has failed. If growing the economy were as simple as expanding government spending and deficits, then Italy, France, and Germany would be the global economic kings. And there would be no reason to stop at $787 billion: Congress could guarantee unlimited prosperity by endlessly borrowing and spending trillions of dollars.
The simple reason government spending fails to end recessions is that Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress "injects" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new income, and therefore no new demand, is created. They are merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air.
This is intuitively clear in the case of funding new spending with new taxes. Yet funding new spending with new borrowing is also pure redistribution, since the investors who lend Washington the money will have that much less to invest in the economy. The fact that borrowed funds (unlike taxes) must later be repaid by the government makes them no less of a zero-sum transfer today.
Even during recessions--when total production falls, leaving people with less income to spend--Congress cannot create new demand and income. Any government spending that increases production at factories and puts unemployed individuals to work will be financed by removing funds (and thus idling resources) elsewhere in the economy. This is true whether the unemployment rate is 5 percent or 50 percent.
For example, many lawmakers claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus will create 47,576 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private economy, which will then lose a roughly equivalent number of jobs. As transportation-policy expert Ronald Utt has explained, "the only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven." Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and dumping it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, moving dollars from one part of the economy to the other will not expand the economy. Not even in the short run.
This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested, and it has failed. If growing the economy were as simple as expanding government spending and deficits, then Italy, France, and Germany would be the global economic kings. And there would be no reason to stop at $787 billion: Congress could guarantee unlimited prosperity by endlessly borrowing and spending trillions of dollars.
The simple reason government spending fails to end recessions is that Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress "injects" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new income, and therefore no new demand, is created. They are merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air.
This is intuitively clear in the case of funding new spending with new taxes. Yet funding new spending with new borrowing is also pure redistribution, since the investors who lend Washington the money will have that much less to invest in the economy. The fact that borrowed funds (unlike taxes) must later be repaid by the government makes them no less of a zero-sum transfer today.
Even during recessions--when total production falls, leaving people with less income to spend--Congress cannot create new demand and income. Any government spending that increases production at factories and puts unemployed individuals to work will be financed by removing funds (and thus idling resources) elsewhere in the economy. This is true whether the unemployment rate is 5 percent or 50 percent.
For example, many lawmakers claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus will create 47,576 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private economy, which will then lose a roughly equivalent number of jobs. As transportation-policy expert Ronald Utt has explained, "the only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven." Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and dumping it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, moving dollars from one part of the economy to the other will not expand the economy. Not even in the short run.
Ignoring The Medium & Missing The Message
Camille Paglia on Democratic detachment:
Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year's tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators? First of all, too many political analysts still think that network and cable TV chat shows are the central forums of national debate. But the truly transformative political energy is coming from talk radio and the Web--both of which Democrat-sponsored proposals have threatened to stifle, in defiance of freedom of speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights. I rarely watch TV anymore except for cooking shows, history and science documentaries, old movies and football. Hence I was blissfully free from the retching overkill that followed the deaths of Michael Jackson and Ted Kennedy--I never saw a single minute of any of it. It was on talk radio, which I have resumed monitoring around the clock because of the healthcare fiasco, that I heard the passionate voices of callers coming directly from the town hall meetings. Hence I was alerted to the depth and intensity of national sentiment long before others who were simply watching staged, manipulated TV shows.
Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.
Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year's tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators? First of all, too many political analysts still think that network and cable TV chat shows are the central forums of national debate. But the truly transformative political energy is coming from talk radio and the Web--both of which Democrat-sponsored proposals have threatened to stifle, in defiance of freedom of speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights. I rarely watch TV anymore except for cooking shows, history and science documentaries, old movies and football. Hence I was blissfully free from the retching overkill that followed the deaths of Michael Jackson and Ted Kennedy--I never saw a single minute of any of it. It was on talk radio, which I have resumed monitoring around the clock because of the healthcare fiasco, that I heard the passionate voices of callers coming directly from the town hall meetings. Hence I was alerted to the depth and intensity of national sentiment long before others who were simply watching staged, manipulated TV shows.
Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.
No More Words
Ben from Infinite Monkeys had his 7-year-old son analyze President Obama's back-to-school speech:
Me: So, Benjamin, you heard the president speak today. What did you think?
Benjamin: Mmmm. Naw.
Me: What do you mean? You didn't hear it or...?
Benjamin: I didn't like it.
Me: Why not?
Benjamin: Well, I couldn't really understand most of the words, and there was a lot of talking.
Nothing drives a young boy to distraction like a lot of talking. Maybe next year President Obama can deliver his speech to kids while going through the Wipeout course. Might help keep his target audience more interested.
Me: So, Benjamin, you heard the president speak today. What did you think?
Benjamin: Mmmm. Naw.
Me: What do you mean? You didn't hear it or...?
Benjamin: I didn't like it.
Me: Why not?
Benjamin: Well, I couldn't really understand most of the words, and there was a lot of talking.
Nothing drives a young boy to distraction like a lot of talking. Maybe next year President Obama can deliver his speech to kids while going through the Wipeout course. Might help keep his target audience more interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)