Obama: Poverty->Anger->Terrorism

There was much ado in the blogosphere yesterday regarding Obama’s post-9/11 statements that poverty led to anger which is the cause of terrorism.  I think the conservative bloggers (properly) ripped him a new one for this tired, old leftist platitude.

I want to point something else out.  This is consistent with Barack’s and his wife Michelle’s view domestically.  The term they use for this is “social justice”.

In this view, being poor causes anger (which is the response to injustice).  I guess this is what they mean by social justice: someone else’s success is unjust.  This means that if the person can’t be forced to make you successful, then he must be forced down to your level.  I guess this is what Obama meant that the rest of the world isn’t “cool with” the fact that Americans eat well, drive well, and live with central air conditioning.

The correct word for this is actually “envy”.  The poor person today is taught to envy the non-poor people.  He is taught that their non-poorness comes at his expense.  This is why he gets angry: his whims are being frustrated.  He wishes for wealth (but it doesn’t come), so he is angry when he sees others for which this seems to have worked.  He does not bother to grasp that wealthy people didn’t get wealthy by wishing.

This is the epidemic that has swept the black community.  This is why they have reverends like Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, etc.  This is why Obama said originally about the views of Wright “I don’t think they’re particularly controversial.”

They aren’t.  The envy of wealthy people is nearly unanimous among the black community, and this is why they vote almost as a perfect block for the most marxist hard Left candidates on the ballot.

Not only is this a bad way to think about islamism and terrorism, it’s also a perfectly lousy way to think about domestic policy.

One Down, 1347 to Go!

PowerLine Blog today writes “One down, one to go.”  President Bush has repealed the executive order (or whatever it is) that outlawed oil drilling on the continential shelves of both coasts.  Now Congress must repeal their own law.

There is more than just one to go.  First, as PowerLine notes, lawsuits by enviros could block drilling for decades.

But let’s take this one further.  The US Constitution provides for Congress to make legislation, the courts to ajudicate it, and the executive (of which the President is the top officer) to enforce it.  Where oh where did the president obtain the power to make his own laws?!?

After we correct the laws that enable wackos to sue to block progress, we need to repeal whatever it was that granted the president the power to make laws.

This is part of what I mean by “take America back”.

Economics 101

The Volokh Conspiracy is often thoughtful.  Today, they have an article (look near the bottom of the page) on economic policy and the economic illiteracy (illeconomocy?) of politicians.  They suggest:

• Support Free Trade
• Oppose Farm Subsidies
• Leave Oil Companies and Speculators Alone
• Tax the Use of Energy
• Raise the Retirement Age
• Invite More Skilled Immigrants
• Liberalize Drug Policy
• Raise Funds [subsidies -- Ed.] for Economic Research

Which two of these absolitely positively don’t belong (I won’t address “the” retirement age, as this is a separate topic)?  Taxing energy and subsidizing economics research.  This is typical of the blind elephant.  Not guided by any clear principles–or any principles at all–they flounder.  Sometimes they get it right–like free trade.  Sometimes they get it wrong–like subsidizing the researchers that will, not suprisingly, recommend against free trade.

Subsidies to science is what created the current climate of warmenism orthodoxy that even this marginally free market blog feels it must pander to (tax energy use) in order to sell a handful free market policies.

One of our problems is that the government is itself an interest group.  This comes about because of the lack of separation of education and state, science and state, and economy and state.

Journalist “Embedded” with Taliban

What does it mean for someone to be “embedded” with an enemy terrorist group?  Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs writes today that this is sickening.  Yes, it is.

But more, the Taliban are at war with the United States of America.  To “embed” with them is to join with them.  So this “journalist” becomes a partisan for the enemy.  And if this is done on behalf of AP, then that makes the AP traitors and the enemy.  Justice demands freezing the assets of AP, declaring them to be an enemy combatant group, arresting every director and officer, and employee, disbanding the AP, and criminalizing membership in the AP.

If this sounds radical, then my answer is that the very notion of a free and sovereign country is radical.  Let’s start acting like we take it seriously before we lose it.

 

Update

Heh.  Ace of Spades has the money quote:

“No word yet if the AP will be charging the Taliban if they use the photos or excerpts of the story on their jihadi recruitment sites.”

T Boone Lootens

While watching the Science Channel last week, I saw an ad featuring oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens.  He said he will propose–in a series of ads–a new plan to reduce our use of foreign oil, clean up the environment, feed the hungry, make the Religion of Peace peaceful, house the homeless, and get to the Age of Aquarius.

Well.

At the end, he reiterated the leftist talking point “We can’t drill our way out of this.”

Why not?  “This” refers to the problem of rising gas and oil prices.  If we start pulling oil out of Alaska, the Atlantic coast, the Pacific Coast, the Gulf, the Great Lakes, and the various oil shale deposits… then we will have more oil, right?

