Quickies: The New "More Civil Tone," Available Today!

Remember the attempt to blame the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords on Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs on a map?
Remember "Chortlin' Joe" Biden's calls for the elimination of firearms-related metaphors from political speech?
Remember the many expressions of concern that Barack Hussein Obama might become the target of an assassination attempt?

Well, have a gander at these expressions of...polite dissent from the Left:

• If Romney win this election, he might as well wear a shirt that says “Assassinate Me Bitch”
• Yall ready to assasinate romney
• Romney make me wanna hop through the tv & just assasinate his ass
• I’m gonna murder Romney right now
• Somebody needs to asassinate This mofo
• goodnight yall .. cause im getting ready to murder romney

But some black moron is screaming about "racism" because Tagg Romney is angered by Obama's attack on Mitt Romney's integrity:

Yes because a good whippin’ would teach that Obama boy to mind his place.

It’s worth trying to imagine any black man associated with a credible black candidate for the presidency, joking about beating down the incumbent president of the United States. Racism isn’t just in what you do and don’t say, but in the terrain you walk. It is baked in the cake — a fact which is hard to understand when you are the party of white people.

And people wonder why I'm completely unaffected by accusations of racism. It is to laugh.

Quickies: The "Women's Vote"

Frank Miniter of Forbes lists three reasons for which, in his opinion, Obama's support among the ladies is slipping:

• "Weakness Abroad"
• "The Economy"
• "Strong Leadership"

At the risk of alienating 50% of the nation, I will condense those three reasons into one:

The number of women who want Romney for a husband now equals or exceeds the number of women who want Obama for a pimp / sugar daddy.

Mr. Miniter is probably too urbane to say such a thing quite...that...clearly.

Head of state.

H/t: Dissecting Leftism, 10/17/12.

Religious Correctness

If you've been reading Liberty's Torch, or its predecessor Eternity Road, for any length of time, you know I'm a Catholic and serious about it. I don't (and won't) tolerate anti-Christian slander at any site I administer, and I react against it vigorously in public fora in which I participate. The former is my prerogative as the proprietor of those websites; the latter is merely an exercise of my freedom of expression at sites that honor that principle.

Yet now and then some religious fanatic -- Muslim; Militant Atheist; Democrat; you name it -- will claim that, if I had the power, I'd impose my religion on the whole world by force. That would, of course, include censoring anti-Christian statements made by anyone anywhere, using the powers of the State.

It's nonsense, of course: a form of the tu quoque argumentation gambit with absolutely no substantiation behind it. What I find particularly galling about it is that the very same persons who level the charge at me have nothing to say about the efforts of Islamic states and groups to do the very thing they claim to fear:

The UN agency that promotes education wants a say in how future textbooks are written, and Saudi Arabia -- a nation whose own school books have been criticized for promoting hatred of Christians and Jews -- is helping to bankroll the effort.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is currently working with member states to revise its strategy for the publication of textbooks and learning materials. According to UNESCO's website, experts from 21 countries met in Paris last month at a meeting financed by a $29,000 Saudi donation and focused in part on "ways to ensure that content aimed at students systematically reflects cultural and religious diversity, and avoids gender stereotypes."

Then, last week, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah cut a $20 million check to UNESCO's emergency fund....

"Each country has the ultimate responsibility for the content of its national textbooks," said Qian Tang, UNESCO's assistant director general for education. "UNESCO's aim is to encourage and support those responsible (in ministries of education) for the writing and production of textbooks to reflect on how textbook content should promote respect and tolerance for diversity and eliminate all forms of negative stereotypes. "

Tang said "member states' engagement in this important area of work is welcomed by UNESCO, as is their financial contribution."

"Opening up dialogue and producing resources that support countries to reflect on the role of textbooks in the learning environment, not only in relation to subject 'facts' but also in relation to tolerance, non-discrimination and social cohesion, is an important means of promoting peace and tolerance," Tang added.

Anyone who takes Qian Tang's drivel seriously should see his brain-care specialist at once.

No Islamic state will ever promote "tolerance" or "diversity." The rulers of such states fall into two categories:

• Dissolute voluptuaries who bankroll world Islam as a payment for being allowed to continue on in their pursuit of ever wider and deeper perversions;
• Muslim fanatics eager to "fly the black flag of Islam" over all the capitals of the world.

Their guiding principle is always:

We get to say and do whatever we like,
no matter whom it offends.
But if you dare to say a word:
-- against Islam,
-- its Prophet,
-- or anything else about it,
we'll cut your head off with a dull knife and put the video of it on YouTube.

That's neither "tolerance" nor "diversity" as I understand those terms. If you disagree, keep your hands where I can see them; I tend to shoot first and worry about the paperwork later.

American left-liberals, ever ready to deride and vilify Christians and Christianity, are notably silent about Muslims and Islam. The arrant cowardice of these "apostles of reason," as disgraceful as it is, is all too easy to understand. Those whose consciences are soothed by lavage with Saudi money -- a fair amount of that goes to Hollywood and various American universities, particularly those wit "Middle Easstern Studies" departments -- are beneath even the simple cowards. Those are outright traitors of conscience, if not of an overt act.

Yet there remain persons, including some very intellgent men of indisputable good will, who claim that we must distinguish between "moderate" Muslims and their hairy-eyed brethren in Allah. Stipulate that among the 2.5 million Muslims known to reside in the United States, there might be one or two who:

• Are not jihadis;
• Have never committed an act of violence;
• Have never provided aid or comfort, actively or passively, to the jihad;
• Would not do so even if threatened with the loss of their lives and the destruction of everything they claim to love;
• Do not seek to make shari'a the law of our nation and would join with other Americans in resisting any attempt to do so.

