What Goes Up, Must Come Down

Below is something I copied in its entirety from The Telegraph, because it's something that our so-called free media will not discuss...

The West is signing its own death sentence

Capitalism is, by its nature, dynamic. George Osborne's attempt to engineer the 'perfect society’ undermines the logic of the free market

When the Edward Gibbon of the 22nd century comes to write his History of the Decline and Fall of the West, who will feature in his monumental study of the collapse of the most successful economic experiment in human history? In this saga of the mass suicide of the richest nations on earth, there may be particular reference to those national leaders who chose to deny the reality that was, from the vantage point of our future chronicler, so obviously looming. Or maybe the leadership of our day in Washington, London and Brussels will appear to have been swept helplessly along by irresistible forces that originated before their time.

But for us, right here, right now, it matters that Barack Obama and George Osborne are playing small-time strategic games with their toy-town enemies while the unutterable economic truth stares them in the face. (The political leadership of the EU seems to have passed through the looking glass into a world where the rules of economics do not apply, so their statements and actions are beyond analysis.) Mr Obama is locked in an eye-balling contest with a Republican Congress to see who can end up with more ignominy when the United States goes over the fiscal cliff. It is clear now that the president will be quite happy to bring about this apocalypse – which would pull most of the developed world into interminable recession – if he could be sure that it would result in long-term electoral damage to his opponents.

Meanwhile, Mr Osborne takes teeny-tiny steps in the direction which is the only plausible one: little bitty reductions in the welfare programme to “make work pay” which are barely enough to push those who are actually working in the black economy off the unemployment rolls, and fiddly adjustments (almost too small to notice in day-to-day life) to lessen the burden of tax that bears down on people who are scarcely self-sustaining, let alone prosperous. Supposedly from opposite sides of the political divide, the US president and the British Chancellor come to a surprisingly similar conclusion: it is not feasible to speak the truth, let alone act on it. The truth being, as this column has often said, that present levels of public spending and government intervention in the US, Britain and Europe are unsustainable. The proportion of GDP which is now being spent by the governments of what used to be called the “free world” vastly exceeds what it is possible to raise through taxation without destroying any possibility of creating wealth, and therefore requires either an intolerable degree of national debt or the endless printing of progressively more meaningless money – or both.

How on earth did we get here? As every sane political leader knows by now, this is not just a temporary emergency created by a bizarre fit of reckless lending: the crash of 2008 simply blew the lid off the real scandal of western economic governance. Having won the Cold War and succeeded in settling the great ideological argument of the 20th century in favour of free-market economics, the nations of the West managed to bankrupt themselves by insisting that they could fund a lukewarm form of socialism with the proceeds of capitalism.

What the West took from its defeat of the East was that it must accept the model of the state as social engineer in order to avert any future threat to freedom. Capitalism would only be tolerated if government distributed its wealth evenly across society. The original concept of social security and welfare provision – that no one should be allowed to sink into destitution or real want – had to be revisited. The new ideal was that there should not be inequalities of wealth. The roaring success of the free market created such unprecedented levels of mass prosperity that absolute poverty became virtually extinct in western democracies, so it had to be replaced as a social evil by “relative poverty”. It was not enough that no one should be genuinely poor (hungry and without basic necessities): what was demanded now was that no one should be much worse (or better) off than anyone else. The job of government was to create a society in which there were no significant disparities in earnings or standards of living. So it was not just the unemployed who were given assistance: the low paid had their wages supplemented by working tax credits and in-work benefits so that their earnings could be brought up to the arbitrary level which the state had decided constituted not-poverty.

The paradoxical effect of this is that the only politically acceptable condition is to be earning just enough to maintain independent life – and not a penny more. Everybody is steered by the penalties of the tax system or the gradual withdrawal of benefits into that small space in the middle between being “rich” (earning over about £40,000 a year) and being (relatively) poor. As detailed analysis has made clear, the only group spared by Mr Osborne’s tinkering last week were standard rate tax payers. Neither rich nor unemployed, these paragons are perfect exemplars of “fairness”: surviving on an income which makes life just about bearable but remaining careful always not to allow their aspirations to propel them beyond their station and its acceptable earnings level.
This picture of the perfect society – in which disparities of wealth are eradicated and economic equality is maintained through a vastly complex and expensive system of state intervention – has been the explicit goal of the EU virtually since its inception. It had an on-again, off-again history in Britain until it was locked firmly into the political infrastructure by Gordon Brown. More unexpectedly, it has now taken root in the American political culture, where Mr Obama seems determined to exploit it in his blood-curdling contest with the Republicans. Once ensconced, this concept undermines the logic of the free-market economy which funds it.
Capitalism is, by its nature, dynamic: it creates transitory disparities of wealth constantly as it reinvents itself. Fortunes are made and lost and, as old industries are replaced by new, the earnings that they create rise and fall. Punishing those who exceed some momentary average income and artificially subsidising those who fall below it – as well as providing for a universal standard of living which bears no relation to merit or even to need – has now reached the unavoidable, unaffordable end of the line.
So who will tell the truth – and then act on it? Who will say not just that welfare must be cut, but that in future the NHS will need to rely on a system of co-payments? That people will have to provide for their own retirement because the state pension will be frozen? That without a radical reduction in government intervention, the free and prosperous West will have been a brief historical aberration?

