Who is John Galt?

question of the day: shirley sherrod

Well, two questions, really.

Irrespective of any "editing," or "context" -- even if Shirley Sherrod was completely right -- would a white person get away with giving the same speech?

However, we still have to consider whether Sherrod was wrong.  It's not enough to observe that the left will not hold themselves to the same standard they'll apply to the right.  There's still the matter of whether Sherrod's behavior is acceptable.  And that's more complicated.

So here's the bottom line:  The government has a job to do.  It's not a charity or a jobs program.  And what Shirley Sherrod said creates an unnecessary distraction.  Not everyone agrees that the NAACP operates in good faith -- I certainly don't.  Basically, with that speech, Sherrod has disqualified herself from her position.  If we can find a similarly-qualified individual untarnished by controversy, then that person is arguably the better candidate for the job.  Keeping Shirley Sherrod now is an unnecessary compromise; yet another bow to political correctness.

And therefore Sherrod should be gone.  Right or wrong.  Throw her up on the wagon next to Trent Lott, and haul her away.

finally, a liberal definition of "freedom"

By now, you've no doubt seen or heard the quotes from Nancy Pelosi, extolling the virtues of universal healthcare:

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer, a writer, without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.

 

Imagine an economy where people could follow their passions and their talent without having to worry that their children would not have health insurance, that if they had a child with diabetes who was bipolar or pre-existing medical condition in their family, that they would be job-locked.

From the American Thinker:

The problem with Pelosi's remarks, however, is that from hindsight, they are not bright, new, or liberating. On the contrary, almost identical words were penned over a hundred years ago by another champion of economic "freedom": Karl Marx. Marx criticized the private economy because it led to the "renunciation of life and of human needs." 

Like Pelosi, Marx was deeply troubled by an economic system that left most people job-locked and unable to satisfy their "human need" to become more authentic. In other words, the more you have to work, said Marx, "the less you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theater or to balls, or to the public house, and the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc."

...This kind of sheer lunacy could have been hatched only by an unemployed academic and journalist like Marx, who, by the way, was supported financially in his authentically job-liberated struggle against capitalism by his wealthy colleague Friedrich Engels. What's most disturbing is the number of wild-eyed crusaders, both then and now, who have fallen for Marx's creative definition of "freedom."

So I guess I can quit my day job and become a full time blogger.  Sure, it doesn't pay as well, but we're well on our way to the point where so much will be "free" that we won't really need money anyway.

It's like that cartoon where Obama gives everyone freebies and then promises them jobs, too: What do we need jobs for?  Money's the same way -- once everything's paid for, what will be the point of money?

The problem is that doctors, like the rest of us, don't work for money.  They work for the things the money can buy.  And when you guarantee that someone doesn't have to actually produce anything to get money -- or health insurance -- you're left with the question of who, exactly, will produce the things of value that doctors work for.  Call it a wild guess, but I'm thinking your doctor appreciates the net value of your contribution at your regular job more than your fine art.  Your job is supposed to be what you do in exchange for the things you consume, and the idea is that everything you produce should be equal in value to everything you consume.

So I guess healthcare reform is now an extension of the National Endowment for the Arts -- another fringe benefit added to the compensation package for people who receive an entitlement for doing whatever they want instead of doing what other people might actually be willing to pay them for.

If the economy actually makes it that far, we're approaching the point where you'll be able to lose your job, take unemployment for as long as two years, and have your healthcare paid for. 

Think about it: The classic unemployment benefit problem is one of denial -- a laid-off worker holds out for his old job, his old salary, his old benefits; it's only when the money runs out that his hand is forced and he finally accepts his new position in the economy.

In a way, it comes down to an agreement about your job title.  You may call yourself an assembly line worker for as long as you receive unemployment, but the truth is that you cease being an assembly line worker the day the factory shuts down.  And all that time you think you're still in manufacturing while you're drawing a benefit?  Well, that's just the period where you don't yet realize that from now on you're going to be in retail.

