Constant Conservative

I’ve not written about this for a while (not exactly sure why, except that other topics have drawn my attention), but regular readers know that I often wonder out loud about the world of alternative energy–and how long it would survive without subsidies.

So it was that the first part of this article by Shannon Love caught my eye:

There exists no alternative energy source, no combination of alternative energy sources, and no system of combinations of alternative energy sources that can fully replace a single, coal fired electric plant built with 1930s era technology.

Nada.
Zero.
Zilch.

Yet many want to make this group of functionally useless technologies the primary energy sources for our entire civilization.

Go and read it all. You may or may not agree with the premise, but the article should make you think.

Share

Hide Sites

I’ve been vaguely uncomfortable with the entire Tiger Woods apology affair. I think what triggered it (my discomfort) was an article in paper which listed a number of people who had never so much as met the man and yet were saying that they accepted his apology and that it was time to move on. I thought something along the lines of “Huh? What? On what basis do you accept something that cannot be yours?”

Now, I see that Thomas Sowell has also been thinking about the issue of public apologies and has some eminently repeatable things to say:

Public apologies to people who are not owed any apologies have become one of the many signs of the mushy thinking of our times. So are apologies for things that other people did.

Among the most absurd apologies have been apologies for slavery by politicians. For one thing, slavery is not something you can apologize for, any more than you can apologize for murder.

If someone says to you that he murdered someone near and dear to you, what are you supposed to say? “No problem, we all make mistakes”? Not bloody likely!

He gets better:

Aimless apologies are just one of the incidental symptoms of an increasing loss of a sense of personal responsibility — without which a whole society is in jeopardy.

The police cannot possibly maintain law and order by themselves. Millions of people can monitor their own behavior better than any third parties can. Cops can cope with that segment of society that has no sense of personal responsibility, but not if that segment becomes a large part of the whole population.

Go and read it all.

If anyone reading this was directly damaged by Mr. Woods actions, then he needs to personally apologize to you. If you are reading this and feel hurt by what he did–yet have no relationship with him whatsoever–barring that of fan, please consider that your hurt may stem from an unwise investiture on your part.

Share

Hide Sites

Andrew Klavan interviews a gentleman who sees the world as very black and white:

Take [Jesse Lee] Peterson’s vision of restoring the lost black family, which is unflinchingly religious and traditional. “There is a spiritual order to life that was ordained by God,” he tells me. “And that order is God in Christ, Christ in man, man over woman, woman over children. And it’s not an ego trip, it’s just a spiritual order, that men are subject to Christ and women are subject to men.”

At this point on the interview tape, you can hear me start to stammer hilariously. I don’t agree with everything he says, but. . . . And yet, at the same time I’m stammering, several thoughts crowd in on me. First, Peterson’s traditionalism is only an echo of Paul’s advice to married couples in Ephesians, not to mention John Milton’s deathless description of Adam and Eve: “He for God only; she for God in him.” Second, his words are spoken in answer to a community where I’ve repeatedly heard black women describe black men as “weak” and black men describe black women as “mean.” Third (and I can’t wait to drop this comment at my wife’s next dinner party), the happiest middle-class white families I know are still fashioned on some version of Peterson’s principle—the husband as head of the household—as long as that leadership is understood, as Peterson understands it, to be subject to an overarching moral order of love, gentleness, and grace.

“What men don’t understand is that they represent God in the family, in the home, and . . . they’re supposed to love what’s right more than anything else,” Peterson tells me. “And when they love that, then God dwells in them and works through them to guide them in the right way so that they can guide their families.”

HT: Instapundit

Share

Hide Sites

There is not a one of us who is entirely unselfish (though some are better than others). The older I get, the more selfish I tend to become–requiring that I recognize and actively work against this tendency. To put it another way, I am in need of a daily dose of “it’s not about me” to keep matters in perspective.

Here is the story of a woman who seems to have decided that it was about herself. Before you go ballistic on me for that statement, please read the article.

