The Bell Tower

This is an excellent column by Thomas Sowell. He hits two prevalent conventional wisdom myths. First:

“No president of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.

It seems as though almost everyone is guilty of this misconception at one point or another - and I’d say even this article oversimplifies it a bit. Clinton gets credit for a surplus in the 90’s, Reagan gets credit for the 80’s boom, Bush gets the blame for the 08 crash, etc. These are all very oversimplified narratives pushed by various political forces. One thing to notice is Sowell’s statement regarding the president’s “only direct power” over budgets in a later paragraph. That’s because while presidents don’t have the power of the purse, they do have the power to recommend a budget to Congress. Congress and specifically the House have the most direct spending power but being a body of many fractious voices, the president’s power to recommend is significant. Sowell sort of glazes over this fact.

Nevertheless, slapping either total blame or total credit into the lap of a president for economic conditions is simplistic nonsense. Sowell points out Clinton working with a Republican Congress in the 90’s. Clinton usually gets credit for a surplus while a Republican Congress is too often overlooked. A bigger part of the story though is the massive technology boom thanks to the information revolution. Another Bill (Gates) should get more credit than either Clinton or Congress for this. The economy grew thanks to innovation and dynamic growth in the private sector that had very little to do with government policy. Clinton was smart enough to stay out of the way and take the credit - which almost defines the genius of his entire presidency.

“Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.”

Another fact that is too often overlooked: Democrats seized massive control of Congress two years before Barack Obama took the oath of office. Obama (and almost every major media outlet) lay almost full blame for the most recent crash on Bush and Republicans even while W was a lame duck president battling insurmountable majorities in Congress, not to mention massive unpopularity with the voters. They also freely promulgate this myth of “deregulation” as the chief cause of the crisis which is also an oversimplified fraction of the full story. That myth is primarily fed by this law, which was sponsored by Republicans and signed by President Clinton. This law undoubtedly played a role but there were other seeds planted long before Bush or the 110th Congress were in power.

One of those seeds is currently running for governor of New York. As head of HUD under President Clinton, Cuomo was one of the chief proponents of what the left affectionately used to call “affordable housing.” By 2009, we saw that this benign and even admirable sounding goal turned out to be a bunch of unwise loans made by banks to people who would never be able to pay them back. This article dismisses Cumo’s culpability as a “well-intentioned” mistake, which is capital absurdity. Cuomo is many things but stupid is certainly not one of them.

The pressure put on banks by Clinton and Cuomo to ease lending restrictions was significant. To make matters worse, predatory brokers and lenders structured the loans to be more attractive than they were and looked the other way as the people they signed on grew riskier and riskier. Obviously the banks knew damn well the risk they were taking, which is why they packaged a lot of those loans up into securities and derivatives and siphoned those risks out into the general marketplace - which created the demand for even more risky loans.

Certainly the banks, Bush and Republicans are not free of blame here. It’s also reflexive - especially for vote hungry politicians - to characterize home buyers (voters) as the victims of evil capitalist forces. While the agencies, banks and brokers often did their worst, home buyers still signed on the dotted line. Most of them should have known better. Also, this little tidbit gets far too little airtime:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Bush and some Republicans attempted to rein Fannie and Freddie in back in 2003, but Barney Frank was too busy raking in campaign contributions (not to mention sleeping with Herb Moses, a high ranking Fannie Mae executive) to stop the gravy train. Democrats in general chose to look the other way and cling to the myth that “affordable housing” meant helping less fortunate people get into their dream houses - a myth that certainly helped them at the ballot box so long as the bubble lasted.

It didn’t last and now they are desperately trying to pin the fallout on crimes “inherited” from a Republican president. Fortunately, voters aren’t buying it and Republicans are poised for big gains in November. The moral of all this is that government intervention beyond creating and enforcing the rules nearly always winds up with disastrous results. Personally, I’m for gridlock. Since passing legislation that mandates the entire law making portion of the federal government take a 4 year vacation is unrealistic, gridlock is the next best thing. Friedrich Hayek once wrote:

“Hitler did not have to destroy democracy; he merely took advantage of the decay of democracy and at the critical moment obtained the support of many to whom, though they detested Hitler, he yet seemed the only man strong enough to get things done.”

