A funny story...

Whilst in the historical frame of mind:

During the Civil War, a contractor who had bought his way into the Federal purchasing queue via Simon Cameron (Sadly, a Pennsylvanian) delivered a shipment of boots to the army. When told that they fell apart after two miles of marching, he replied, straight-faced, to the quartermaster...Oh, those boots were meant for the cavalry.

The jury will be out...

Saw Doris Kearns Goodwin tonight.

Allegations of plagiarism notwithstanding, she is impressive. She is so because she understands that without an understanding of history you cannot understand the present.

She was asked several questions about the current war in Iraq. She indicated (as an historian might) that it will be decades before the true results and ramifications of President Bush's "Crusade for Democracy" are apparent.

Interestingly, she has a son in the 1st Infantry Division who recently rotated out of Iraq. His experience was one of feted liberator turned besieged enforcer that is the great disappointment (or failure) of the Iraq campaign.

The main focus of her talk was the parallels between the presidencies of Lincoln, F.D. Roosevelt and L.B. Johnson. (What was unspoken, but nonetheless palpable, was the parallels between those leaders and the current one.)

Her main thrust - as I understood it - was that while politics was omnipresent in day-to-day activities, there remained a certain core cheerfulness and optimism among those who bore the heaviest of responsibilities. Borne from who knows where, it sustained President Lincoln through the death of his son, FDR through his failing health and LBJ through his crisis of the public's withdrawal of support for the Vietnam War.

Humor was key to all of these people.

In the case of Lincoln, an almost superhuman ability to let go of justly held grievances was one of his keys to holding the Union together. For FDR, when war came, he reached out to the very people his New Deal had alienated - and in so doing, guaranteed that the U.S. brought the full weight of its industrial might to bear on the Axis.

Professor Goodwin lamented that the media has recently seemingly suffered a form of schizophrenia in regard to presidents. E.g. Few people knew that FDR could not walk by himself. It was considered unimportant by the media in 1940. However, the questionable allegations about G.W. Bush's military records got front page attention. On the other hand however, they have quite correctly drawn attention to infringements like the PATRIOT Act.

(Her attitude toward Bill Clinton's indiscretions was: They warranted little in the way of publicity, as they bore little on policy, but he knew the current sensational attitude when he came into office and he literally flouted it. So, he got what he deserved.)

By way of comparison she showed that the current President has shown a stubborn unwillingness to admit mistakes - a very different attitude from that of Lincoln. It would be one thing were criticisms different today. But, if anything, they were worse then. The calumnies piled on the head of President Lincoln make today's editorials seem utterly benign by comparison.

(Personally, I would like to see the President take ownership of some mistakes. It would humanize him and defuse some of the criticism that comes his way.)

At the end, though, each did what he thought was right. To that degree, we will look back and say that our current President was as courageous in his way as Lincoln was in his.

It is odd, yet very true, that historians - those who deal in the past - often have the clearest sense of what is going on NOW. They, more than most of us, understand that what was common theory at a certain time didn't account for other forces at work. So it is today.

History is made by those who are willing to upset the apple cart and demand that current methods give way to new ones. One day we will look back on today and wish we had a leader as decisive as George W. Bush.

Just so you know...

People sometimes ask me why I am so "gung-ho" about the second amendment and gun rights.

This is why:

In 1774, the founding fathers of this country knew that the greatest threat to our liberty was not indians or pirates or criminals. It was the British soldiers garrisoned in our towns. In other words, it was our own government.

The founding fathers were greatly - and justly - afraid of a standing army. Afraid, because the army could impose its will without regard for the people's.

Fast forward 225 years:

According the U.N., during the course of the 20th century some 40 million people died as the result of warfare throughout the world.

During those same 100 years...from 1901 through 2000 FOUR TIMES THAT MANY - almost 160 million people - died at the hands of their own governments.

Read that sentence again. And again.

"Oh, but that can't happen here", you cry.

IF that is so, it is only because we remain a populace so armed that our own military could not conquer us.

In 2005, we have in the United States not only a standing army, but a determined effort to enervate the second amendment to the Constitution...that final backstop to governmental power the founders put in place.

If you want to trust to the goodwill of nameless, faceless bureaucrats...I wish you good luck.

I am not willing to do so.

Furthermore, here's a challenge:

Sit down some time and read the Declaration of Independence and its litany of abuses by the Crown of Britain. Then, give some thought to the daily infringements of liberty that we are subject to today by our own "elected" government.

Once you do, you will not be so quick to "pooh-pooh" my concerns.