HT: Ace

Share

Hide Sites

Today we’ll be wrapping up the section entitled: “Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution.” We continue from where we were–discussing the monarchy:

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the World, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

Paine is speaking here of the English monarchy, which was far from absolute. In earlier times, the king was much closer to an absolute ruler or dictator. However, over time, the  government had been altered to a more republican form, broadly speaking, yet with the king still on his throne.

Some writers have explained the English constitution thus: the King, say they, is one, the people another; the Peers are a house in behalf of the King, the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of something which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind: for this explanation includes a previous question, viz. HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to exist.

On the face of it, this argument is worth considering. However, the truth of the matter is that every power held by human hand needs checking (or restraining). The power of the king has no less need for restraint than the power of a president or any other head of state. The fundamental issue is not wheter power must be restrained, but rather by what means is it most proper and efficient to do so.

But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a Felo de se: for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern: and tho’ the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavours will be ineffectual: The first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.

Paine claims that the organization of the English government will lead to felo de se (suicide) because the government is not truly balanced or restrained by its several parts. Rather, he believes that whoever first gains advantage will continue until the other influences are diminished and overruled in their entirety.

We can see this to some extent within our own system of government at the federal level. Increasing, there are those within the Executive who believe that they can act in the interests of the nation (as they see it) without regard to the support or lack thereof within constitution. In fact, when one of the other branches disagrees with the Executive (as was recently the case with Citizens United) the Executive seems to believe that the constitutional basis for that decision is of no consequence. Our constitution (unlike the English one) provides for a much more even balance of power amongst the branches, but that balance is increasingly hard to keep.

That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of the key.

The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government, by King, Lords and Commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries: but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the First hath only made kings more subtle — not more just.

The “giver of pensions and places.” It would seem as though, once again, we have a modern parallel. The rapid increase in positions within the federal government (particularly in the Executive branch) is more than a little troubling. This trend is hardly new with the current administration, but the current administration is not content to continue from where things were.

I would add that the “fate of Charles the first” has tended make all rulers more subtle–as only a change of heart would serve to make them more just.

Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is that IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.

Unfortunately, it would seem that, as our own government departs from the Constitution, the “constitution of the people” is indeed holding back the oppression of the government. The Tea Party phenomena are ample evidence of this truth. The party which (by and large) finds the constitution to be as binding as the Ten Suggestions instead of the Ten Commandments is in charge of the Executive, the Legislative, and stands at rough parity in the Judicial. Yet despite all of this, the agenda for “change” is moving forward but slowly, held back by voices of common citizens with common sense.

I’m thinking Paine would be pleased at the response–though pained that we have regressed so far as to necessitate such a response.

An inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English form of government, is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

Sometimes it is necessary to start over. Paine calls for his readers to put aside their prejudices and see if what he is saying adds up. Once again, he is appealing to reason, though we find that insufficient motivation. His parallel between a good wife and a good constitution is not only interesting–it is useful to us today. Much as one would care for a wife (in the sense of take car of, provide for, etc) one should care for one’s constitution–assuming that one has a good one.

Previously

Thoughts on Paine’s Common Sense: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Share

Hide Sites

Suicide is not something with which to trifle–particularly when one is talking about the suicide of a nation. Mark Steyn addresses this topic with the detail and seriousness which it deserves:

Is America set for decline? It’s been a grand run. The country’s been the leading economic power since it overtook Britain in the 1880s. That’s impressive. Nevertheless, over the course of that century and a quarter, Detroit went from the world’s industrial powerhouse to an urban wasteland, and the once golden state of California atrophied into a land of government run by the government for the government.  What happens when the policies that brought ruin to Detroit and sclerosis to California became the basis for the nation at large? Strictly on the numbers, the United States is in the express lane to Declinistan: Unsustainable entitlements, the remorseless governmentalization of the American economy and individual liberty, and a centralization of power that will cripple a nation of this size. Decline is the way to bet. But what will ensure it is if the American people accept decline as a price worth paying for European social democracy.