I am indisposed to make exceptions for so tiny a minority.

Islam and its adherents must be forbidden further access to the United States.
Muslims already within our borders must be made to feel too uncomfortable to remain here.
Under no circumstances should American aid, private or public, go to any Islam-dominated region, regardless of the occasion.

It's long past time we grew firm about the defense of freedom, while we still retain a scrap of it.

Debate #2

Once again, I don't watch these events on-air; for one thing, I go to bed too early, and for another, the experience would be bad for my blood pressure. But I do read the transcripts and the evaluations of other commentators.

It appears to me, entirely from the transcript:

• That Romney had a decided edge on substance, forthrightness, and courtesy;
• That Obama was trying to "channel his inner Biden" without letting himself run amok;
• That "moderator" Candy Crowley was just as overtly partisan as many of us in the Right suspected she would be.

The CNN poll of registered voters gave the overall edge to Obama by about 7%. However, a more issue-oriented CNN poll produced results that would appear to contradict that verdict:

• The Economy: 54-40 edge to Romney,
• Health Care: 49-46 edge to Romney,
• Taxes: 51-44 edge to Romney,
• Deficit: 59-36 edge to Romney,
• Foreign Policy: 49-47 edge to Obama,
• Leadership: 49-46 edge to Romney.

I don't know whether that issue-oriented poll used the same sample as the overall-edge poll; CNN's coverage this morning leaves quite a lot to be desired.

Needless to say, the left-leaning Mainstream Media and the various commentators on the Left are all claiming that "Obama is back," that he's reassured the American people of his ability to lead the nation, that this foretells his triumphant return for a second term, and so forth. The right-leaning New Media lean in the opposite direction: that Obama didn't score as heavily as he needed to, that Crowley's partisanry shouldn't be discounted in the analysis, that Obama made many dubious statements that don't square with the facts or his record, and so forth. The arguments will continue until the third and final debate...probably even afterward.

In my opinion, this was a crucial moment for Obama. He had to devastate Romney to reverse his slide -- and he failed to do so. But it's also a crucial moment for the moribund Mainstream Media, the supposed guardians of truth in our Republic. Will they go at all deeply into the substantive statements of the candidates in determining which of them was more honest? And on which topics, at that? Will their evaluations be strictly on a factual basis, or will they be as tendentious as any partisan pundit?

Frankly, I'm not disposed to hold my breath while I wait.

For more on the debate, please read Mark Butterworth's post just below.

"Don't Get Cocky" Dept.

Yes, the presidential race is moving steadily in the direction of the Romney / Ryan ticket. Yes, Romney has been saying and doing all the right things, on the stump and in his first debate. Yes, the Obama / Clinton support network is likely to unravel over the Benghazi atrocity. Yes, with Todd Akin's new lead over Claire McCaskill in Missouri, the GOP stands a fair chance of taking the Senate. Yes, yes, yes.

If you've relaxed about it all, you're a blithering idiot.

First, let's always keep in mind the old Stalin aphorism: "It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes." (That probably sounded better in Russian.) Vote fraud, voter intimidation, and post-balloting lawfare are still all "on the agenda." Should Romney / Ryan prevail by a thin margin in one or two important states, all of those things will matter to the ultimate, enduring result. Please remember that Dino Rossi was ultimately proved to have defeated Christine Gregoire in the 2000 race for the governorship of Washington state, but Gregoire was seated and continued to hold office even after the case for Rossi's victory became incontrovertible. Similarly, the discovery during a farcical "recount" of far more illegally cast ballots than his margin of "victory" didn't prevent Al Franken from taking a seat in the United States Senate.

(Isn't it funny how, whenever there's an election that will be decided by a few hundred or a few thousand votes, the Democrat always gets seated? Just a coincidence, I'm sure.)

Second, it's always a mistake to put one's confidence in a pre-election poll. We tend all too easily to believe what we want to believe. In a hotly contested race, there will always be a spread among the polls that will make it possible to "read" them in a fashion favorable to one's favored outcome. That's definitely the case today. Don't imagine that the Left hasn't read them to favor the outcome it desires -- or that if disappointed by the actual election, they won't claim to have been robbed on the basis of those polls.

Third, there's a quiet but intense conversation going just now, among Obama supporters generally but with emphasis on Negroes and Hispanics, to the effect that any result other than the re-election of The Won would be unacceptable: a justification for violent revolution. Given the tenor of our political discourse at this time, it would be foolish to imagine that such talk is unalterably fated to remain just talk -- especially since the Obama Administration's (In)Justice Department would remain in power throughout the ten weeks between the election and the inauguration.

It's that third possibility that's uppermost on my mind this fine October morning...because of a conversation I had long, long ago with a fellow baseball fan.

I had expressed my confusion over the all too frequent spectacle of managers arguing umpires' calls. Why did they bother? I asked, since it never seemed to result in the umpire reversing himself. My friend smiled and said, "They're arguing for the next one."

It was an illumination of importance. Umpires never, ever admit to a mistaken call -- at least, not during the game-in-progress. But surely they admit to themselves now and then that they "blew that one," and can therefore be persuaded to compensate for it on a subsequent play should the occasion arise. So a manager capable of making a good case against the current call won't ever win an immediate reversal...but he might get a "ledger balancer" in a later inning.