If we’ve learned anything from the latest administration, it’s that the two party system’s greatest virtue is its tendency to curb government action. The president and both houses of Congress are simply too much power for one party to handle. Any circumstance which causes either party to exclaim in frustration that that they just can’t get anything done because of politics should be sweet music to the ears of the electorate. Two more months and hopefully we’ll be there.

Loathsome

“Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud.”

Wrong. I can’t stand these guys. These are people that want to use the power of government to impose their values on the rest of society and there’s nothing conservative about it. The war against pornography, the war against gays, the war for decency, the culture war, whatever. This is all garbage and in the American sense of the word, it has nothing to do with conservatism as a political ideology. It’s certainly not right wing either.

Imagine a slanted line on a piece of paper starting at the top left and moving to the bottom right of your page. At the extreme top left, you have total government power in the hands of a small number of unchecked individuals or a single dictator (Hitler, Stalin, Castro, the Caesars, the Soviets). At the extreme far right you have anarchy (no government at all). Technically, true communism belongs on the right side as well but that happens only after the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the fact is, if true communism were a realistic objective we wouldn’t need communists to make it happen. We would have all been sharing from the start. In real humanity, someone has to force the sharing and obviously, those with the power to enforce such conditions will have the advantage of exploiting those who don’t. But I’m digressing from my digression.

This is why Jonah Goldberg describes Hitler and the Nazis as left wing. They represent a government with total control over the lives of its citizens and as much of that power as possible devolved into the hands of as few people as possible. In German terms, Hitler could perhaps be described as a conservative in the sense that he wanted to destroy the Weimar Republic (he succeeded) and move society back to the glory days of the Kaiser. In America - land of the free - he would certainly bear no resemblance to conservatism in any sense of the word.

Hitler and the Nazis called themselves socialists. Socialists today call them fascists. Whatever you call them, they wanted to force into existence a world of their myopic imagination and use whatever means at their disposal to accomplish it. That’s far removed from the anarchists, the classical liberals, the founders of this country and anyone else on the true right wing of the slanted line described above. America was founded with the central idea of liberty foremost in the mind of its founders. The several branches of government and written Constitution enumerating limited powers were designed to maximize the freedom of America’s citizens.

And here we come back to the folks at WorldNet. I don’t know everything the people who represent that site stand for but this particular incident does not demonstrate anything conservative. Take a look at what else Joseph Farah has to say about it:

“And understand what I am saying here: I do not suggest it is wrong for Christians to associate with homosexuals, as some have charged. In fact, if we love them – or, as Ann Coulter suggests, ‘like’ them – we should engage them. We should bring them the truth. We should share the good news of the Gospel. And that, however uncomfortable it is, means confronting them with their sin – just as we would any other sinner.”

This is what you call attempting to force your own view of morality into the life of someone else. Unless you’re talking about the Puritans, there’s nothing American being conserved here. Joseph Farah’s Constitution is not the one signed by Benjamin Franklin. It’s the one signed by Saint Matthew the Evangelist. Farah is trying to conserve Biblical values, not American values. A little further on, he says this:

“What will happen as a result of her appearance is that a compromise will be made with sin. Sin will be condoned or appeased. A conservative icon will find accommodation with a sin that would undermine the foundations of Western civilization, the Judeo-Christian ethic and the most basic biblical standards of sexual morality.”

Actually, the “foundations of Western civilization” were undermined two thousand years ago by a guy named Jesus Christ. At least that’s how the pagan Greeks and Romans felt about it. But let’s leave aside this man’s total ignorance of history and look at his other foolish sentence: “… a compromise will be made with sin.”

In other words, Ann Coulter is not free to speak to a group of gay Republicans because she will be condoning their personal behavior. Joseph Farah is not just against gay marriage or gay adoption; he’s against being gay. The irony is that he is doing to the gays exactly what radical atheists are doing to the Christians: trying to prevent people from behaving in a way he would prefer they didn’t behave. That’s not conservative. It’s not American. Hell, it’s not even Christian.

Jonah Goldberg’s take

“He says he received the video in its edited form and I believe him. But the relevant question is, Would he have done the same thing over again if he had seen the full video from the outset?”