Instead, you will, if you have a brain in your head, RUN out and purchase an M1A or AR-15 and all the ammo you can haul
home.

Freedoms are lost a little at a time. Where do you draw the line?


"Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them" - George Santayana

As you sow, so shall you reap

Recently, a Paris court upheld the insider trading conviction of Billionaire and Socialist George Soros. The irony of this is simply too irresistible to let pass.

This is a man who has been convicted of "cutting corners" ethically in his business dealings. He has been shown up as someone who considers his desired outcomes to be above the mere rule of law. In other words, he knows whats best...for all concerned...and how dare the law interfere with him.

THIS is the man who wants to bring a collectivist, socialist government to power in the United States. Why? Because HE knows best. If only we would listen to him...and do what he and his annointed minions tell us to...why, then there would be universal happiness and fulfillment.

George Soros is typical of the collectivist Left. THEY and only they know what's best. We, the mere taxpayers, ought to be grateful that people as enlightened as he take our money and rule us. And anyone ungrateful enough to complain will quickly find himself in a re-education camp. Believe it.

God grant me...

I'm very worried that I am becoming like those whom I have always disdained for their smug, doctrinaire unwillingness to defend their (normally socialist) point of view.

One of the main reasons I started this log was to counter people like the fellow at Rittenhouse Review whose idea of discourse is to call people idiots and fascists.

I have always prided myself on the ability to argue a point of view. I may not always be right, but I normally have marshalled some facts in support of a position. However I have recently been met with such crushingly venomous responses when I attempt to posit an argument that it is now only a matter of time until I respond in kind. Any day now, someone who, instead of countering my facts with other facts, just dismisses me as an unenlightened troglodyte is going to get called "A Fucking Moron". This is something I swore I would never do.

I still believe that Philadelphia can be a nice place to live and work. I'm just not sure that I have the patience to hang around until the residents finally discover that Socialism won't work.

It's tough to keep your eye on the ball, sometimes...

The saying, "He who controls the language, controls the debate" has been variously attributed to Stalin, Goebbels or someone similar. The point is that when you control the debate, your opponent has a very difficult time getting his arguments heard or taken seriously. This has been a favorite tool of Socialists since the time of Marx & Engels. Arguably, the most effective way to grab control of a debate is to co-opt the language of your opponents. To use their terminology while substituting your own definitions for their terms is a devastatingly effective technique because of the confusion it sows among those whom you are trying to influence.

What the collectivist left in the country has done with this tool is nothing short of brilliant. First they appropriated the term liberal, which until about 1930 meant someone who believed in as little government as possible. Then the homosexuals appropriated the term "Gay" which used to mean simply, "happy". Recently co-opted terms include "activist judges" and "culture of death". This co-opting must be resisted by all means. First, it has to be brought to the public's attention.

The first of my recent examples was a clear description of jurists who, finding no basis for their personally desired outcomes in the law, simply created new rights nowhere enumerated in the constitution. Now, however, any jurist who wants to return to the traditional understanding of the role of the judiciary is branded a "right wing activist judge". With the assistance of the media, people like Senator Charles Schumer actually have people believing that someone like Antonin Scalia is an activist judge! You've got to admire the brilliance of this.

Lastly and for me, most importantly, "The Culture of Death" is the attitude that says foetuses - even at nine months - are not human and don't deserve any legal protections against the termination of their lives for any reason. It is an attitude that says that the legal right of a husband to put his wife to death when she is not on life support, outweighs the right of his disabled wife to life. It is that attitude which says it is OK for doctors to actively assist in the suicides of patients...and in the Netherlands, even terminate the lives of people who have made no statement that they want this. It seeks a hierarchy of life - in which some are worth more than others. Because a sixty year old may possibly benefit some day from a therapy derived from harvested fetal stem cells, it is, therefore, acceptable to terminate unborn humans. THIS is the culture of death.

Here in America, in A.D. 2005, however, "the culture of death" is now a term applied to people who wish to preserve their own lives via the Constitutionally guaranteed right to self-defense - because they oppose "gun control". This particular mis-appropriation is a very new one. We, who recognize that the founding fathers put the right to bear arms into the constitution for a very good reason, must not let this stand. We cannot let our opponents control the debate as they have for so long. "the culture of death" musn't lose its true meaning.

Ours once was a culture of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Those who steal our words and use them against us would destroy life and liberty in their personal pursuit of that which - in their arrogance - they have decided is the best definition of happiness - for all of us.

God Save the Republic.