By Pelosi's line of thinking, your lost job is no longer a signal that you're more valuable elsewhere.  Now it's an opportunity for you to throw your energies into producing nothing of material value -- without having to be worried about living on the nothing that you produce.

Pelosi just increased the benefit: Instead of waiting for the day when a furloughed assembly line worker figures out that his new future is in retail, we're going to throw in a little something extra so he can try his hand at painting.  Wonderful.

Let's just hope all the doctors -- and all the people who produce all the things starving artists need -- don't suddenly decide to become violinists.  Or glass-blowers.  Or whatever.

The real mind-boggling going on here is that we're supposed to feel sorry for people who could be artists if only they weren't "job locked" in occupations of actual value.

And it's interesting how your boss -- your job -- is something to be liberated from.  People don't realize that it's your needs that enslave you -- your boss and your job are actually part of the solution.

That's the John Galt Line.

 

what if old people had babies?

Consider the origin of the term, "caesarean section."  Presumably, Mama Caesar did not survive.  And yet the human population suggests that for every mother who died in childbirth, other mothers delivered more than one healthy baby.

It's a matter of risk.  Most women can deliver babies.  Doctors monitor them closely, often finding reasons to be concerned which ultimately turn out to be nothing.  Nature has already stacked the odds in a woman's favor -- the doctor usually just provides security, certainty.

But that's a lot of attention to be paying to women, one after another, across the country, 24/7/365, considering that only a minority will actually need some kind of life-saving intervention.  You might say that sort of care is "inefficient."  After all, there are midwives for this sort of business, aren't there?

And there's a political side to this.  These are young women.  With entire lives, careers, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue ahead of them.  Families to raise.  They're significant, vital.  They're necessary.

History shows that most of them will survive childbirth without a doctor.  And some will die even with one; fewer, still, will die because of their doctor.  But there are a lot of resources which stand at the ready, and we will commit heroics to save a mother and her newborn.  Life is that important.

Dying is part of life, too.  The elderly have to die eventually, but that doesn't mean they ever have to die right now.  Heroics won't stop death, but they can often put it off for a time, even if it never seems long enough.

And yet, politically, those heroics -- arguably as effective as all those resources that attend a healthy childbirth without actually contributing anything -- are somehow less necessary.

I noted that doctors watch expectant mothers closely, looking for things to be concerned about.  And yet boards tell us not to screen so often or so early for breast cancer.  Looking too closely, or too frequently, for prostate cancers wastes money.  Our system is even accused of "wasting" care on cancers that might otherwise self-remit -- this is even used to refute our statistically superior cancer survival rates.  Our numbers are "skewed" by finding and treating cancers that would never present on their own.  We look too hard.

I can't say any choice is always wrong.  And they don't call them "tough decisions" for nothing.  But I have a problem -- a real problem -- with liberals' idea that we just pretend we're not making a choice.  Their plan is not free -- they're just relying on small, under-represented minorities of the population to pay for it.  As usual.

Extending lives costs money.  That money -- and the care it might buy -- could be used to help other patients.  Democrats see that trade, and they want to make it.  Starting with the lives that are least "necessary."

Do you want that trade, too?

Do you even see it?

on milk

You're hearing about this because it came up at the Galt household this weekend.  Therefore you must suffer -- but I suspect some of you might have something to say on the matter.

I'm pretty squeamish about using milk after five days before the expiration date.  You might think you can stick your nose in the carton and decide "this milk isn't sour yet."  But I smell milk that's a little more sour every day -- and for me the expiration date is around the day it smells "not very fresh anymore."

On February 7th, Mrs. Galt brings home a half gallon dated February 20th, and she puts it in the fridge behind the jug dated February 10th.  Am I really supposed to use the February 10th milk while the best milk in the house is slowly souring in the back of the fridge?  I don't think so.

Am I wasting milk by pouring the February 10th jug down the drain?  Are we saying that the lost goodness of the February 20th milk -- assuming a moratorium on drinking it until, say, February 11th -- isn't wasted too?