Wrong.  We need more subsidies to the wind industry.  Pickens has made himself a regular, old-fashioned looter.  Take from the taxpayer to give to him.

JunkScience.com has a more detailed analysis that really gets it right.

Vicious Anti-Life Policies…

I refer to our various regulations, laws, and court rulings preventing oil companies from drilling for oil or mining for oil shale.  Oil provides the energy that makes modern life possible.  If you don’t want oil, then give up your computer, your car, most of your clothes, most of your living space, most of your heating, your air conditioning, much of your food, most of your health care, most of your quality of life and much of your quantity of life.  Look at life today in a third-world pesthole, or 18th century America.

Jammiewearingfool wrote a good article, with a great video clip showing the fraud of anti-ANWR ads.  But I really love the money quote:

Everybody is preaching about saving our resources and my question is saving them for what?

Indeed!

Loot Rising

So the Science Channel has a show now called Mars Rising.  It’s shot in high-definition, with good production values, and William Shatner narrating.  It’s very well done, and it makes the mission to Mars look exciting and important.  There is only one problem.

Only a child (or an irrational fool) can seriously talk about a benefit while ignoring the cost.  In this case, estimates are all over the map, ranging from $55B to $120B.  As past experience has shown, the actual cost will exceed these early sales promises by an order of magnitude or more.  Let’s assume $300B (which I think is very generous).  That is $1000 for every man, woman, and child in the USA!

Obviously, children don’t pay taxes.  Actually, as Coyote noted in a recent blog, 50% of the taxpayers pay 97% of the tax bill.  Assuming 33% of the population is children, this leaves 200M adults.  Assuming half of these pay the tax bill, that’s 100M.  A $300B Mars program costs each person who actually pays taxes $3000.

No doubt, to the people who don’t pay much taxes, it will be easy to say “We can afford this.  We should go to Mars.  The National Prestige is at stake, not to mention the Soul of Science!”

And I will be looted an additional $3000 on top of everything else.  Because NASA knows what’s good for me better than I do.  Never forget that the whole notion of massive taxation to support a massive state is based on the idea that it’s proper to take our money by force because they are wiser in spending it than we are.

Hey, what’s another $3000?  We’re rich!

CO2 Abatement is Like Homeowner’s Insurance

On Climate Skeptic, there was a post yesterday that (at the end) addressed an intellectually dishonest argument used by warmenists.  Here is the money quote:

When proponents of the precautionary principle say “Well, CO2 abatement is like insurance — you buy insurance on your house, don’t you,” I answer, “Not if the insurance costs more than the cost to replace the house, I don’t.”

Good point.  But there is another error in the question.  The analogy would be if someone rang your doorbell after dinner, asking you to pay him $1000 in cash for “insurance”.  When you question whether or not he represents an insurance company, he calls you a holocaust denier and then threatens to sue you into submission.

You may or may not need insurance, but this crook doesn’t have any insurance to sell.  He wants to take you for a ride.

Why People Lie

Yesterday, I posted a rhetorical question about why the CEOs of a dozen major airlines are calling for massive damage to be inflicted on the US economy.  I don’t for a minute believe that they are simply that ignorant of economics.  I wondered if they are that evil, or being blackmailed.

Ace of Spades’ post yesterday gave me another theory:

McCain, wisely, has chosen to pretend we’re in a recession, because to claim otherwise sets him for the media attacking him for “being out-of-touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans.”

McCain knows we’re not in a recession.

So it’s “wisdom” to pretend what’s not true, because otherwise one could be “attacked” by the media for being “out of touch” with irrational feelings.  As opposed to reality, but who cares about that!

I guess I had not considered that this might explain the behavior of the airline CEOs.

I guess I must not be wise, for thinking that one must not lose touch with reality.

Open Letter Calling for Damage to US Economy

That’s not what they called it, of course.  The CEO’s of a dozen major airlines are calling for massive damage to be done to the US economy, higher energy prices, and a long depression to follow.

It’s hard to know if they are being blackmailed into taking this absurd position.  But I don’t believe it’s possible that this many top business leaders could be so ignorant of economics:

• Traders have no power to raise prices
• Traders are not guaranteed a profit, and can even lose money
• Big players have gone bust trying to manipulate much smaller, less liquid markets

My question is this.  Are they saying this because they’re being blackmailed, because they think that they can get government to suppress or loot others, or for the sheer evil of it?

No matter, evil will be the only result of this.

Side note: I wonder if they realize most people would include “flying less” in their notion of “conservation”.

Why do so few people either understand what a free market is, or stand up and defend it when it comes under attack.  Government intrusions into the economy are the reason why oil is now so expensive.  Do we really want more of the poison that’s making us sick?