Hope for Northern Ireland

This past Tuesday I attended a talk by the British Secretary for Northern Ireland, Paul Murphy. While he said a lot of that which I expected, what I did not expect was his statement that tourism in Northern Ireland is up and unemployment is down, significantly. What struck me is: Despite the intransigence of IRA/Sinn Fein and the seemingly immovable mistrust of each side for the other, the lessons that the Irish Republic learned in how to attract and keep business have begun to be learned in the North. The bottom line is that the people of Northern Ireland are likely to leave both the IRA and the Unionist paramilitaries in the dust as they embrace the new religion of mercantilism. The old saying remains true: War will cease because it's bad for business. Once again, we find that what understanding and hope and multi-lateral diplomacy have utterly failed to achieve, has been wrought by the greatest boon mankind has ever known: CAPITALISM.

Rittenhouse Square = Kensington = Philadelphia

Some musings on ways to "fix" North Philadelphia:

1. The Mayor, the District Attorney, the Police
Commissioner, the entire city council and the heads of
all the major churches in the area need to go up to where
the trouble is and admit to the residents that the
government can do nothing to fix this. Tell the people,
in no uncertain terms, that only they can resolve these
problems. Let them know that the city government stands
ready to assist them, but, THEY have to do it.

2. Ask for local "deputies". These will be people who pass
a background check and have several local folks vouch for
them. They will be given weapons and training and asked
to put in a couple of hours every day patrolling their
local neighborhoods. Their "official" status will not
extend beyond the couple of blocks they're assigned.
These people will be given equipment enough to stay in
touch with each other, so that they can support each
other. Also, they will be given the power of arrest.
However, this power should be limited to ONLY areas of
gang and drug related violence. They should not be
able to make arrests for possession of drugs or any
NON-violent crime. On the other hand, let it be known
that they will report to the police the license plate
numbers of those who come into these areas to buy drugs.
These people will be much more likely to get the kind of
support from the community that the Police Department has
not been able to do. Think of it as a very muscular
"Town Watch".

3. The police are going to have to win the hearts and minds
of the residents of North Philadelphia the same as our
troops are doing in Iraq. Tragic, but true. Ignore the
guy smoking weed and maybe he'll tell you about gang
activity nearby. If everybody runs when you show up,
you're not going to get much done. Once the rule of law
has been re-established, then you can go back to
enforcing all the laws.

4. The Police should help to organize people in rebuilding
the sense of community up there. They can do this by
organizing and protecting clean-ups and the other
community reclamation exercises. Please remember the
success NYC had when it started to insist on broken
windows being fixed and litter being cleaned up. If the
police are seen to be "helping" as defined by the
residents, then you may get some more cooperation.

5. Get the rest of the city involved. It is ONE city. All
of us should be as willing to help out in Kensington as
we would be on our own street. No one in Rittenhouse
Square likes to see or hear Philadelphia's shortcomings
trumpeted in the national media.

6. Give the residents more say over what happens in their neighborhoods. If they believe they can affect the outcome, they will get involved. Hold court for North Philadelphia offenders in North Philadelphia, using North Philadelphian juries. Let people see that they CAN make a difference and that others care, too.

Make no mistake, things will get worse before they get better. But that is no reason not to try.

To the Mayor of Philadelphia

Allow me to refresh your memory, sir.

Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reads:


"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

HOW DARE YOU attempt to strip me of my right to self-defense!!

Furthermore, to make such an attempt as a cheap piece of political misdirection designed to cover your ass and give you deniability for the problems of North Philadelphia is utterly disgusting.

Have you no shame?

Nuclear Politics

I believe that the Republicans will not resort to the "Nuclear" option of changing Senate rules to stop filibusters.

The problem is that the greatest strength of the Republicans, namely, their belief in the sanctity of the process of democracy is also their greatest weakness. I don't believe that, if their positions were reversed, the Democrats would hesitate to change the rules. (Interestingly, Sen. Byrd, who has decried this threat to Democratic obstructionism, called upon the Democrats to use the exact same maneuver in the 1970's)

While the Democrats are clearly misusing the threat of filibuster, there are reasons not to go that route: 1. There are other ways to limit the amount of debate using current Senate procedural rules. While not foolproof, it can help 2. The Repubicans know full well that if they embrace this change, it will be used against them at some point in the future.

Increasingly, Democrats seem willing to do anything to prevent the Republicans from enacting their agenda.

Republicans, traditionally, have avoided taking off the gloves because they fear damage to the institution of the Senate. Also, they are largely unable to get their side of the story out via the mainstream media, so they usually end up looking like the bad guys.