Actually, the relevant question is: why would any journalist run an edited copy of a video before checking to see if there was a full version - and watching the full version? Speaking of which, check out the NAACP “full” video between 20:50 and 20:59. Clearly, this one is also edited:

NAACP “full” version

Whatever is edited out there is anyone’s guess. Either way, this is another example of hasty conclusions clouding the real issue - much like Sarah Palin and her inaccurate criticism of Ezekiel Emanuel’s death panel comments. Some of what Sherrod says here about race is encouraging but the discouraging comment comes at 18:20:

“That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor vs. those who have.”

This is Sherrod’s supposed heartfelt revelation? It’s not about black vs. white at all… it’s about rich vs. poor! There’s the bad guy! Rich people!

Why does it have to be about anyone vs. anyone? The left is constantly looking for someone to blame for someone else’s problems. Poor people are poor because of rich people. Later she says rich people want to “hold onto their power.” Fair enough. Wealth and success breed conservatism; the word “conservatism” in this context meaning not necessarily political ideology but the desire to preserve one’s wealth, power, success, accomplishment, etc. It’s a natural and very human tendency. The fallacy with Sherrod’s assessment is her underlying assumption that this desire to preserve one’s position must come at the expense of someone else. Wealth and luxury are static and finite and only a certain amount of people can achieve them. Therefore, the “fair” way to do things is to divide it up equally.

This is absurd and it’s exactly how most in the Obama administration view the world. They hate being called socialists, communists or fascists. Fine. What they really believe in is some unholy amalgamation of socialism, communism and crony capitalism. Let’s call it commulism.

Obama allegedly “believes” in free markets but he’s put the full force of his bloated administration towards destroying wealth in the mistaken assumption that he’s dividing it up more equally. The axiom of commulism is: “markets are good but only if they produce the various outcomes government czars and officials intend.” See for example: light bulbs, automobiles, energy consumption, banking decisions, health care, food consumption, etc. This approach of course defeats the purpose of the free market but commulists delude themselves into believing they still stand for capitalism because they accomplish their objectives through “friendly” force - as opposed to naked, Fidel Castro style force (Goldberg calls it liberal fascism).

Here’s a perfect example of commulism in action:

“U.S. House Democrats criticized airlines Wednesday for increasingly charging for checked baggage, seat selection and other services, and indicated they are considering legislation to tax the revenue collected from the fees.”

It’s not fair that airlines are charging all of these inflated fees to consumers so Democrats in Congress want to solve the problem by taxing the income airlines receive from the fees. How eloquently idiotic. Once again, the assumption is adversarial: airlines created the fee model to hurt their consumers. Government solves this problem by taking more for itself in the name of “the people.” Obviously, the airlines are looking to generate more income. If Congress dents this income by taxing it, which of the following scenarios is more likely:

1. The airlines admit their mistake, apologize and decide to get rid of the fees.

2. The airlines either increase their fees, increase their ticket prices, move the charges to some other area of their business model or enact cuts in other areas (safety for example) so they can continue to maintain their profit margins.

This is the nature of the free market. The way to get business to cut fees is to reduce costs, not increase them. If Democrats could find a constructive way to help airlines reduce costs (simplify burdensome and redundant regulations, enact policies to reduce energy costs, reduce taxes on the airlines, etc.) perhaps we would see the fees disappear. Instead, the administration and the majority in Congress have taken precisely the opposite approach. They’ve chosen at every juncture to villainize and punish private industry in an effort to force the outcomes they believe should happen. As Shirley Sherrod demonstrates above, they’ve just identified a different bad guy. They’ve found an alternative way to divide the citizens they allegedly seek to help.

A few minutes later in her speech, Sherrod goes into a painfully simplistic narrative about indentured servitude and the alleged origins of racism. Evil “elites” sinisterly “created the racism that we know of today … they did it to keep us divided.” Sherrod announces that we have to get that (racism) “out of our heads” because the only real difference between us is that “the folks with money want to stay in power.” Thus, she accomplishes precisely what she accuses previous generations of cynically trying to do: she divides the population along arbitrary lines of distinction.

Sherrod’s revelation - much like the administration she recently departed - was not that everyone should be working together. It’s that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be divided by race. Instead, we should allow ourselves to be divided by wealth. To which this blog respectfully responds: What the hell’s the difference?

