Civil Society

Well, at Least We Know ABC is Immune to Intellectual Embarassment

by

Creeping Chavezismo in the MSM in regard to President Obama. From Drudge:

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm! Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

Imagine if ABC news delivered a report on religion from the Vatican and excluded non-Catholics. What message would that send? This is an amazing level of sycophancy toward a president by a major media outlet, even a Democratic president.Let us hear no more whining about bias on FOX or talk radio, this stunt by ABC amounts to unpaid advertisng and a de facto government TV program. Why is this happening? Simple Obama-worship at ABC? Unlikely.

Read more

Educating Obama

by

Thomas Sowell has been re-reading the works of Edmund Burke, and finds the words of this philosopher to be very relevant to our current era.

I wonder if Obama, during his much-heralded passage through the university system, ever found time to read Burke and other writers (Hayek, for example) who are outside of the “progressive” worldview?

(via Common Sense & Wonder)

And Victor Davis Hanson suggests that Obama might have a little more depth in his understanding of the world had he ever owned a small farm with a difficult neighbor.

Monkeywrenching Socialism – Ratchet Smashing I

by

The effort needed to make government bigger is much less than the effort needed to make government smaller. This is the basic principle that underlies the government ratchet effect. The beneficiaries of government action are concentrated and thus both have more at stake and know it than the beneficiaries of shrinking government which are very often the general public who derive at best a diffuse benefit that is often not even noticed or even understood.

But I believe this pro-socialist ratchet dynamic only happens so long as the starting question is “should government (or program x) be cut?” What if we start from a different question? What if the assumption is that there is a lot of bad government out there and that as a matter of course 10% (or 5% or 15%) of the government can and should be turned over each year so that poor past decisions don’t hang around forever. Which part would get cut? The answer becomes obvious, the corrupt, useless, inefficient parts, of course. The corrupt, useless, and inefficient caucus is tiny (at least when it’s identified as such). Nobody supports corrupt, useless, and inefficient government out loud, even self-described socialists. This sort of government is supported by ‘middle of the night’ bill insertions and inertia.

The counter-argument would be to assume that good, efficient, honest programs would be disrupted and now we wouldn’t want that would we? But this assumes that a significant chunk of government programs are incapable of being reformed and improved by termination, privatization, or reform. That’s something that needs to proved, not assumed.

Most everybody right now wants to protect their own ox from getting gored. so there is a fear that ‘my’ programs are going to be disproportionately targeted and ‘your’ programs will be protected by political juice. The trick to avoiding this sort of cynical CYA is to identify the targeted bottom percentage in a fair way. This is where things get sticky because it’s something of a risky proposition to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

What if we simply asked everybody who would have an expert opinion, to simply rate the worthiness of every program, to the extent they can. All members of the legislature, all members of the executive giving their opinions to identify the stinkers. What if we made it a job requirement? Of course the system would be gamed but it would be a massive improvement on current practice and would significantly reduce the ratchet effect.

Right now, there is no generalized expectation that the legislature will periodically review government expenditures, pick out the worst, and either let bad things expire, privatize the solution, or provide a better, more efficient, less expensive way to solve the problem using government action. Cutting government in this system becomes progressive, not reactionary. Getting through less than 10% of the government is a real world assertion of incompetence on the part of incumbent legislators. And all that need change to bring about this happy state of affairs is to change the expectations game. Legislation will follow to eliminate the free riders.

The Kindness of Strangers

by

Last year, a buddy and I were driving to the shooting range when we witnessed a terrible crash on the highway.

We stopped to help, of course. So did other people who were passing by. One man, confusing the steam billowing from the shattered radiator as evidence of fire, even managed to pull the door open from the twisted frame using brute strength alone. (We reached him in time, before he laid hands on the victim, and explained that it was a bad idea.)

Emergency services were called, and the cars passing by slowed down to gawk. Many people pulled over to the side of the road, asking if there was anything they could do. The response was so wide spread that there was a danger that the way would be blocked by the cars of amateur rescuers. I had to station myself next to the road, thanking everyone for their concern, but sending them on their way if they weren’t trained in rescue or medicine.

I was driving alone a few months later when another car accident occurred right in front of me, this time in a residential neighborhood. No injuries or deaths, although the damage to both vehicles was extensive.

I stopped to help, of course, and found the same situation. People driving by would ask if there was anything they could do. Those who lived near by not only phoned the authorities, but they came out of their homes and hustled down the street with first aid kits, bottled water, fire extinguishers and blankets. After determining that I didn’t need to administer first aid, my role became one of thanking the concerned and asking them to keep moving so the police and tow trucks could get through.

Are the people in Columbus, Ohio just more noble people than those living elsewhere? I find that to be impossible to believe.

Read more