Is that so hard to imagine? Every time I retail the latest indignity imposed upon the “citizen” by some or other Continental apparatchik, I receive e-mails from the heartland pointing out, with much reference to the Second Amendment, that it couldn’t happen here because Americans aren’t Euro-weenies. But nor were Euro-weenies once upon a time.

How true is that. Steyn looks then at the details of the European fall from world power.

Why did decline prove so pleasant in Europe? Because it was cushioned by American power. The United States is such a perversely non-imperial power that it garrisons not ramshackle colonies but its wealthiest “allies”, from Germany to Japan. For most of its members, “the free world” has been a free ride. And that, too, is unprecedented. Even the few Nato members that can still project meaningful force around the world have been able to arrange their affairs on the assumption of the American security umbrella: In the United Kingdom, between 1951 and 1997 the proportion of expenditure on defense fell from 24 per cent to seven, while the proportion on health and welfare rose from 22 per cent to 53. And that’s before New Labour came along to widen the gap further.

Neither Mr. Steyn (nor I, though hardly of his caliber) are attempting alarmism by writing or quoting statements such as these. Rather, we are looking at the information we have (which includes thousands of years of history) and encouraging others to look at it as well–and to learn from it.

The reason history tends to repeat itself? Well, the single common thread through all of history is humanity. Only if we were able to fundamentally change how humans act and react would we be able to ensure that history past does not become history future.

As noted near the very end of the piece “decline is a choice.” But then, so is suicide.

Please read the entire article.

HT: Token Conservative

Share

Hide Sites

I recently read a story to which I will not link. My reason for doing so will become evident shortly.

The gist of the matter was that a horrible crime is alleged. The news organization finds someone else in the same neighborhood (not the alleged victim) who is willing to provide context and reaction to the alleged events. This person provides quite a bit of personal information to the reporter, including name, marital/family status, work schedule, rough address, etc. This person states that she/he is fearful of the possibility of the same type of crime happening to her/him.

If the perpetrator(s) of the alleged crime read this story, they have more than enough data to work from for victim number 2.

I do not understand either the news reporter–who would openly publish such information–or the person–who would freely provide such information with no apparent thought as to its possible use.

Here is hoping that I’m simply thinking too hard about all of this and that nothing untoward happens as a result of the story.

Share

Hide Sites

Last time, we covered most of Paine’s Common Sense understanding of the need for/origin of basic government. We shall now continue with his conclusions in that vein:

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, ’tis right.

Ahh, “freedom and security.” The “design and end of government.” One could do worse than to see this as the dynamic tension provided by a properly limited government. Of course, Paine defers to “nature and reason” but we can forgive him that since history has shown us that reason, in particular, is insufficient to trump the lust for power intrinsic to the human heart.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise is easily demonstrated.

Though he does not put it in quite so many words, Paine is subscribing to the KISS rule of government. He realizes that there was benefit to the constitution of England, but that it has suffered over time and as he puts it “subject to convulsions.”  I find it interesting to draw parallels here, not with the US Constitution as such, but with the body of law which has been built upon it (and in many cases, along side it). Those laws tend to more and more complexity.

Absolute governments, (tho’ the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs; know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

This part rings remarkably true with regard to the recent economic difficulties. The laws governing financial institutions, transactions and taxation thereof have become so complicated that every “political physician” advises a different medicine for the current economic ailments, with some advocating bleeding and others feeding. It would seem as though the troubles which existed in Paine’s time were not confined to that time, at least in regard to the nature of a government to increase its complexity beyond any practical usefulness.

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English Constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials.

First. — The remains of Monarchical tyranny in the person of the King.

Secondly. — The remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers.

Thirdly. — The new Republican materials, in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the People; wherefore in a CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the State.

It is likely that Paine himself was one of those who needed to get over “long standing prejudices” with respect to the flaws in the structure of the English government. He, with many others, would have been taught the supremacy of the English way of doing things from his childhood. After all, this was still during the time when people were imprisoned or killed for objecting to the actions of monarchs–regardless of how accurate those objections might have been.