Unsightly

“‘We received many strong proposals from states all across America, but two applications stood out above all others: Delaware and Tennessee,’ Duncan said in announcing the winners. ‘Both states have statewide buy-in for comprehensive plans to reform their schools. They have written new laws to support their policies. And they have demonstrated the courage, capacity, and commitment to turn their ideas into practices that can improve outcomes for students.’”

This pathetic scrum amongst groveling states for a massive taxpayer handout is illustrative of what’s wrong with Washington and America. Whom would you rather your state be accountable to: local parents and schools or bureaucrats in Washington?

You wonder why your child’s school doesn’t listen to you? See above. Pay attention to the cash flow. Nobody cares what individual parents think because the money is coming from Washington. That means Arne Duncan, Barack Obama, the teacher’s unions and a host of bureaucrats get to determine what’s best for your kids. They set up a vast system of evaluations and measurements which essentially measures how local schools are meeting the agenda of their campaign contributors in Washington and then they sell off buy-in to the highest bidder.

Public education has become a command economy in America. That means, consumers do not matter. In a true market economy where consumers can choose amongst a host of potential options, innovation and improvements flourish. Parents can pull their kids out of crappy schools, they have a voice if they don’t like teachers or curricula, they can get involved locally and affect real change. When the money and decisions flow from the grassroots, individuals are empowered.

In a command economy, the reverse is true. This is why when you walk into your school and say “This is bull, I don’t want this for my children” the local school officials shrug their shoulders and say “I can’t do anything about it.” This is why - unless you are very rich - you can’t pick what schools your children go to. And it’s why you’re basically stuck with the same curricula and objectionable program no matter where you go. It’s why you are essentially powerless over your child’s education.

This is precisely the direction that Obama and the Democrats want to send health care, the economy, and just about every other aspect of American life. Why? Because it’s profitable for them. In a free market system, politicians have little control. This mutes the voices of the various campaign contributors and lobbyists inside the beltway because politicians are limited in their ability to give those interests what they ask for. The people locally are empowered to do that and if those interests want something, they have to do it locally.

Barack Obama talked often during his campaign about “changing the way we do business in Washington.” He talked about taking control from the lobbyists and special interests and giving power back to “the people.” What he has actually done so far is the polar opposite. He has increased - massively - the amount of business Washington does. He’s increased the power he and his army of czars have over the daily decisions of individual Americans. Those decisions are now being made according to the wishes of special interests, lobbyists and campaign contributors with the loudest voices and the biggest wallets.

That’s how a command economy works. That’s why top down government is eminently popular with politicians inside Washington. It’s why this country is virtually bankrupt and our economy, education system and political system are in shambles. Most importantly, it’s why average American citizens feel essentially powerless over their daily lives.

The Ides fall a week late this year. Julius Caesar’s death marked the end of the Roman Republic. The massive economic power grab that yesterday’s health care vote represents may well herald the death of another.

So perhaps the labels cavalierly assigned to this vote - landmark, historic, momentous, seminal - are ironically appropriate. Just as the Roman Senators believed their knives restored a Republic they actually ended, so yesterday’s votes may be wielded with similar irony. Even the victorious march amongst an angry public was emulated by our conquering representatives. Most extraordinary is how this bill is being spun in the media, as if it were the victorious culmination of the work of toiling crusaders who have achieved something grand and historically unique.

Here’s the reality: A liberal president with almost unprecedented majorities in both houses of Congress has stumbled through an entire year desperately striving to convince his own party to pass a watered down version of the socialist health care policies which are already the norm across Europe, Asia, Central and South America and most of the rest of the globe. Instead of improving or augmenting the exceptional system we already have, Democrats have struggled enormously to force an unwilling country to fall into step with the mediocrity of the rest of the world.

The only adversity Obama has overcome was generated by the sheer incompetence of his own administration and party. The only accomplishment, to emulate the tired socialism of Europe. Why would Democrats want to do this you ask? Calvin Woodward blinded by the glitter sums it up quite nicely (if unintentionally):

“Besides, as much as Americans hate overbearing government and higher taxes, give them a federal benefit and then just try to take it away. Today’s hot potato becomes tomorrow’s cherished check.”