Violence in the aftermath of an American election probably wouldn't cause the election's results to be set aside or reversed...but it might intimidate enough voters to have a substantial effect upon elections two or four years in the future. Consider how completely violent Islamic "protests" have cowed the governments of Europe. Surely their decisions have been influenced by their memories of such unpleasantnesses. I'm reluctant to admit that the same could happen here...but that doesn't mean it can't.

It's not time to relax. All victories are temporary. Besides, we haven't actually won anything yet. Stay focused and alert -- ready for anything. Han Solo will tell you: another wave of Empire TIE fighters could be just out of visual range.

A Thought For Today...And Every Other Day

One of the most foolish, and most dangerous, things one can do is to take love for granted, instead of nurturing it and safeguarding it as the prize jewel of one's life. -- Thomas Sowell

Take it from one of the foremost geniuses of our era. (No, not me.)

Administratium And The Blame Density Metric

A joke that’s circulated on the Web for quite some time describes this supremely dense element:

The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by investigators at a major U.S. research university. The element, tentatively named Administratium, has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number of 0. However, it does have one neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons, which gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles called morons.

Since it has no electrons, Administratium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Administratium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than a second.

Administratium has a normal half-life of approximately three years. However, it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. In fact, Administratium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization causes some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

Research at other laboratories indicates that Administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations, and universities. It can usually be found in the newest, best appointed, and best maintained buildings.

Scientists point out that Administratium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how Administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.

But research on Administratium has not stopped. The Silicon Graybeard has blazed a further trail:

The behavior of any bureaucrat in a government agency or large company can be explained by envisioning a global three dimensional blame density function. No bureaucrat ever willingly stays near a peak in the blame density function: a concentration of blame....

In the absence of things that cause blame to concentrate, [the blame graph] is a flat, uniform surface. Once peaks begin to form in the blame density, government workers or bureaucrats (but I repeat myself) try to flee the peaks and get back to blame-neutral space. This is why the congress hasn't passed a budget in three years - no blame can be assigned. Conversely, it's why they pass resolutions to praise or condemn things that are completely non-controversial. Nothing to be blamed for.

If you work in manufacturing, you have very probably heard of the ISO-9000 family of specifications that manufacturers are being forced to adopt. These can also be explained in terms of reducing peaks in the blame density function. Think of it this way: by creating procedures for everything the company does, you keep the individual worker from deciding how to do things; the stated purpose of these quality systems is to reduce variation, which comes from different workers deciding differently. The usual, cynical comment you hear is "it takes 30 people to get something moving but only one to stop it". The one who stops it is generally afraid of being on a peak of blame density. If everyone follows the procedure but the product fails, no one gets blamed. The procedure gets changed.

This is how you get a situation where the negligence of someone in the State department gets a group of men murdered and nothing happens. Or the negligence of a SWAT team raiding a wrong house and innocent people being hurt or killed. If you or I neglected to do something on our property, perhaps not covering up a hole where we're working in the yard, and someone was killed in it, we would get charged with manslaughter. Whomever it was in the State department that got these men killed won't be. You can bet on that. They have a procedure they were following.

Suddenly, much that was hidden has now become clear: Government officials and their flunkies are composed principally of Administratium! Our next challenge is to determine the precise mechanism by which concentrations of Administratium call huge masses of Procedurite into existence. Procedurite, as we know, swells and obstructs those channels in an organization through which useful communications travel and decisions are linked to those accountable for them. If that link could only be severed, imagine the gains in productivity!

(Nota Bene: It is extremely unwise to attempt to circumnavigate a large Procedurite formation. The probability of collision with an angry mass of Administratium is far too high. The consequences have occasionally included involuntary transfer into management. A word to the wise: Back away slowly until you’re well beyond the front doors, then run like hell.)

The New Paradigm

The President’s 2013 Budget is out and it should be stated that there is no forecasting ability incorporated in this report. The projections  are based on the assumption that what is in motion stays in motion. So the increase in interest expenditures that they freely show here will exceed all nondefense spending in the next decade. This is based on the idea that interest rates will remain the same. There is no anticipation that the economy would decline and tax revenues with it the higher the tax rates rise. Virtually every assumption is effectively just false. There are already plans to raise the age limit on the entitlements. The government employee pension funds are way out of control.
The statement of the President shows how he accepts no blame for anything and shifts it to the effect that somehow the crisis is the offspring of the fact that the rich made more money. How this has anything to do with failed government spending or the fact that if you eliminate ALL government spending except interest and entitlements, you cannot balance the budget. His solution will be to raise taxes by 50%. However, by the time we reach 2020, that same solution will be needed again and we will have completely destroyed the economy for there will be no private wealth left for anyone to argue over. The President’s statement makes it very clear:

“We now face a make-or-break moment for the middle class and those trying to reach it. After decades of eroding middle-class security as those at the very top saw their incomes rise as never before and after a historic recession that plunged our economy into a crisis from which we are still fighting to recover, it is time to construct an economy that is built to last.”

This demonstrates that there is ABSOLUTELY no solution to the Sovereign Debt Crisis. They just plan on continued borrowing and project the National Debt will reach $26 trillion by the end of the next 10 year period. There is no accountability. There is no plan other than to blame anyone with money as the reason the politicians have failed. This statement makes it crystal clear that there is no acceptance of responsibility and the only thing intended is to raise taxes and secretly reduce entitlements, but there is no practical solution that is long-term nor is there any realization that there has to be a debt default on those very entitlements just as we see in Greece whose bonds are now with the lowest rating and presumed to be junk. The amount of wealth destruction on the horizon is off the charts. We are looking at massive STAGFLATION, rising costs (including taxes) and declining (an end to?) economic growth.
Both Presidential Candidates rant and rave about social issues from abortion to gay rights while failing to mention that all rights will be gone by following this course of brain-dead actions. The elections are nothing more than a marketing battle between Coke and Pepsi. Slightly different flavor, but the same color, and effectively the same thing.