In her defense, the wonderful Mrs. Galt does not give me a hard time about this.  But it is a source of some amusement in the Galt house.  So I thought I'd share it with you.

the sotu

Talk is talk.  And it's cheap, too.  I was actually glad at Obama's visible frustration, but it's misplaced.

Obama railed against both parties over gridlock.  I think gridlock's good, of course, but the truth is that Republicans deserve little credit for it.  Dems have had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since Al Franken took office, and Scott Brown hasn't even been seated yet.  The only reason the Senate's not playing "Beat the Clock" to get healthcare reform through right now is because Democrats refuse to play along.  And the most destructive thing the House has passed -- Cap and Trade -- got a few Republican votes.

I don't want to sound elitist.  But taking Obama's speech seriously requires buying into the premise that government exists to solve problems.  That's not why government exists, and it's not what government does.

Ultimately, it is individuals who solve problems, usually working for their own benefit.  A doctor cures a chef's cancer in exchange for some good food.  Or perhaps he cures it in exchange for a Mercedes, and the chef prepares meals for the assembly line workers as part of a more elaborate arrangement that lands the doctor a car.

Government exists because the doctor, the chef and the assembly line workers want to protect their arrangement.  If I work hard, someone else could take the product of my labor by force, denying me whatever benefit I was seeking when I labored.  I work for carrots, and the government carries a stick to ensure that my carrots remain mine.

That stick is all government has going for it.  And that's important, because as soon as we start to think that government should "solve problems," then we are saying those problems should be solved with sticks rather than carrots.  Government goes from protecting your sovereignty over your labor to assuming sovereignty over you.

As I said, ultimately it is individuals who solve problems, working for their own benefit.  You benefit from what I do, and I do it in exchange for whatever benefit you offer me.  Putting government in charge of solving problems means that some people must work for the "benefit" of staying out of jail -- while others receive a benefit without earning it.  Government's not solving problems at all -- that's still being done by individuals -- but the benefit system is radically altered in the process.

Obama wants you to see the left and right squabbling over the fruit of your future labor.  But in reality, you benefit the most when both sides are unable to reach an agreement on seizing it from you in the first place.

And while Obama complains about partisanship, obstructionism and gridlock, to those of us who know better he might has well be up at the podium for an hour and a half chanting, "Four legs good, two legs better."

Which, in fact, is pretty much what he was doing.

the common good

The morning after Martha Coakley lost, Roy Edroso's headline at the Village Voice read:

Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate

And it turns out that's true -- if Republicans stay on the right side of the issues.  I'll explain.

Consider the way Democrat legislation works.  Liberals are all about special interests.  Their legislative efforts center around correcting "injustices" that occur when the free market -- free will -- doesn't produce the results Democrats would have.

Liberals don't represent everyone -- they represent victims.  When liberals vote in favor of any group, they do so at the expense of everyone else.  It's not just Democrats sacrificing the constituents of Republicans -- they're sacrificing a lot of their own constituents, too.  Even liberal voters -- who fundamentally agree with this application of government, and who feel guilty for not being victims themselves -- get sacrificed.

Democrats can demonstrate unity, but only to the extent that they can unite around favoritism.  They make it politically correct to help a cause or a group, and then they challenge voters to support that cause or be accused of being unjust, cruel, or at the very minimum indifferent to the plight of the suffering victims.

Very few people benefit from these policies, but nearly everyone pays for them.  And right now, only 60% of Senators are necessary to institute them.  Think about it: Filibuster opponents now want it to take only a bare majority to compel everyone to provide for their special interests.  Could that possibly make things any better?

On the other hand, conservatism is about the rule of law.  Unlike a Congressional mob whose favor is curried from every direction, conservatism is about policies that benefit everyone.  We want the game to have better rules -- not better outcomes.  Results are up to the individual, and good policy is about heightening the relationship between the individual's actions and the results he experiences. 