Well of course. When you create an entitlement and force people to rely on it, there is little chance you’re going to convince them to surrender it down the road. Democrats have built their entire political philosophy on this principle. Take from the wealthy, skim a fat administrative fee off the top for yourself and your political cronies, throw the crumbs to the voters and force them to rely on it. Innovation and freedom, the two hallmarks of the American system, will be utterly destroyed by this bill.

Woodward cites Medicare and Social Security as examples of what this great moment in history can be compared to. Both programs are and soon the entire federal government will be virtually bankrupt thanks largely to those gems of political history. It’s extraordinary how our elected officials will decry the “greed” of the private sector. Our Social Security trust fund has long been plundered each and every time those same representatives have deigned to step outside the glass houses they live in.

We consider achievement generically in America, as if mere accomplishment is something to be admired. The president and Democrats have worked hard to complete what Pelosi calls “the great unfinished business of our country.” That phrase fits whatever she wants to fit into it. By a similar standard, conquering England could be Germany’s great unfinished business. Scamming the remainder of New York City’s wealthy entrepreneurs is Bernie Madoff’s great unfinished business. Throwing 50 interceptions in a single season is Ryan Leaf’s great unfinished business. Sometimes, doing things is not so great.

The one silver lining to Obamacare may be the energizing of Republicans. The party has been virtually lost since the end of Ronald Reagan’s second term. If they don’t focus like a laser beam on repealing and roadblocking yesterday’s travesty, we might as well chuck the Constitution into the dustbin of history.

Roger Cohen

“Community — a stable job, shared national experience, extended family, labor unions — has vanished or eroded. In its place have come a frenzied individualism, solipsistic screen-gazing, the disembodied pleasures of social networking and the à-la-carte life as defined by 600 TV channels and a gazillion blogs. Feelings of anxiety and inadequacy grow in the lonely chamber of self-absorption and projection.”

Community, the favorite term of left wing idealist. The Utopian dream of the common man working collectively as a casualty of our evil individualistic culture is always a hoot. If you pay close attention, the left wing collective dream always involves force. It’s always some BS like jury duty or health care - as if those were the only options for common association. Community is not dead, it just doesn’t tend to involve the types of activities the left wants it to involve, so they bemoan the death of community.

Other collectives - groups of people who choose to associate with each other of their own free will - are met with nothing but contempt. Smokers. Snowboarders. Chess clubs. Star Trek conventions. Community softball teams. The Republican Party. Hunters. Fishing tournaments. Insurance companies. Newspapers (IE: the New York Times). These are events, organizations and groups of people associating with each other because they choose to - or even more sinisterly because they are responding to consumer demand. AKA community.

It’s not that responsibilities like jury duty aren’t important. But obviously, people generally would rather be somewhere else. For the left, community never has any value unless it involves forcing individuals to participate. It’s nearly identical to the argument for the National Endowment for the Arts - as if the arts weren’t a multi-bazillion dollar industry in this country with all the movies, television shows, record labels, rock bands, radio stations, etc. We subsidize art in America because some moron in Congress actually bought the argument that art is dying. Seriously! Does Brad Pitt know about this?

Once again, it’s forced art. It’s not art that’s suffering but rather art that the left wing thinks everyone should be appreciating. Die Hard doesn’t count as art, everyone has seen those movies. Let’s fund Piss Christ instead. It never seems to occur to the defenders of this baloney that such art might not be profitable because it sucks. So we have to be forced to buy it, or subsidize it lest the brilliant work of Robert Mapplethorpe vanish from the earth.

“I was struck by how rare it is now in American life to be gathered, physically, with an array of other folk of different ages, backgrounds, skin colors, beliefs, faiths, tastes, education levels and political convictions and be obliged to work out your differences in order to get the job done.”

This is called work. Despite the high unemployment rate, most Americans still do this every day. Since Cohen’s article appears in the New York Times, even he seems to have a job. My favorite part of the article is when he quotes his lawyer friend:

“When it comes to health it makes sense to involve government, which is accountable to the people, rather than corporations, which are accountable to shareholders.”