To say that the constitution of England is an UNION of three powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

First. — That the King it not to be trusted without being looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.

Secondly. — That the Commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

Paine is stating that power corrupts–and that this weakness (or as he puts it, “disease”) is natural to a monarchy. It would seem that England had tried a system of checks and balances, as we understand the terms today, but Paine is putting forth the argument that while such might have been the goal–the reality a rather different thing.

Previously

Thoughts on Paine’s Common Sense: Part 1, Part 2

Share

Hide Sites

I remember the very last strip of Calvin and Hobbes. I was in college and found the writing and artwork a welcome break from more erudite (yet far flatter) material. Bill Watterson talks about ending the strip, and several other things:

Readers became friends with your characters, so understandably, they grieved — and are still grieving — when the strip ended. What would you like to tell them?

This isn’t as hard to understand as people try to make it. By the end of 10 years, I’d said pretty much everything I had come there to say.

It’s always better to leave the party early. If I had rolled along with the strip’s popularity and repeated myself for another five, 10 or 20 years, the people now “grieving” for “Calvin and Hobbes” would be wishing me dead and cursing newspapers for running tedious, ancient strips like mine instead of acquiring fresher, livelier talent. And I’d be agreeing with them.

I think some of the reason “Calvin and Hobbes” still finds an audience today is because I chose not to run the wheels off it.

I’ve never regretted stopping when I did.

Go and read it all, then come back here and pop over to Amazon for some of the Calvin and Hobbes collections.

Share

Hide Sites

Willis Eschenbach does excellent work again. It is a lengthy piece, but if you would like to know how freshwater and saltwater coexist on those lovely coral islands in the Pacific, then here is your chance:

Recently, here in the Solomon Islands, the sea level rise has been blamed for salt water intrusion into the subsurface “lens” of fresh water that forms under atolls. Beneath the surface of most atolls, there is a lens shaped body of fresh water. The claim is that the rising sea levels are contaminating the fresh-water lens with seawater. On other atolls, increased sea levels are claimed to be washing away parts of the atoll.

In this paper, I will discuss the three inter-related claims that people are making as illustrated above. The claims are:

1. Increasing CO2 causes increased sea level rise.

2. Sea level rise causes salt water to intrude into the freshwater lens

3. Sea level rise gravely endangers low-lying coral atolls like Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Maldives. A mere 1 metre rise would see them mostly washed away.

I will look at the real causes of the very real problems faced by atoll dwellers. Finally, I will list some practical measures to ameliorate those problems.

I’m glad to see this level and type of engagement on the facts by someone who is in a position to understand what is really going on. I do not make the claim that I completely understand, but Mr. Eschenbach presents the information well–and convincingly. Of course, I am biased a bit toward going with simple answers before more complex ones, so keep that in mind as you read it all.

Share

Hide Sites

What’s not to like here? Joerg Knipprath provides exegesis for a recent interview with Thomas Sowell with reference to his (Sowell’s) latest book: Intellectuals and Society.

Share

Hide Sites

Tomorrow is shaping up to be a very interesting day–and not just in Massachusetts. However, the Brown v. Coakley race will be keeping the attention of many of us who are watching the contest as not only a way of preventing some current poor legislation from ever becoming law but also as the bellwether for this coming November.

Professor Jacobson will be live blogging the events of the day at Legal Insurrection. I think you’ll enjoy his perspective–provided, of course, that you are also pulling for Brown.

Betsy Newmark thinks that Brown has the race sewn up.

Fellow blogger Andrew hasn’t said, but I think he’s backing Brown because they are both southpaws.

And, of course, Instapundit has been quite Brown for a while. It would seem as though about 1/4th of his updates are Brown-related.

****

My own personal prediction? Kennedy will get 2% of the vote, Coakley 47% and Brown 51%.

If you’d like to leave your prediction in the comments, please do so. If you are right, who knows what benefits might accrue?

Share

Hide Sites