Constant Conservative

Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota has officially jumped on the bailout wagon:

Gov. Jennifer Granholm and five other governors called on Washington on Thursday to take “immediate action” to help the country’s struggling auto industry amid a growing awareness and fear of potentially huge job losses.

“While all sectors of the economy are experiencing difficult times, the automotive industry is particularly challenged,” the governors said in a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking them to make more credit available to car buyers.

[snip]

“We urge that you use your broad regulatory authority to ensure that your continued actions help promote liquidity within the U.S. auto industry,” it said. In addition to Granholm, Govs. Steven Beshear of Kentucky, Ted Strickland of Ohio, Ruth Ann Miner of Delaware, David Paterson of New York and M. Michael Rounds of South Dakota signed the letter.

Their letter said U.S. automakers directly employ 355,000 workers and another 4.5 million Americans work in sectors supported by the domestic automakers.

If GM or Ford were to collapse, it would wipe out part of the auto parts supply chain, and even healthy international carmakers assembling vehicles in North America would suffer disruptions until they found new sources of parts, said Sean McAlinden, chief economist and vice president for research at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.

“The loss of taxes and income (from an automaker going bankrupt) would far exceed the bailout money,” he said.

[ed: bold added]

I do not know the precise motivations behind Mike Rounds signing this letter, but the fallacy of “too big to fail” seems to be infecting folks across the nation. Does no one read history any more? Does not one person in a policy position understand that throwing money to companies which are engaging in unhealthy business practices (translation: dying from the inside out) only serves to temporarily postpone the reckoning, and inevitably prolong the agony?

Do. Not. Reward. Bad. Behavior. Unless, of course, you want more of it.

I do not want to see GM, Ford or Chrysler fail. I do understand their importance to the US economy. I am amazed by their histories and appreciate what US automakers did to establish automaking worldwide. Nonetheless, I would rather see a company fail than to see my tax dollars going to prop it back up. Such meddling in the business of business is not the role of the US government as found in any reading of the US Constitution.

Iowahawk has a gift. Here’s a bit which he shared recently:

But there is an even more compelling reason to support Barack Obama: Sarah Palin.

If you are a conservative like me, you guffawed when you heard John McCain announced this declasse rube as a running mate, followed by good-natured applause, thinking it was some sort of whimsical campus prank he was reenacting from his Annapolis years. This was, of course, quickly followed the shock of realizing that he wasn’t joking, and all that Hanoi unpleasantness had finally driven him around the bend.

It’s an inescapable conclusion that this woman has, in 6 short weeks, single-handedly destroyed the Republican party. Certainly George Bush may share some of the blame; but we conservatives must remember how our hopes were buoyed by his impressive bloodlines and Yale degree before we realized his excursion to Texas had caused him to “go native.” But la Palin offers true conservatives no such extenuating graces. I mean, my God, this woman is simply awful; the elided vowels, the beauty pageantry, the guns, the crude non-Episcopal protestantism, the embarrassing porchload of children with horrifying hillbilly names, the white after Labor Day. As fellow conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan quipped to me the other day outside a Martha’s Vineyard antique shop, it’s gratifying to know the Gipper isn’t alive to see what has become of his party.

Go, read it all, then weep tears of, of, of, well . . . . something.

Paul at PowerLine nails it down:

An Obama administration would almost certainly be to the left of the Clinton administration. It might well be to the left of any U.S. administration ever. A person who votes to bring on that administration may be admirable in many respects. He or she may have been a conservative recently. He or she may become a conservative soon, and should be welcome in that event. But if the term “conservative” is given its ordinary, contemporary meaning, how can he or she be considered a conservative now?

Anybody ever wonder what the end of “Words mean what you want them to mean” would be? I think we’ve just seen part of it. Several people (as noted in the rest of the article from which the above was taken) are claiming the mantle of conservatism without changing behavior which marks them as supporting the very opposite. Only in a truly post-modern world may we claim to be one thing and hold the opposite to be also true (or perhaps “truer” if such is possible).