In China, the number one T-Shirt being sold portrays Obama as Mao claiming he is the Savior of America. Unfortunately, no politician in this race is even willing to look at what the hell is going on. You wouldn’t hire any of these people to even balance your own checking account. They are totally oblivious to everything and assume it will always be as it is – they will borrow forever, diminish the real value of everything as they retain power so they can live high on the hog at everyone else’s expense. The citizens in Western society deserve what they get. They will not open their eyes to a manipulated press that supports government nonsense, the banks, and special interests.

The President’s Budget even shows TARP continuing indefinitely. Once a program is passed, there is never any end. The lobbying efforts to keep agencies in place is unbelievable. They should have merged the SEC & CFTC long ago. Because they refused to do so, they forced fund managements offshore, giving birth to the Hedge Fund Industry. Even when they created the mortgage backed CDOs, there were 7 agencies that had to approve. When no one was doing their job, another was added on top of everything else. The Federal Reserve was born in 1913 to effectively manage the regional capital flows with each of the 12 branches maintaining its own interest rates and “stimulating” the economy was direct, for it was to ONLY buy corporate paper. Then WWI came, the politicians insisted the Fed had to support their debt by ending the buying of corporate paper. With socialism, Roosevelt usurped the independence of the 12 branches making it one rate for all defeating the purpose of its design. WWII came and they directed the Fed to support US government bonds at par ending that in 1951. Then 1998 came & the Fed bailed out a hedge fund to save the banks. With 2007, they emerged with this "Too Big To Fail" power where they have now taken control of corporations, not only banks. They are politically driven, just as QE3 has shown to the world, and it is no longer even a central bank; but some rogue entity empowered to do whatever it damn well pleases without any accountability and of course it is an unelected nondemocratic institution as is most everything else that runs the government. We vote only for Pepsi or Coke and have no say over anything else whatsoever. So hang on to your socks/wallets. We will by no means make it to 2022!!!!

The United States is attacking its own citizens and capital. Where will capital go to next? When Europe did it, mankind fled to America. Where are we to go now? We are facing a truly catastrophic collapse of our entire economic system in the years ahead. You will be given the guide posts. You will have to tick them off as we pass each one by. Our politicians are like the idiot who is pushed off the tallest building in the world. As he passes the 4th floor, he remarks: " Well, so far – So good!"  This is our future they have screwed with just for personal gain to get re-elected by the art of bribery: "Vote for me & I will give you this."


Source: Armstrong Economics

I Didn’t Expect To Post Today...

...and then I saw this:

Washington Post reporter Dan Zak penned a "TV Review " for his paper after the vice-presidential debate which bragged that "based on their performances -- not their policies -- only Vice President Biden acted as though he could sit at the desk in the Oval Office and have his feet touch the ground."

But Zak was much harsher in his remarks during the debate on Twitter. He attacked Ryan as one of the perverts on "Law and Order: SVU." "35 min in, Biden is Det. Olivia Benson and Ryan is the perp-of-the-week. #SpecialVeepsUnit" The “perp of the week” on that long-running NBC show is often guilty of perverted sexual offenses in addition to murder.

He also demeaned Ryan on Twitter as a child: “My #VPdebate review coming soon: ‘A man debated a boy Thursday night on national television, and both were ultimately schooled by a woman.’”

It’s been clear for a while that the Mainstream Media are failing, gradually losing the allegiance of the news-consuming public. It’s been equally clear that they’re “in the tank,” as the saying goes, for the Obama Administration and (of course) for the Obama / Biden re-election campaign. Nevertheless, there are depths to which they hadn’t yet descended...until this scurrility.

I can think of only one reason the editors of a generally respected publication such as the Washington Post would tolerate this sort of calumnious derision of a public figure by one of its published writers: They hope that the paper can retain through tawdriness and shock what it’s been losing through partisanry and shoddy reporting. It now falls to us to ensure that the tactic fails them – indeed, that it costs them more heavily than all their transgressions against journalistic ethics to date.

Yet these people wonder why FOX News and the various Internet organs of news and opinion are “eating their lunch.” It is to laugh.

A Word Of Advice To Any Sobersided Patriots That Are Still Part Of The Obama Campaign

It seems the songs we're singing are all about tomorrow,
Tunes of promises you can't keep.
Every moment bringing the love I can only borrow
You're telling me lies in your sleep.

Do you think I'm not aware of what you're saying,
Or why you're saying it?
Is it hard to keep me where you want me staying?
Don't go on betraying.
Don't make promises you can't keep.

We had a chance to find it, our time was now or never,
You promised me things that I need.
But then the things behind it took away the chance forever,
You're telling me lies in your sleep.

Do you think I'm not aware of what you're saying,
Or why you're saying it?
Is it hard to keep me where you want me staying?
Don't go on betraying.
Don't make promises you can't keep.
Don't make promises you can't keep.