While it is a shameful display by the Democrats, I believe the Republicans must maintain the traditions of the institution that is supposed to be the "adult supervision" of Congress.

Not angry...just disapointed

The Dishonorable John Street, Mayor of Philadelphia, desperate to be seen doing something in the wake of over twenty murders in just a couple of days, has decided that a moratorium on concealed carry permits is the way to go. This gesture is as cynical as it is empty. While we don't know, yet, who's committed these crimes, I'll bet you whatever you like that not one of the animals who perpetrated these murders had a concealed carry permit. Further, I'll wager they did not possess or acquire the weapons legally. Who wants some of this action?

Did I not tell you so...

In a letter to the Philthy Inquirer:

I wrote you before and – no doubt - you dismissed me as a loony…

21 murders later…

How do you live with yourselves?

Your infantile insistence on “gun control” and “more police” has garnered you a heap of corpses.

How do you propose to cover up your failures?

IF you have the well-being of the public as a goal, you’d better change your tune…quick.

What the residents of North Philadelphia need are MORE GUNS and less police interference.

There will be a great violence before there is peace.

Anyone with knowledge of history could tell you that.

I'd rather be wrong...

Drudge is reporting that 21 murders took place in Philly over the last 72 hours.

I will not say, "I told you so".

Instead, I will tell you again, that the answer is - sadly - beyond anyone currently in office. The answer to the lawlessness of North Philadelphia and South West Philadelphia is...

The residents of those areas.

They have to band together, cooperate with the police and force out the BAD people.

The alternative is to force out the police and deal with the criminals as a 'Community'. In a manner that may be outside the currently prescribed "rule of law".

While I am loathe to advocate vigilantism, I cannot foresee any other effective resolution.

I may well be labelled lunatic for this support of an extra-legal remedy.

I demand of those who condemn me: How do you propose to fix it?

May God be with all those who struggle to live in North and South West Philadelphia.

Amen.

Bankruptcy and the law of unintended consequences

On the face of it, the idea of acceding to the demands of the credit card companies to tighten up bankruptcy laws when their business model expressly advocates leading people into spendthrift ways while anticipating that the vast majority - of even those who get in over their heads - will eventually pay off every cent they owe, seems stunningly unfair.

However, IF the American Consumer (please genuflect at the mention of the name of the prime mover and guarantor of the world's economy) decides that s/he is going to have to be more careful now, spend less and save more then the credit card companies could end up collectively crying a Homer-esque "D'oh!".

It couldn't happen to nicer folks.

Disgusting

We have yet another violent incident in North Philadelphia. A man shot dead - assassinated - in broad daylight. A child wounded. Yawn. No doubt the standard empty expressions of outrage will be followed by equally empty proposals from the empty suits in City Hall and the Inquirer editorial department for more police and more gun control. Meanwhile nothing changes. When the next outrage occurs, the empty suits will point their fingers at Harrisburg, or D.C. and whine about how they could fix the problem if only they could get the tools (read: MONEY) they need. This is not only contemptible - it ought to be considered criminal negligence.

There are four “actors” in this tragedy: The good people who live in the afflicted neighborhoods, the criminals who terrorize them, the police and the government of the city.
Of these, only one – the police – are acting in good faith. Obviously, the criminal gangs that are running sizeable portions of the city cannot act in good faith. The true failures however are at the bottom and the top. The people who live in these areas bear a good deal of the blame. They refuse to help the police. So they have no one to turn to. Yet, they DEMAND protection from the very institution they refuse to help. If the people will not get involved, help the police and stand up for themselves, NOTHING CAN CHANGE. At the other end you have the elected government of the city, who will not tell this basic truth to the residents. They make angry demands for more state/federal money for police and stricter gun control laws (which haven’t worked ANYWHERE). Knowing full well that even if they got what they wanted, it wouldn’t make a whit of difference. They are actively perpetuating the conditions that guarantee more of the same in the North and South West.

Let the Mayor and city council blame Harrisburg and DC. We know where the real blame belongs.

It’s disgusting.

Here's the rub...

It was announced recently that terrorists were able to pass background checks and legally purchase firearms here in the U.S. This is bad.

What ought to be done?

On one side you have an argument that asserts that we need more stringent and effective background checks, waiting periods and a ban on military pattern guns.

On the other side, it is asserted that any tightening of regulations infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens.

Who's right?

Well, frankly, both sides are.

At the end of the day, the amount of liberty - or openness - in a society is directly proportional to its vulnerability.

So, if we create an America in which the government knows enough about your personal history, political affiliations and medical/psychological condition for them (whoever THEM are) to be absolutely certain that you are the right kind of person to own a firearm, I believe that we'll be much safer from criminal or political violence committed with firearms.