Conservatism is not just something which was created explicitly for this election cycle (unlike the publicly muted socialism of the junior senator from Illinois). Conservatism has been a known, delineated collection of beliefs in American politics since the time of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Words do mean things. The unfortunate fact is that they apparently do not mean what Anne Applebaum and others of her stripe think they mean.

Desperation leads people to do things which are not necessarily rational. This premise, with a twist, is the subject of this article from the New York Post:

Of all the pleasures to be found in the pain of others, though, none seems more justified than smugness over the panic in Moscow, Caracas and Tehran as oil prices plummet.

We may need to be careful what we wish for.

Successful states may generate trouble, but failures produce catastrophes: Nazi Germany erupted from the bankrupt Weimar Republic; Soviet Communism’s economic disasters swelled the Gulag; a feckless state with unpaid armies enabled Mao’s rise.

[snip]

Bottom line on bankrupt enemies: Russia’s dangerous; Iran’s dangerous, but vulnerable; Venezuela’s just vulnerable. There may be serious trouble ahead.

While schadenfreude is something which we all may fall prey to, it is pretty clear from history that such feelings are usually prelude to disaster. I believe we can safely say (no irony meant by that statement) that there will be serious trouble ahead, and that some of that trouble will be caused by those listed in the linked article. Nonetheless, I was just thinking about how much energy and effort we (as a country) expend thinking about the trouble which may be caused by Russia, or Iran, or Venezuela–but perhaps fail to pay as much attention to those who are rather more quietly waiting for a weakness which they can exploit against the United States.

What’s the old saw “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer?” But how do we keep everyone close? Some might say that this is the purpose of the United Nations. The United Nations of today seems to be largely a place where Unhappy (with the United States) Nations come together to tell us and each other (on our own soil, no less) just how much they hate, loathe and despise almost everything we are and everything we stand for. Besides which, does anyone even care about UN Resolution 1,934,029 or whatever it is we’re up to now?

Perhaps our best approach to considering the misfortunes of those who are not our friends is best summed up by Solomon barDavid of the Old Jerusalem Times: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles.”

M’sieu Rappaport is doing his best to even up the playing field with a modest proposal:

[The solution to media bias] is regulation of the composition of media employees based on political views.  My guess is that the New York Times has about 80 to 90 percent Democrats.  Simply require that there be an even number of Republicans and Democrats at the Times.  Yes, there are all kinds of complications, but put those to the side.  They are details that can be addressed.

If the Commanding Heights of our information society had to be half conservative and half liberal, there would be much less liberal bias.  The usual arguments for integration would apply here.  Conservatives would have much more power to stop the bias.  Moreover, the fact that they were present in the newsrooms would make it harder for liberals to get away with biased claims without being challenged.

Sounds reasonable to me. Of course, one might have to take it even further in terms of ensuring that journalism professors at major universities were also roughly divided, so as to ensure the necessary chemistry with students of all stripes. In fact, why don’t we simply implement this along with the Fairness Doctrine. If opposing views are to have equal time, does not it follow that one must come up with roughly equal numbers of opponents and proponents?

I eagerly await the possibilities. “Affirmative action” as a term is entirely too baggage-laden to use for such a transformative approach to getting out the news. Let’s call it the Equality in Media Proposal of The Year, or EMPTY, for short.

From the great state of Joe (“Shotgun”) Biden comes more Second Amendment news:

Delaware State Police stopped Alvina Vansickle from purchasing a .22-caliber pistol for self-defense because she was too old and a woman, said Superintendent Col. Thomas MacLeish.

The outrage that followed led to the revelation that Delaware State Police had been keeping lists of gun buyers for years; state law requires them to destroy these records after 60 days.

[snip]

Vansickle’s husband, who has legally purchased several weapons over the past several years, spoke on her behalf about the delay.

“Apparently, they thought she might shoot herself with it,” said J.R. Vansickle, 83. “She has a clean record. There was no reason to turn her down. I lost both legs through diabetes. I’m in a wheelchair. We’re an elderly couple. She wanted the gun for self-defense in our home.”

It’s a lengthy article, but well worth the read. Bottom line is that the state police were a) denying a purchase based on somebody’s gut feeling, not any law on the books; and b) keeping firearms purchase records for far longer than they were legally permitted to. One more thing; this system (at least the department that uses it) was apparently put in place as a result of the Brady law of 1994.

