Does the President Actually Understand the Concept of Insurance?

As much as leftists like to call Sarah Palin stupid, I’m think I can confidently assert that she knows the difference between liability and comprehensive automotive insurance.

I have long assumed that the demagoguery by Obama and other leftists against the insurance companies was just cynical “eat the rich” politics. I assumed that behind closed doors, these Ivy League grads did actually understand that insurance provides protection against statistical risk only and not protection against absolute certainties. I assumed they understood that money being payed out in claims has to be balanced out by money paid in as premiums or the entire system will collapse very quickly.

However, hearing the President speak on the matter of insurance over the course of the past year, I’ve come to the conclusion that he, personally, simply does not understand how insurance works. I fear that no one else around him really understands either.

I say this because if he did understand how insurance worked, he would know that the story about his car insurance would make him look like an idiot.

Read more

The Makers vs the Talkers

[Note :I wrote this as a comment to this Victor Davids Hanson post but it ran long enough that I think I will make it an actual post.]

Way back in the ’80s the columnist William Raspberry wrote about a conversation he had at a Washington party.

Looking around at the collection of lawyers, bureaucrats, journalists, academics, etc., he turned to a friend and asked:

“Do you know anybody who makes anything?”

It had suddenly occurred to Raspberry that his entire professional and social circle was comprised of people who more or less did nothing but talk for a living. He had no personal contact with anyone who participated in the creation of any material good. After asking around, he found that he didn’t know anyone who even made things as a hobby. He said, “I couldn’t even find anyone who had made so much as a bookcase.”

That little newspaper column opened my eyes up to the most profound division in modern society. It is not rich vs. poor or ethnic-group/race A vs. ethnic-group/race B or male vs. female etc. It is the division between those who create the real physical wealth of our civilization and those who merely manipulate others by persuasive communication.

Read more

There’s a Grand Metaphor for Leftism in This

This is taken from Failbooking.com which is a site that collects humorous Facebook posts.

Funny Facebook Fails
see more funny facebook stuff!

Just substitute “Socially/Economically/Environmentally Conscientious Voting” for “texting Haiti to 90999” and “my taxes” for “my phone bill”.

This line really sums up the leftist point of view:

It’s not my money, Hah!

But in the end, you’ve got to pay your bills, even when you’re being ostentatiously compassionate while you think you’re spending other people’s money.

Get Out Your Godwin’s Law-O-Meter

I originally posted this at zenpundit.com but then I remembered that at Chicago Boyz there are likely many readers and bloggers who are fans of Jonah Goldberg and might enjoy reading him squaring off against leftist academic critics:

HNN is running a symposium on Jonah Goldberg’s recent book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning:

While I know a great deal about the historical period in question, I have not read Goldberg’s book, so I am not going to comment on his core proposition except to say that IMHO, I tend to find arguments that the intellectual roots of Fascism and Nazism are located exclusively on one side of the political spectrum are flatly and demonstrably wrong. Goldberg’s polemical thesis though, yields a hysterical reaction because he is jubilantly shredding the hoary (and false) assertion of the academic Left, going back to the pre-Popular Front Communist Party line of the 1930s, that Fascism is a form of radicalized conservatism and a secret pawn of big-business capitalism.

Read more

“I’ve been summoned. Thursday, at ten sharp.”

The above is from Herta Muller’s novel, The Appointment. We’ve talked previously about Muller (2009 winner of the Nobel Prize in literature) here and here.

The words are brisk, painful almost, when spoken aloud. Speak them: I’ve been summoned. Thursday, at ten sharp. A young woman working in a factory in communist Romania has been sewing notes into the trouser linings of men’s suits – suits that are to be sent to Italy. She is looking for a “Marcello”:

After the business with the first notes, I put Italy out of my mind completely. It took more than linen suits for export to land a Marcello, you needed connections, couriers, and intermediaries, not trouser pockets. Instead of an Italian I landed the Major.

Major Albu has summoned the young woman, at ten sharp, to be interrogated about her conduct. She has been ratted out by another factory worker – a man she has rejected romantically. For this “crime” (wanting to escape the dictatorship by marrying a mythical Italian “Marcello”), her life is completely shattered. Or rather, the shattering is accelerated because the world was never whole to begin with. Freedom is approximated only, and in short bursts, while riding on the back of her boyfriend’s motorcycle: Once or twice a week we’d go for a ride out of town, to the river. The lane through the beanfields – now that was happiness, good fortune, luck. The bigger the sky grew overhead, the more light-headed I felt.

The novel takes place on a tram ride to the interrogation. As she rides, the main character thinks about her past, her present, her future, all in a fragmented and non-linear dream-state. The writing is intense, vivid, impressionistic. It approaches prose poetry in some sections, and yet, the poetic elements seem utterly corrupted: how dare we extract beauty from such evil!

Fellow Chicago Boyz contributor TM Lutas has said that Herta Muller’s novels will be difficult to read. And this novel is hard to read – it meanders, it pokes, it cuts, it stings. The very pages bleed.

*How is it that such an ideology took hold of the imagination of some Western intellectuals? I can never understand it. And, speaking of capturing the imagination, is anyone familiar with the following project? I stumbled across it during one of my internet rambles:

With these failures in mind, Hamilton attempts to explain the wide acceptance of Marxist claims throughout the 20th century. The answer, he says, lies not in the theory itself, but in the way it is disseminated as people vouch for it, political parties adopt it, and academics and journalists embrace it. Hamilton draws on social psychology, conformity studies, and theories of cognitive dissonance to explain this persistence. – The Marxist Rhetoric: On the Relationship of Practice and Theory, Richard Hamilton (Mershon Center for International Security Studies)