[Tim Hardin]

Catching Flies: A Vignette

    "Do you think I'm evil?"
    Though gently put, the question caught her off-balance. Even though it was a common attitude among her set that anyone who disagreed with their politics simply must be either stupid or evil, she'd never heard it so bluntly put. It forced her to balance her disdain for conservatives against the imperative of courtesy under another person's roof. She shook her head, struggling against the urge to look -- or run -- away.
    He nodded. "Well, I hope you don't think I'm stupid."
    She shook her head again. "No, not at all, just...misinformed, maybe."
    He looked off briefly as if considering it. "I suppose I have to grant the possibility. Excuse me for a moment while I get another glass of wine. Would you like one?"
    She mutely handed her empty glass to him. Presently he returned with refills.
    "My take on the problem we have discussing politics," he said as he handed the refilled glass to her, "is that it's mainly the assumptions we make about one another. I don't want to think of anyone I'd willingly talk to as stupid or evil, because keeping that sort of company would reflect badly on me. Besides," he said through a grin, "half the country disagrees with me, and there can't be that many villains or idiots out there, right!"
    She chuckled. It was impossible to dislike him, as much as she'd always disliked political conservatives. "I guess not."
    He leaned toward her with a conspiratorial glint in his eyes. "So if neither of us is, ah, morally or intellectually deficient, why do we disagree so much?"
    She thought about it.
    "Well," she said at last, "it could be that one of us knows more about politics than the other...or it could be that we have different priorities."
    He nodded. "I can't think of any other possibilities, myself. Let's examine the priorities factor. What are yours?"
    "To make poor people better off," she said, "to make government less corrupt, to keep the environment clean, to get minorities a fair shake, and maybe a few other things."
    "I can't disagree with any of those," he said. "But I'm surprised you left out defending the country and keeping peace in the streets. You do care about those things, don't you?"
    She bridled. "Well, of course, but...not at the expense of the other stuff."
    He gestured assent. "Of course not. So we have the same priorities, and neither of us wants to shortchange any of them just to promote another. What that says to me is that our differences are over what works best. Would you agree?"
    She sensed that she was being led in a direction she'd been reluctant to follow. It had always been so easy to scorn conservatives and their notions before this. A swift dismissal of such things as either laughably stupid or morally unacceptable had always sufficed. Yet before her was a courteous representative of exactly that sort of thinking. His opening move had compelled her to cast away her set's presumptions of innate superiority. His position was the essence of reasonable discussion between equals. She couldn't reject it without casting herself as unreasonable...maybe even hateful.
    "I know you're trying to convert me," she said slowly, "and I seriously doubt you can, but so far everything you've said is beyond dispute -- at least if you really aren't stupid or evil." He chuckled, and she found that she couldn't repress a grin of her own.
    "Yes," he said, "I'm trying to get you to see things as I see them. That's the point of political conversation. But if I'm not stupid or evil -- say, is the jury really out on either of those? No? -- then if we start talking about any particular issue on a what-works basis, using just facts and their reasonable implications, you'll have just as much of a chance to convert me, won't you?"
    "I suppose so," she said.
    "Okay. Let's try it this way: you pick a topic, and we'll agree to get together, say in about a week, to talk about what we've learned about it. After we've had that conversation, if it goes well, I'll pick a topic, and we'll do it again." The conspiratorial glint returned to his eyes. "Are you game?"
    "Okay," she said. "But...you look like you expect this to be fun."
    "Of course!" he said. "Learning new things is always fun. Isn't it?"

[Dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Don Lavoie.]

The Most Extreme Imaginable Interpretation Of The Most Recent Political Events

A friend just sent me this link to a Dave Janda conversation with Catholic-conservative firebrand Ann Barnhardt. It’s worth the 25 minutes or so it takes to listen to it, so I encourage all Liberty’s Torch Gentle Readers to do so.

Mind you, Miss Barnhardt is a bit wild-eyed and intemperate at times. More, she appears convinced of certain propositions about Barack Hussein Obama and his backers for which I haven’t seen any reliable evidence. However, she has an enviable record for predicting both political and economic developments, which entitles her to a respectful hearing.

I invite your thoughts.

The Vice-Presidential Debate

No, I didn’t watch it live. I go to bed too early for that. But from the transcript...

Paul Ryan, currently a Congressman from Wisconsin and the foremost face of Republican economic thought, was well prepared, as expected. Despite flagrant bias against him from moderator Martha Raddatz, he kept his composure throughout and stayed focused on the policy positions of the Romney/Ryan ticket.

Joseph R. Biden, currently the vice-president of these United States, for thirty-six years a United States Senator from Delaware and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, supposedly the Obama Administration’s foreign policy heavyweight, chose not to attend last night’s debate. Instead, he sent a look-alike who alternated between imitations of Don Rickles and Bozo the Clown...and low-grade imitations, at that.

Moderator Martha Raddatz...let’s not go there, shall we?

According to “conventional wisdom,” which is indifferently conventional and often not terribly wise, the significance of the VP debates derives from the significance of the vice-presidential office: He who occupies that office should be capable of running the executive branch of the federal government in a pinch. Thus, the candidates must demonstrate the required intellectual and emotional ballast to persuade the electorate that allowing them to “ride the bench” for their presidential candidates does not disqualify the entire ticket.

Last night, Paul Ryan demonstrated the necessary heft. By contrast, Joseph Biden made quite a number of people wonder why the nation accepted him into the VP slot in the first place.

The subsequent commentary on the debate was, as you might expect, sharply divided on partisan lines. There was talk of Biden having finally served some “red meat” to the Democrat base. If that’s what they were hungry for, I can only wonder why they’re allowed to vote at all; I have a Newfoundland and five cats who show more refined tastes in nourishment – and better grace in setting to it.