First of all, the statement is false. Corporations are accountable to customers, otherwise they wouldn’t have any. All versions of the Democratic health care plan (which Cohen sums up his article by extolling) seek to change that by forcing people to buy insurance even if they don’t want it, but I digress. Let’s get to the second and more glaring problem with that sentence.

Government operates by force. If a private corporation wants you to behave a certain way, you’re free to ignore that request. You might lose your health care coverage or get fired from your job but nobody is stopping you from seeking other means of health care or employment (at least not yet). When government wants you to do something, you have no choice. Either you comply or the police kick down your door.

Government in America is partially accountable to the majority, not the people. Big difference. This accountability is checked with various other less accountable branches. Just ask the President. Further and much more importantly, the majority are notoriously unconcerned with the needs and wants of various minorities. Those minorities can be found participating in the various voluntary community events listed at the beginning of this article which Cohen insists are eroding by the day. This is why the founding generation limited the scope of government and it is why free markets will always be superior to government mandate.

RFKJR

“Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.”

He did not, as so many sources are claiming on the right, say that we will never see snow in Washington DC again. As the city is buried under 2 feet this week, that rumor has spread like wild fire. I’m well aware of the argument that goes, a single isolated day or season of unexpectedly cool weather cannot refute the much larger sample of data that demonstrates the earth is indeed warming. This is why those “in the know” scoff (usually audibly) when some global warming doubter announces “Take that Al Gore!” in the middle of a snow storm. I still make those jokes, mostly because they’re funny.

Obviously, Mother Nature is unfamiliar with the fickle nature of public opinion. One or two snowstorms and everyone forgets about what our president calls “the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” Clearly Mother Nature - just like every other aspect of universal existence in the minds of left wing idealogues - does not know what’s best for her.

It’s not that I’m disagreeing with the argument above. Obviously, one cold winter cannot refute the overall trend. Although, trends are funny things when selected out of a 4 and a half billion year history. There’s a lot of room to pick and choose where to start and end things in order to make the argument you have already decided is most correct. The beauty of numbers is that any statistician can manipulate them to look however he or she wants. And how do we know a new trend is not starting right now? But let’s go with the logical assertion: isolated climatological events cannot disprove overall trends.

RFKJR starts off his mis-quoted article with an anecdote that leads to this statement:

“Those odd climatological phenomena led me to reflect on the rapidly changing weather patterns that are altering the way we live. Lightning storms and strikes have tripled just since the beginning of the decade on Cape Cod.”

See, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. If it’s not valid to use these individual events to disprove “overwhelming scientific evidence,” why is it acceptable to use other isolated events to scare the bejesus out of everyone? Hurricanes, tornadoes, lighting storms, heat waves… every single time one of these events happens, you are guaranteed to find some prophet of doom or other wetting his pants in hysteria over the coming calamity. You can almost hear the panic after the last three years of relatively quiet hurricane activity (despite the dire warnings). What are they going to scare us with now?

You will even notice that growing talk of a cooling trend since 1998 has led the panicky left to change their mantra from “global warming” to the supremely arrogant “climate change” so as to account for their inability to accurately predict what Mother Nature will do next. Now, virtually any climate event at all can prove the need for drastic government action. The opposite of “climate change” is the one condition we can say with absolute certainty will never happen: climate stasis.

While we’re on the subject of double standards:

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy … as Upton Sinclair pointed out, ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.’”

Upton Sinclaire makes a very good point. The problem is, RFKJR and the left can only see one side of the coin. When governments and international communities pour money into studies, grants and stipends we call it “research.” When private industries do the same thing, we call it deception. On the left it’s science, on the right it’s lobbying. RFKJR either denies or ignores the possibility that money contributed to various scientific endeavors does not have a similar corrupting influence. Only the evil oil companies are corrupted by the need to prolong their relevance. Climate scientists are not interested in self service, they are driven only by a noble concern for generations of the distant future.

The major problem with global warming or climate change or whatever else the alarmists want to call it now is the massive leap of assumptions they expect us to make. First, we must accept that global warming is actual and not going to reverse any time soon. Next, we must assume that major changes are occurring largely because of human behavior. We then must assume that a complete elimination of that behavior (say, zero carbon output) will suddenly reverse the earth back to “normal” behavior. We assume that any alternative energy source we discover will not have some other negative impact on the surrounding environment (like Ethanol for example). And finally, we assume that massive government investment in various unprofitable technologies will magically make those solutions profitable and palatable.