For conservatives to prevail -- with only 41 votes -- they only have to concern themselves with the common good.  Not what's good for this special interest or that one, or why things should be better for some "victims" than for everyone else.  By common good, I mean policies that are good for everyone, rather than policies which pit smaller, popular interests against the majority.  What matters is what's best for everyone -- how can a law be written such that nobody is sacrificed?

In fact, the filibuster could be about a minority of Senators defending nearly everyone from the tyranny of politically-protected special interests. Government shouldn't be a process that distributes the cost of one person's good over everyone else -- it's supposed to seek the solutions with the most good for everyone.  The common good -- not the "greater" good.

And yes, I think 41 Senators is enough to do that.  In fact, I don't think it should take that many.

horatio bunce

Not Yours to Give: A little refresher training in who works for whom.  An excellent read, if you've never seen it before.

crossing the line

This is unfortunate news:

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and his wife were leaving dinner at a new pizza joint near their home in Omaha one night last week when a patron began complaining about Nelson’s decisive vote in favor of the Senate’s health care bill.

Other customers started booing. A woman yelled, “Get him the hell out of here!” And the Nelsons and their dining companions beat a hasty retreat.

“It was definitely a scene in there,” said Tom Lewis, a 41-year-old dentist and registered Republican who witnessed the incident. A second witness confirmed the incident to POLITICO.

Mind you, it's not unfortunate because the dissent is getting ugly -- what's unfortunate is that ugly dissent is still newsworthy.  As far as I'm concerned, this should be happening everywhere -- every day -- and not just to Ben Nelson.  And in fact, I suspect this event with Nelson is not the only such scene that's occurred -- just the first we've heard about.  Try to think of it as a bunch of tiny townhall meetings, occurring wherever someone bumps into one of these clowns.

How about the feds investigating an effigy of Obama found hanging from a Plains, Georgia, storefront?  Maybe the answer to the question of whether such obvious dissent should be the subject of investigation is more effigies.  What we need is too many effigies to count.

And if you think the effigy is some kind of headline, just imagine the uproar if they actually arrested the guy and tried to charge him with something.  I suspect that they know exactly who hung the Plains effigy, but they've simply rethought what it would mean to make a federal case of it.

A reader recently accused me of being "disrespectful" to Ted Kennedy.  These people are not nobility.  They're supposed to be public servants.  And as long as things are being presented as if we serve them -- as if they tell us what to do -- then I guess it's going to look a little bit "out of line" to see any of them being put in their place.  And if open dissent does seem out of line, then there's your first clue that it's exactly what's needed.

carts before horses

I saw this yesterday, and it really bothered me: Federal judges say felons should be able to vote in Washington.

The lawsuit contended that because nonwhites make up a large percentage of the prison population, a state law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal because it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities.

I guess I have to ask whether minorities who aren't in jail, and whose "clout" is supposely being diluted, have more interests in common with their fellow law-abiding citizens on the outside or with fellow minority members who are also felons.

To put it another way, doesn't this ruling threaten to dilute the electoral clout of all honest, law-abiding citizens by opening the vote to all felons?  Which should be of greater concern to the government?

The original purpose of government is to protect honest citizens from predators.  Now, I realize government's been branching out; taking on additional responsibilities like "social injustice."  But with this decision we're no longer just covering extra bases -- we're actually giving up on government's original charter, its raison d'etre, in favor of some other cause it assumed later on.

Plus, isn't the perspective of the Voting Rights Act, and other anti-discrimination measures, really about whether minorities are being incarcerated to keep them from voting?  And does anyone believe that if the incarcerated population of Washington was predominately white, for example, that Washington would be more inclined to let felons vote?

I can tolerate idiocy.  But it really hurts to see it wearing black robes and sitting on federal benches.  Washington announced that it will be appealing this, so we'll have to see how it goes.

2009 quote of the year

Maureen Dowd gets extra credit for making this incredibly rational observation despite being a flaming liberal:

If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?