This noted professor and farmer gets it right:
Yes, she needs to read more, find out more, learn more. But she also knows a lot that the intellectuals don't.
Reagan did read, did learn. More important, he made those ideas fundamental to his life.
More later.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
More on Palin
From a real expert: Palin's move sets her up for a comeback.
On this score: Being guv of Alaska earned her no points, anyway.
It's a new era. It's the Twitter Age; the old rules don't hold.
And what good are the establishment Republicans anyway?
On this score: Being guv of Alaska earned her no points, anyway.
It's a new era. It's the Twitter Age; the old rules don't hold.
And what good are the establishment Republicans anyway?
Monday, July 6, 2009
Palin by comparison
On Sarah Palin:
As a wordsmith, I must humbly confess that the current president has shown that words must be connected to deeds, and are irrelevant until they do.
So her words have no meaning, until she acts.
If she leads a revived and valid Republican movement, more power to her.
That "I-quit-a-rod" is funny. But in our wired world, that a political leader would skip around a lot restlessly might not be bad; it might even be good. In the era of Twitter, politicians too might jump from idea to idea.
If she's just burned out, well, bully for her for admitting it.
And I give her kudos for not wanting to take a state paycheck if, for any reason, she didn't think she was going to earn it.
This is bipartisan. In the last election, Obama, McCain, Clinton and others picked up their gummit paycheks, had their gummit staffs and perks, and did not work.
Everywhere else they'd be fired.
When, in the meltdown panic, McCain actually went to the Senate, it was as if he hardly knew where the men's room was.
After all that, I have my doubts. She's a genuine populist politician. But does she have the intellectual grounding?
I don't mean she killed time at Harvard, Yale, etc., absorbing the cliches and conventional wisdom.
But if she is just a populist force, she'll just be blown whichever way "the people" are moving.
Both Bushes, and most right-wing politicians, don't really grasp conservative principles. So in the end, they're blown by the biggest wind.
I'm no personal fan of Ronald Reagan. But I have to grudgingly say he understood the core principles of conservativism, and in the main tried to follow them.
Does she? I have my doubts. But her words are nothing, until connected to deeds.
As a wordsmith, I must humbly confess that the current president has shown that words must be connected to deeds, and are irrelevant until they do.
So her words have no meaning, until she acts.
If she leads a revived and valid Republican movement, more power to her.
That "I-quit-a-rod" is funny. But in our wired world, that a political leader would skip around a lot restlessly might not be bad; it might even be good. In the era of Twitter, politicians too might jump from idea to idea.
If she's just burned out, well, bully for her for admitting it.
And I give her kudos for not wanting to take a state paycheck if, for any reason, she didn't think she was going to earn it.
This is bipartisan. In the last election, Obama, McCain, Clinton and others picked up their gummit paycheks, had their gummit staffs and perks, and did not work.
Everywhere else they'd be fired.
When, in the meltdown panic, McCain actually went to the Senate, it was as if he hardly knew where the men's room was.
After all that, I have my doubts. She's a genuine populist politician. But does she have the intellectual grounding?
I don't mean she killed time at Harvard, Yale, etc., absorbing the cliches and conventional wisdom.
But if she is just a populist force, she'll just be blown whichever way "the people" are moving.
Both Bushes, and most right-wing politicians, don't really grasp conservative principles. So in the end, they're blown by the biggest wind.
I'm no personal fan of Ronald Reagan. But I have to grudgingly say he understood the core principles of conservativism, and in the main tried to follow them.
Does she? I have my doubts. But her words are nothing, until connected to deeds.
Aiiieeee!!!!
Nooooo! Not more stimulus plans!
Many objections. Many.
Say's law says production drives the economy, not consumption. By one view, consumption just consumes wealth. (That may be a necessary part of the business cycle, but the main point remains.)
Republicans and conservatives must fight a new Obama-ist stimulus, as actually harmful to the economy, not just too much.
Right now, however, even conservatives can't resist the siren's song of government bucks. Until they do, they'll fail.
Many objections. Many.
Say's law says production drives the economy, not consumption. By one view, consumption just consumes wealth. (That may be a necessary part of the business cycle, but the main point remains.)
Republicans and conservatives must fight a new Obama-ist stimulus, as actually harmful to the economy, not just too much.
Right now, however, even conservatives can't resist the siren's song of government bucks. Until they do, they'll fail.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Delusions
More on the global warming farce.
Our modern world lives in a bubble of words, images and ideas, with little connection to fact.
Until, perhaps, it's too late.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
The core economic debate
The real battle: Keynes vs. Say:
Mises:
The unprecedented success of Keynesianism is due to the fact that it provides an apparent justification for the "deficit spending" policies of contemporary governments. It is the pseudo-philosophy of those who can think of nothing else than to dissipate the capital accumulated by previous generations.
Another commentator:
Say was emphatic that consumption destroys wealth and that only production creates wealth.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Earth to Congress.
This is just plain obvious:
Perhaps Hatch and the other members of the Judiciary Committee could devote more attention to Sotomayor if they canceled a hearing, scheduled for next week, to investigate the College Bowl Champion Series (BCS). The upcoming hearing is a colossal waste of time.
***
It ain't 2005 anymore! Or 1995! Or 1965!
The Democrats are planning to destroy our economy and political system (in a way, of course, they are the same thing.)
Hatch, Bennett and Chaffetz have to man the barricades. Full-time. Fighting the climate bill, fighting health nationalization, fighting defeatism -- that's more than enough to keep a lawmaker working 24/7.
Forget the diddly stuff!
Perhaps Hatch and the other members of the Judiciary Committee could devote more attention to Sotomayor if they canceled a hearing, scheduled for next week, to investigate the College Bowl Champion Series (BCS). The upcoming hearing is a colossal waste of time.
***
It ain't 2005 anymore! Or 1995! Or 1965!
The Democrats are planning to destroy our economy and political system (in a way, of course, they are the same thing.)
Hatch, Bennett and Chaffetz have to man the barricades. Full-time. Fighting the climate bill, fighting health nationalization, fighting defeatism -- that's more than enough to keep a lawmaker working 24/7.
Forget the diddly stuff!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)