This goes without mentioning the radical left who believe global governments should institute severe restrictions on corporate and individual behavior. Suppressed economic activity is simply a reality that we must all come to accept in order to divert disaster. This camp does not seem to understand that environmentalism is a luxury of wealthy societies. Americans are environmentally minded mostly because we can afford to be. If you doubt that, take a look at the abysmal record of environmental consciousness in the developing world. When you have no idea where your next meal is coming from, you’re much less interested in the consequences of obtaining it. It’s not that some level-headed “solutions” like reasonable investment in alternative energy are such terrbile ideas. But if the choice is between radical government intervention or tidal waves: I’ll take the tidal waves.

Wetzel

“The fans have been loyal customers. They’ve made everyone rich. They deserve some respect.”

Nope. Fans deserve whatever they’ve paid for. A football game, a beer, a hot dog, a jersey, a DVD, whatever. That’s it. The only demographic outside of owners, players and NFL employees who have any claim on the NFL are season ticket holders. If no games are ever played again, they are entitled to reimbursement because they’ve paid for games they aren’t going to get to see. I’m sure television networks, radio stations and other businesses have certain agreements but they have their own armies of lawyers and bureaucrats to make sure they are looked after.

It’s like saying I’m entitled to health care. Football - just like health care - is the product of someone else’s labor. Nobody is entitled to it - not even the players and owners. Once you introduce entitlement into the equation, it becomes slavery. It sounds silly but pretend for a moment nobody wanted to play football but yet “fans” considered themselves entitled to seeing it on a regular basis. Someone would have to be forced to play it. This is why “a right to” vs. “a freedom to” are two completely different concepts. I know Wetzel just said fans deserve respect but honestly, I’m not sure what that means. He also said this:

“People want to watch football on Sunday and asking them to choose sides in a fight over such fabulous fortunes just exasperates their frustrations. This is an entertainment diversion, just go play.”

I think he was reiterating what he considers would be conventional wisdom amongst fans but anyone who makes those assumptions is wrong. For players, this is not a diversion. It’s what they get paid to do. For owners, it’s a massive investment to which they’ve devoted plenty of time and money. It’s also a livelihood for many employees who represent neither side. None of them are entitled to the NFL’s perpetual continuance but it’s only an entertainment diversion to fans - and that’s precisely why they deserve nothing beyond what they’ve already paid for.

Somewhere along the line, Americans have confused freedom with entitlement. I’m entitled to my job, I’m entitled to my health care, I’m entitled to a certain salary, I’m entitled to education for my kids paid for by someone else, I’m entitled to “healthy choices” on someone else food menu, I’m entitled to a smoke free environment under someone else’s roof, I’m entitled to my IPOD, I’m entitled to football games on Sundays… Bull. You’re not entitled to any of it. You’re fortunate to live in a society that is capable of producing those things and you’re free to partake in them provided you can afford to do so, they are avaialble and that you agree to allow others to enjoy or not enjoy these various fruits as they see fit.

Don’t get me wrong. I love football. I own numerous Dolphins jerseys, I’ve attended more than my share of football games, I partake in multiple fantasy football leagues, I pay particular attention to the weekly spreads, I’ve bought DirecTV just for the NFL package… It would be nothing short of tragic to me if somehow the NFL ceased to operate for a season or longer. However, if Peyton Manning thinks he isn’t making enough money, he’s perfectly free to sit out until he gets a contract he’s satisfied with. If Dan Snyder is unhappy with the millions he’s currently raking in and thinks he should lock the players out for a bigger profit - good for him. I’m sure I’ll have an opinion on who is right and who is wrong but that’s for the courts to decide. If they all decide to retire and become Scientologists, I guess I’ll have to hope they start showing 24 reruns on Sunday.

Wetzel is right about one thing. The current NFL product is excellent. Both sides are foolish to consider tinkering with it so they can make a few extra bucks. I hope they fix this long before next season. If they don’t, look on the bright side: at least we’ll be spared the embarrasment of watching Brett Favre end his career on an interception for the third time.