Via Instapundit, this is too funny.

anchortown

On the anniversary of John Lennon's death, I've linked to a very nice post I saw over at the Instapundit site.

Lockheed L-10

Everything Up is Down

While watching NBC's Sundaynight football game last night, I was shocked and awed. During half-time no less. The whiny little mangina (thanks for that term Instapundit) Bob Costas took to the airwaves to get on his own little not so high horse and blame the horrible events of last week in Kansas City, where a player shot his wife or girlfriend nine times, in front of his own mother, then took his own life with another gun at the stadium in front of two coaches, and transform this tragedy into an anti-gun rant.
It's bad enough that (I'll refer to Costas from here on out as) Mangy hi-jacked the trajedy of two families for his own political rant, but he was also covering and diverting attention, in the most craven fashion from his masters, NBC and one step removed, the NFL. The money machine that these 'bread and circuses' carnivals have become must not be disturbed. Not for a moment, not on your life.
We must not reflect on the pervasive thug culture and sense of entitlement that many (not all) athletes seem to have now days. What a cheap distraction Mangy served up as the so-called cause of this tragedy and in connotation, all the troubles of many major sports figures.
How many gun owners while carrying have been in confrontations or arguments and never pulled out their weapons? How many have responded like mature adults in the face of provocation? How many couples who have gone through break ups, bad and not so bad have been tempted, but not resorted to guns, even when readily available? No, they don't exist. But let some entitled man-boy go off the deep end because maybe for the first time, there's nothing a coach, or alumnus can do to 'fix' things and it's all the fault of 'guns.'
We mut never talk of Ray Lewis, or O.J. Simpson, or Rae Caruth.  We must never think of Ben Roethlisberger, or Michael Vick. No it's all the fault of those damn guns!
Here's some perspective for you Mangy, maybe there's something deeply sick in the culture of major sports where we have none too bright athletes being coddled and kept from having to face adult consequences for their actions and way too much money. Maybe if the 'bread and circuses' industry was toned down a little, people might actually turn their attention to more serious matters. But then, what would you do Mangy, to make a living?

Below is worth a few minutes of your time, via SDA



Also, an interesting article here regarding how democrats worked in California to subvert direct democracy, via Instapundit. It's worth reading and then reflecting on why the democrats win elections they should by all rights loose. Until republicans and others at the center or right wake up, we had better be prepared to lose, time and again. Why? Because they are willing to do what ever it takes to win. It is their only goal.

The Ruptured Duck

A vintage C-47

Happy Thanksgiving

First and foremost, I hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving. We still have a lot to be thankful for. There are many throughout the world who wish they could be so fortunate as to be in the bottom rung demographic in this country.

There’s something else I would like to say on this Thanksgiving. I direct this to all of the so called experts, consultants, pundits and other assorted professional talking heads who, since the election have bemoaned the fate of our republic. Who have accepted that there has been a major demographic shift. Who fear that this country has irreversibly shifted to the left, or that we now live in a ‘post constitutional’ country, based on this past election. To them I say, sit down and shut your bleating pie-hole!  Quit crying and act like grown men (or women) for God’s sake.

Before I go further, let’s look at some numbers.  Below you see the voting results for three elections, 1972, 1984, and 2012.  In 1972 and 1984 there were resounding republican victories, while 2012 was a narrow victory for the democrats. Also note that the ’72 and ’84 percentage of population shown below was for the entire population because I couldn’t find figures for the voting age population like I did for 2012.

                         1972                    1984               2012

Rep	47168710	54455472	59,634,071
Dem	29173222	37577352	63,448,632
Other	1402095	620409
Tot.	77744027	92653233	123,082,854
Pop.	209896021*	235824902*	234,564,410**
% of Pop.	37.04	39.29	52

*indicates the entire population
** indicated voting age population only

Sources:
 http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1972
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1984

First, note that according to the 2010 U.S. Census, the total population was 308,745,538.  So the number who voted, were approximately 39.9% of the total population. That’s roughly equivalent to the ’72 and ’84 turnouts.

Second, the number of votes difference between Obama and Romney was 3,814,410, that's 1.63% of the eligible voting population.  The difference in ’72 was 17,995,488, and the difference in ’84 was 16,878,120. Both ’72 and ‘84’s amounts are over five times greater than the 2012 difference.   

Yet here sit the republicans walking around shell-shocked, or crying and blubbering silly shit like this quote, “I am not alone, I know, in sensing a fateful shift in the temper, the emotional weather, of America. I cannot pretend to know what it portends.”  

Give me a break. How do you think the democrats felt after the far worse ass-kickings they got? Did they decide that the best course of action was to cave-in on the important issues and act more like republicans?