I haven't researched it, but I doubt there were many firearms related crimes in the Soviet Union. Similarly, today in China, you are probably much safer from the kind of terrorism and crime that we American citizens face all too often.

It all comes down to a question of trade-offs. Do we want that kind of society?

Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would trade essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. For my part, I'm willing to pay more attention to people I see on the street, willing to get "involved", willing to stand up and say that I am responsible for my fellow citizens. In return, I expect to maintain my privacy, my freedom of association and my right to self-defense.

The 80/20 Rule

Making fun of leftists who espouse crazy ideas (like freeing Mumia Abu Jamal) is, in a way, a kind of "straw man" argument that can lump all those who espouse "left-of-center" ideas into a group that is thereby easily dismissed. I wish to be free from that. The fact is that most people share the same societal goals and are entirely reasonable. We tend to hear only about the 20% who are shrieking and rending their garments - at either end of the spectrum. It becomes easy to pigeon hole people as "Neo-cons" or "leftists". This is not the way to engender a meaningful dialog. This is not to say that we shouldn't point out the ridiculousness of some positions. Rather we should seek to discover what ends are sought before judging positions. That is what I want to do.

Hypocrisy...thy name is liberalism

I was thinking about things in Philadelphia that frost me. Perhaps the most egregious and disgraceful episode of "leftist" shenanigans is the whole Mumia Abu Jamal situation. This is someone who is as guilty as guilty can be. His case has been reviewed up and down the judicial ladder repeatedly; no prosecutorial misconduct has ever been found. No miscarriage of justice took place. Nevertheless, fringe whack-jobs (including the mayor of Paris) still clamor for his release. Let's face the facts: Those who agitate for the release of Mumia Abu Jamal do so not because he is innocent, but precisely because he IS guilty. These people want him released as a form of apology to the "black" community for past injustices. Justice for these people is political in origin and applies to groups rather than individuals. This kind of thinking is the same as that which brought the world Gulags and re-education camps. So, what do we do? Very simple: EXECUTE MUMIA ABU JAMAL, NOW!!! When we do, mark my words: his "supporters" will forget him within a week and move on to some other poster child they think can advance their agenda. This is the way collectivists think.

Silly Socialists

The single greatest engine of societal advancement…

The most effective mechanism for uplifting humanity…

The greatest program of human betterment…

Ever devised…

Is CAPITALISM.

DON'T EVER FORGET IT!!!!!

Philadelphia resurgent...aka Union Busting 101

The very first thing that Philadelphia needs is to liberate itself from its thrall to the unions in this town. "Philly is a good union town" I always hear. More's the pity. The stranglehold that unions have on this town has cost this city untold BILLIONS of dollars of business and tax revenue. Regrettably, those who hold power in this city recognize the unions as a way to maintain their hold on power, so they kowtow to them and apply lips to sphincters. Don't get me wrong: unions have their place, but they have entirely too much power in this town. Carpenters/Roofers/Teamsters/Teachers/AFSCME, etc...DELENDA EST.

Philadelphia Freedom...not

I recently had a discussion with the owner of a restaurant in Philadelphia. During the course of this discussion my head nearly exploded from the sudden, dramatic increase in blood pressure caused by the litany of licenses and permits required to run a small business. I look at Philadelphia and I see a very sick patient. Yet, there is none who will SERIOUSLY discuss the problems. Our mayor, the dishonorable John Street and the motley assortment of political/criminal hacks who comprise our city council and government (I herewith exempt certain unnamed - for now - individuals who merely serve as the exceptions that prove the rule) have ONLY one interest: the acquisition and maintenance of POWER. The problems of Philadelphia are not difficult to fix, unless you are wedded to the idea of collectivism and the patronage power that such a system grants to those who are in key positions. I could fix Philadelphia in one year. Make no mistake, there would be "nasty medicine" to take and some heads would have to be knocked together, but inside of one year, I could fix the top ten of Philadelphia's problems (or at least do a MUCH better job than any of the last TEN administrations). Of course, the power I would need to do this job would have to come from the people...and therein lies another entry. :)

Guns...hmmm

I believe that the current groundswell of support for "gun rights" is, at its root, a popular statement of discontent with the unaccountable and arbitrary abuse of power by the government of...you name it: Philadelphia County; The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; The United States of America; The United Nations (interpolate as you see fit). As such, I am completely in concert with its aspirations. (I herewith admit, in the interests of fair disclosure, that I am a gun owner)