Well, best not to belabor the thing. It speaks for itself. I recommend that all of Liberty’s Torch’s Gentle Readers read the transcript of the thing – assuming you didn’t torture yourself with the live rendition, that is – and form your own conclusions. I doubt they’ll vary much from mine as expressed here.

A Once-In-A-Lifetime Offer

(Well, the lifetime of a mayfly, perhaps...)

If you fancy yourself an attentive and observant reader...
And if you're interested in following the development of a novel by an indie writer...
And if you've read and enjoyed Which Art In Hope...

Please consider the following offer:

I intend to post the various sections of Freedom's Scion, the sequel to Which Art In Hope, at a Website set aside for that purpose. Comments will be allowed, though moderated. I look forward to reading the thoughts of my readers about the progress of this work.

  If you'd like to participate, email me your agreement to keep what you read between your ears -- no telling anyone else about it until the thing is done, at which point it will cost actual money to read it! -- and, if you find it worthy, to help me promote it and its prequel to your friends, neighbors, relatives, and debtors, both in the flesh and on the Web. (I need all the help I can get.)

The email address is, of course, mailto:fran.porretto@yahoo.com

I hope for a nice collection of critics.

UPDATE: Look to the right sidebar for updates to the posted story.

Debate #1: Further Thoughts

Never fear, Gentle Reader. More than enough has been said about the substance of the debate: about who prevailed, about why, and about the reactions of commentators on both sides of the political divide. But something occurred to me this morning, after reading these comments by the worthy Ace of Spades:

Let me suggest something that many conservatives realized after the debate: Obama did not do that badly. For Obama. He was the same listless, droning, exhausted-of-ideas scold we have seen for at least two years now (and maybe three).

He was Obama. This is what he is. He is not quick-witted. He is not, as I think I saw Mickey Kaus note, a wonk. He has never been a wonk, a detailed-policy guy.

He is a guy who speaks vacuously of hopes and dreams and change and fairness.

He always has been.

The problem, for the liberals, is not Obama. This is what you bought. This is your guy. It wasn't his A game, but it was something close to his B+ game.

Indeed. And as many other pundits have stated, when he was compelled to confront a much better man without the media’s protective shield, Obama looked small. It couldn’t have been any other way. Ergo, that media shield, and left-liberals’ overpowering desire to believe that they’d found their savior, were the only things that prevented them from realizing long ago how small Obama really is.

But all this is now well recognized on the Right, at least. It’s a secondary implication that’s on my mind this morning:

We in the Right can leverage this discovery to persuade other Americans to deny their credence to the Mainstream Media.

After all, the alternative media – FOX News, talk radio, and the Internet – have never ceased to give Obama his true coloration. It was mainly a matter of asking certain questions over and over:

• What were Obama’s pre-public-office substantive achievements?
• How did he perform in the Illinois state senate?
• How did he perform in the United States Senate?
• Which promises from his 2008 presidential campaign has he fulfilled?
• Has he ever accepted the blame for a failure under his hand?
• How much credibility has his objective performance earned him?

Merely for asking such questions, we in the Right have been shouted down by the Left, and dismissed by Obama’s more overt allies in the media, as racists. Now that the majority of Americans have grown immune to such vitriol, it’s time to ask the Grand Finale Question:

What did the Mainstream Media hope to achieve by hiding the real Barack Hussein Obama from our scrutiny?

Surely part of the answer is the protection of their reputation for being trustworthy, impartial reporters of the facts. Of course, had they not been ideologically and emotionally committed to smoothing Obama’s path into the Oval Office, that need not have been a concern. However, they gave Obama’s electoral prospects priority, and in the aftermath have had to prevaricate and dissemble in hope of preserving their own reputations and stature as journalists.

That insight could be used to detach quite a lot of Americans from the Mainstream Media. Persuading them to take the alternative media more seriously would constitute a second challenge.

Marshall Fritz, the legendary founder of the Advocates for Self-Government, repeatedly emphasized the importance of “the Blues:” those persons who are drawn to the communications trade, whose first and strongest response to events is emotional, and who are given charge of the reporting and interpretation of events to a mass audience. Inasmuch as there are now effectively two communities of “the Blues,” the older one on the Left and the newer one on the Right, it should be a priority for lovers of freedom to minimize the influence of the former, and to promote the latter as the more trustworthy source of news and related opinion to American consumers thereof.

Left-liberals’ chagrin over The Won’s performance in Denver is a tool well suited to that effort.

"The Narrative"

A penetrating angle on the wider significance of the Denver debate comes this morning from Jean Kaufman:

In the very best postmodern fashion, Obama and his supporters have relied on a narrative about Obama that has been carefully constructed. He’s brilliant, a great writer, a rare thinker, a moderate, a first-class temperament with neatly pressed pants, a uniter, a cool guy who’s unflappable.

The first debate last Wednesday threatened to make that narrative seem absurd. You might say that the narrative got mugged by reality, and an awful lot of people were watching while it happened.

But the next day there was a new narrative in place — or rather, several narratives: Romney cheated, the altitude was too high for Obama, he didn’t have time to practice because he was too busy with weighty matters, Romney lied, and look at those great unemployment numbers!

Those numbers themselves are another narrative, one that no one can quite figure out because there’s a disparity between one part of the stats and other parts. In a very real sense, the numbers don’t seem to add up. But they’re good for the Obama narrative, unless you think too deeply about them.

But one of the points of a narrative is not to think too deeply about it.

"The narrative" is, of course, a story: fiction. But fiction has a better track record for swaying people to a point of view than any other method of getting them there. That's because good fiction mimics the causal mechanisms of reality in a fashion the reader finds plausible and appealing.