The cold hard facts are that this election was against a weak president with no accomplishments and a gob-smacked economy, it was the republican’s for the taking, and they didn’t just lose it, they threw it away. Two easily winnable senate seats, (Missouri and Indiana) were lost because the republicans nominated two of the stupidest candidates they could have found. Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock were utterly stupid and clueless.  A weak field of presidential candidates devolved into the least unpalatable candidate.

The other hard fact the republicans do not want to face is that in this fight, the other side wanted it more than they did. The other side saw its objectives and went after them, with a will to win. The other side was willing to fight harder & dirtier and do whatever it took to win. Period. The democrats analyzed the electorate and what it would take to snag a sufficient majority in the key states to win sufficient electoral votes. They did their demographic homework, mobilized their ground game and ran the nastiest, most negative, issues free  campaign in recent memory.  Not only that, but over the years, they didn’t just sit and bemoan their fate, they built their base, they organized. It was a long march and it enabled them to pull out an election they should have taken a drubbing on similar to the ’72 and ’84 ass kickings they got.

The republicans, while talking a good game, were out hustled and out fought and lost an election that was ripe for the taking. (Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.)  They got what they deserved. When you listen to them, you get this sneaking suspicion that they really don’t believe what they’re saying. They don’t really share the values they talk about. They’re just saying it because they think it’s what you want to hear. In the country clubs, senate drawing rooms and elsewhere, where the public usually isn’t around to hear, they really agree with and have more in common with the democrats than with the citizenry.  They seem resigned to the democrats vision of America as a sinking ship and their main objective is to ensure they go down first class.

 Just remeber one thing, in spite of a lackluster republican campaign, inspite of a mainstream media that was the defacto publicity arm of the democrat party, despite the rampant vote fraud, the democrats only won by 1.63% of the votes cast.

I won’t go into what I think they need to do to re-tool their brand and get back in the game. There are others who have far more eloquently delved into those issues. But do it, either the republicans or a new party, must. I wonder how many have the sand for it?

Go eat some turkey, we’ve all had enough crow to last us for a good long time.

Please watch this it's worth a few minutes of your time. hat tip: Instapundit


Hat Tip: Protein Wisdom:

 

 

Finally, some more Spiderbait

The Leaf

Food for thought;

Hat tip: Newsalaert.blogspot.com

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that in 59 Philadelphia precincts, Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote. So Ward Room decided to look at the results in the president’s hometown, and see if he won as many shutouts here. The answer: no. Romney was rejected by every voter in only 37 Chicago precincts, an embarrassing result, given that segregation and Machine politics are two of our city’s most notable qualities.

Any doubt there was some vote fraud? Check out this comment on NBC Chicago's website:

In critical swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois there are a lot of precincts in Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Chicago which reported 100% of their votes cast for Obama. These add up to many 10's of thousands of votes for Obama and 0 for Romney. I repeat, 0 for Romney. I have read a number of articles about this and people knowlegable in Political Science and Statistics are starting to take notice of this.Statistically, even if among 10's of thousands of voters all wanted to vote for Obama, it would not be possible to receive 100% of the vote because at least a few would make a mistake and vote incorrectly for Romney. Not to mention the fact that a least a few of those 10's of thousands might actually disagree with Obama. These types of election returns are only seen in countries run by dictators.

Just a reminder to those who want to get rid of the electoral college: corrupt Chicago voting practices could and would determine an election. Vote fraud occurs in Chicago because the U.S. Attorney doesn't want to conduct a simple investigation of those 37 precincts. Is there similar hand writing on any of those ballots ? Did any dead people vote ? Since Chicago lost 6.9% of its population in the 2010 Census : were any of those 37 precincts in the declining population wards? Maybe, if Chicago had a legitimate U.S. Attorney some of these questions would be answered. No word on this story from "alleged" former crime fighter and Obama "protector" Patrick Fitzgerald. Is Barack Obama and the U.S. Attorney's Office afraid of this milk story???

One more item to chew on, 

Sandy Daze Sees The Future: "They will move faster now.... They are not bound by any law."

November morning in Ohio

Taken last week while in Ohio. Walking on the old towpath trail north of Canal Fulton.

In other news, the replacement at the CIA for General Petraeus is to testify CIA never requested military assistance in Benghazi.

How curious, (quoting from the above referenced article) since Fox news' "Jennifer Griffin reported on October 26th, citing sources that were actually “on the ground” in Benghazi during the attack, that the CIA contingent repeatedly requested assistance — but were told to “stand down” twice by officials in the CIA chain of command."

 OK, is it me, or does Petraeus's replacement ( Michael Morell) bear a startling resemblance to Lavrenty  Beria?

Photo Friday Challenge

Constructed

Taken in Ohio during a recent trip back there.
I have no idea what these buildings were for.
Nor was I able to get inside as they were locked up tight.

Vacancy!

Hope & Change

The Resie Falls

This is a photo of the reservoir in N.E. Massillon, Ohio where Sippo creek originates. I grew up near here and can remember when I was 8 years old, walking across the top of the falls. I and a friend were about 5 feet back from the edge. We took off our shoes and were walking on the slimy and slippery rocks of the spill way from the left to the right. The water was about four to six inches deep. It seemed so much bigger then.