Next time Biden talks about how Barack’s not going to take away our Second Amendment, someone needs to ask him what the police do in his state.

If you simply must devote the better part of a half-hour this evening watching a “transformative candidate,” I have spared no expense to bring you the following:

NOTE: Unlike the other, rather expensive show which will be on this evening, you can start and stop this one at any time.

John Lott on his personal knowledge of Barack Obama:

John Lott: The first time I met him, I went over and introduced myself. He said, “Oh, you’re the gun guy.”

John Lott: And I said, “Yeah, I guess so.”

John Lott: And he said, “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

John Lott: And I knew he was working at, with helping out…

Dave Bose: Wait. Let’s repeat that because Obama says he believes now that the 2nd Amendment preserves an individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, Joe Biden whose helicopters are constantly being shot down by Frosty the Snowman has affirmed that Barack Obama’s not trying to take away guns and you’re telling me that the first thing you remember Obama saying to you was…

John Lott: Yeah, that he said, “I do not believe people should be able to own guns.”
[snip]
John Lott: If I can just make one other comment about my interaction with Obama in Chicago?

Dave Bose: Oh yeah, sure.

John Lott: And that is when he made the statement about believe that people shouldn’t be able to own guns, I said, “Well, maybe we can get together for lunch and we can talk about it.”

John Lott: And because I knew he was also supportive of the Chicago suit against the gun makers.

John Lott: He just grimaced and turned around and walked away and that was the end of the conversation. And that’s the way many conversations went that I had with him and I believe just in general he really disliked talking to people that he regarded as conservatives.
[snip]
John Lott: And again, he just turned his back to me and started talking to someone else. And it wasn’t so much that he just disagreed. I really got the impression that he really believed that I was evil because I had different views, particularly on the gun issue.

While I find it unsurprising that Lott and Obama did not get along, it is interesting (and yes, I understand that Lott is not a disinterested reporter of the facts, thank you) that Obama apparently was unwilling to sit down with someone he disagreed with (with or without preconditions) to have lunch and talk over a controversial topic. Do we really believe that he’s going to be able to sit down with dictators and hash out difficult relationships? Unless, of course, he might find them much easier to talk with since he is not (by his own words) interested in preserving the Second Amendment, nor is he (by his actions) concerned with major portions of the First Amendment, nor, if his 2001 interview is to be believed, is he unwilling to overrule or otherwise abnegate the US Constitution itself in order to address the “blind spot” of those who put together the blueprint for this nation, faulty though it is.

In fact, the more I consider it, the reason he may be willing to talk to dictators is that he might believe that it is time for America to have one, too. Trust me, I’m not trying to jump the shark here, but I am trying to figure out why he was unable to make himself talk with a fellow professor, but he can talk to heads of state who hate America, our culture, our laws, our people, and even how/that we worship God.

Back to the original topic (sorry about that), it is very clear that Obama does not believe the Second Amendment should be in the US Constitution. That, in itself, is huge.

HT: Dakota Voice

A liquidity crisis, in the new parlance.

I confess, I went to a university and completed a 4-yr degree. I did so without any government assistance. My parents contributed somewhere in the neighborhood of $200-300 over the course of my entire adventure. The balance of the $40,000 (give or take), I earned myself. Some of that earning took a while, but the total outstanding loan (with a private individual unrelated to me) is now down to $400. It should go to zero by the end of this year.

With that said, there is a worthwhile discussion over at the Economist on who should be paying for higher education. I’ve got my thoughts and I’m sure you have yours. Head on over to see what’s happening.

HT: Cato@Liberty

There’s a new site on the block: Obama Shrugged. Everything you never wanted to hear about how to collect illegal campaign donations.

Sometimes, one reads things which, at first glance appear to be jokes. This was one such item.

It is hard to know where to start. 900,000,000 people who are second-class citizens of a country which does more business with the United States than any other nation in the world. Mao Zedong’s supposed veneration of the “peasant class.” The probable punishment (of one type or another) which those who didn’t meet up with expectations will face when they return to the rural villages and farms.