If you can remember the "Killian memos" fraud late in the 2004 election, you might also remember this classic post-mortem statement by one on the periphery of the deceits: "The facts were wrong but the narrative was right." The "facts," in this instance, consisted of a set of forged memos critical of George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. The "narrative" the Left, through its media annex at CBS, was attempting to buttress was that of a spoiled rich kid with heavy-duty political connections -- the young George W. Bush, of course -- getting a free ride for conduct that would have gotten other young TexANG lieutenants tossed out of the service, if not into a stockade.

When the memos were revealed via typographical analysis as fraudulent, the narrative took a body blow. The scheme, intended to help propel John Kerry's presidential campaign over the finish line, probably harmed the challenger instead, through guilt by association. But that didn't decrease the Left's belief in the power of a well-constructed, well-supported narrative -- nor should it have.

***

In my book on the storyteller's art, I lay heavy emphasis on what "the story" really is: the causal tissue that links the events depicted, not the "bare" events themselves. Herein lies the heart of persuasion: if your narrative comes acceptably close to the reader's sense for causality -- "the way things work," as he sees the world -- it can persuade. Indeed, it can convince, as politically oriented fiction from Looking Backward to Atlas Shrugged has demonstrated.

However, you cannot get people to accept a narrative that's too plainly at odds with their sense of "the way things work." If that's your intention, you're going to need a lot of carefully constructed scaffolding around your set, to disguise those aspects of the context and the situation that are at odds with your plot.

The Obama camp has had to conceal so much of The Won's past because it needed to present a narrative that's largely at odds with the average American's sense for "the way things work." Now that the implications of that narrative -- in particular, of Obama's superior intelligence, competence, and eloquence -- are being contradicted by events that cannot be concealed, a substantial number of Americans have started to ask what facts about him have been withheld from their eyes.

The inverse is occurring in the Romney campaign. The Left and its media allies have done everything possible to smear Romney as a caricature of a Nineteenth-Century "robber baron" capitalist:

Let's leave aside that the whole "robber baron" thing is a figment of left-leaning historians' imaginations. The image is well cemented into altogether too many Americans' minds. What matters is the distaste the image elicits toward anyone who appears to fit it. The Left strained to present the public with exactly that portrait of Romney. The Denver debate cross-cut it brutally, causing the collapse of that aspect of their narrative undertaking.

Given its reliance on fabricated narratives these last few decades, we must expect the Left to attempt a new fiction immediately. My hope is that there isn't enough time (or enough unexploited slanders) for that; theirs, of course, is that they can sleaze together enough new innuendoes into a coherent tale of venality to undercut the fresh image of Mitt Romney as a man of solid American convictions and substantial, honorable achievements.

This will bear watching, particularly as regards the extent to which Obama's advisors and overt boosters can lead the Mainstream Media into a new channel of attack. The major media cannot help but be aware that their credibility with private Americans is at a historic low. They might not be entirely willing to cooperate with further political exploitation. We shall see.

"Your Tears Taste Delicious" Dept.

By way of the inimitable Mike Hendrix comes this heapin' helpin' of Schadenfreude inducement:

Who would have thought that Barack Obama would come off as the candidate with a hollow core?

Yet there he was, giving a presentation devoid of substance, vision, principle, or even basic coherence. He didn’t show a spark of anger, even when Romney slyly found a way to call him a boy, comparing Obama’s statements to the sorts of childish lies his “five boys” used to tell.

How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that! Mitt, at long last, has secured his base.

Now, you have to expect a leftist writer to try playing the racism-card; at this point, they have nothing else. But we haven't gotten to the really good part yet:

[Obama] runs for president as a populist, soaking up all the liberal energy for change in the country. Once in power, he surrounds himself with failed conservative advisers, and squanders most of his mandate. Then, just as it looks as if he will still be able to defeat his clueless Republican opponent, he turns in the worst performance any presidential candidate has ever given in a general-election debate, tanking the race and turning the country over to a party of fanatical Ayn Rand acolytes and warmongers. [Emphasis added by FWP.]

Forgot to take your meds again, Mr. Baker? Just lie down over here and I'll have one of the nurses set up an IV for you.

For the life of me, I haven't laughed so hard in years -- and in my neighborhood at this hour of the morning, that's an indictable offense.

We're driving them nuts, Gentle Reader. They're going around the proverbial bend in their attempt to distance themselves from The Loser. But really, given the objective facts of the matter, what else should we have expected?

They selected an undistinguished Chicago machine politician, pushed him to the front ranks of their political party, insisted that his rather pedestrian gift for vapid oratory was a grand synthesis of the best elements of Lincoln, Disraeli, and Churchill, and promoted him as if he were the Second Coming. So what if he didn't have a single honest achievement of his own? So what if he had to conceal, most carefully, all the factual details of his early life? So what if among his closest associates and advisors were some of the most despicable persons in America -- a savagely anti-American, racialist preacher; a pair of open, unrepentant terrorists, and a miscellany of assorted felons?

In 2008, Barack Hussein Obama was the best they could do, and nothing has changed since then.

Mind you, this isn't completely unalloyed good news. In a competition of this sort, the stronger competitors tend to sink to the level of the weaker ones. The Republican Party has not distinguished itself these past few decades. It's tossed up one "moderate" after another -- and not just by the will of its kingmakers; with the cooperation of Republican activists and primary voters, as well. Solid conservatives have struggled for acceptance and haven't really done well at it, despite the 2010 Tea Party successes.

Nevertheless, there is opportunity here. If you have time, energy, and a modest amount of money with which to play -- fun-chips only, please -- now is the time to invade your county Republican Party and start to take it over from within. Weakness is omnidirectional; exploit it! Help to make the GOP a true representative of American conservatism and Constitutionalism...something it's never really been, the blatherings of assorted pundits across the political spectrum notwithstanding.

Mitt Romney will have his turn at the nation's helm. The gaggle of wishy-washy Republicans in Congress will dominate national legislation for the next few years. Let's see if we can nurture a better crop to come after them.

Quickies: Breakthrough!

"I’ve been fortunate enough to hear a lot of liberals whine, moan, grouse, grouch, and pitch temper tantrums. In the midst of all of it they’ve got one tactic that seems unfailingly effective, however, and why this should be, I don’t know. They just tell conservatives something is out of bounds, and magically, it’s suddenly out of bounds. If something is really effective, or gathering steam, well then, it’s crazy and can’t be used. I often wonder to myself, how does that mystical process work?" [From this essay; emphasis added by FWP.]

The essay cited above is relentless in telling us to cast off our reluctance to "offend" the Left. Please read it all; the author's vision is likely critical to our success in the current electoral contest. Having read it, ask yourself: "If I am reluctant to accept these recommendations and exhortations, why is that? Does my reluctance flow from my conception of right and wrong, or from my preferred image of myself?"

By now we should know from their own behavior that virtually nothing really offends them. They'll employ every tactic known to Man, including every form of deceit, intimidation, and outright violence to get what they want. Their justification: "Shut up."

It's really just one more demonstration of their assumption of differential rectitude: a moral and intellectual standing so much higher than ours that it entitles them to treat us like cattle to be herded...and slaughtered when the time is right.

Little of this is genuinely newsworthy. The title of this post is more than half sarcastic. What is newsworthy is that conservatives are awakening to the realities of the ongoing political combat:

• It's a battle to the death.
• The stakes are the highest in American history.
• Only one side is playing by "Marquis of Queensberry" rules.
• The other side has repeatedly exploited our misplaced concern for gentlemanly behavior.

My own stance is that the deceitful, the venal, and the amoral deserve nothing but contempt while at a distance, and a .223 Remington round between the eyes when they come within range. After study, I realized that Leftist politics are nothing but deception, venality, and amorality. My conclusions were automatic.

Food for thought.

Debate #1

For much of the debate he seemed to be teaching the basics of economics to a recalcitrant and not particularly bright undergraduate. -- Roger L. Simon

Gov. Mitt Romney destroyed President Barack Obama in this first debate. Had it been a boxing match, it would have been called after the first round, supposing that Obama was still on his feet. Tonight’s contest was as brutal a thumping as Americans have seen in a presidential debate to date. The president should have skipped the trip to Hoover Dam and buckled down to his debate prep. Obama was overmatched, badly, all night. And while his energy and demeanor flagged, Romney’s seemed to gather up and gain strength. -- Bryan Preston

Obama’s robotic performance and disuse of several hit points against Romney quickly led to speculation about whether it’s part of a greater strategy on the part of the campaign, banking on those who peak first falling first — even though early voting has already begun in many critical areas. -- Bridget Johnson

The president appeared small and petulant and reactive. Romney looked presidential and secure and proactive. There was only one president on the stage tonight, and he doesn’t (yet) hold the office. -- Stephen Green

When you get up at 4:00 AM every day, you don't watch a lot of (non-prerecorded) late-night television. That includes campaign season debates. Nor did I deign to record the event for later consumption. I prefer to rely on transcripts and post-mortem summaries of such things.

According to all the transcripts and summaries I've seen, Mitt Romney crushed Barack Hussein Obama. I didn't expect that. But then, I didn't expect to like Mitt Romney as much as I do today. No, not for his policy preferences nor his apparent statist inclinations; for his overall character and his remarkable poise.

Of course, poise comes more easily to an accomplished man confident in his abilities and the soundness of his character. Mitt Romney, a "moderate" Republican, has earned his self-confidence, and he knows it. That might lead him to make some unfortunate, Bush-44-like policy choices in the Oval Office, but as with all presidential elections, "There’s always a choice! This is between 'bad' and 'worse' — which is much sharper than between 'good' and 'better.'" [Robert A. Heinlein]

In preparing Romney for the second and third debates, I profoundly hope that his advisors will tell him to "Stay calm, get in there, and finish him off." To expose Obama as a habitual liar and a complete fool is critical to Romney's prospects. Obama's public persona, well developed over his years in the public eye and well burnished by his media allies, is that of a highly intelligent, highly knowledgeable, completely pragmatic statesman. Though nothing could be further from the truth, millions of Americans have bought that persona -- and disabusing them of it is the golden road to ejecting him from the White House.

To repeat myself: Romney will not save the United States from itself. We the People have to do that, mainly by ceasing to practice interest-group politics -- that is, by refusing to identify ourselves as anything smaller than Americans, and by refraining from demanding anything that must come from others' pockets. But he can, and will, buy us time, especially if buttressed by a solidly conservative Congress and kept mindful of the nation's true needs through constant popular feedback. Yes, it will take more than a Romney Administration to return America to Constitutional governance, but like it or not, this must be where we start.

And so, I find the debate transcripts and summaries surprisingly cheering. Romney appears to be properly oriented for the home stretch of the presidential campaign. Obama, in sharp contrast, seems unable to get his wheels on the track. Reportedly, the Obamas have purchased a large, opulent mansion in Hawaii. They might find themselves moving to it rather sooner than The Won had anticipated.