Archive for compare contrast

The engineering standard?

Herchel Smith takes note of some commentary stimulated by the pending Paris Climate Conference in Global Warming Fraud? Say It Ain’t So!. There are two problems. One is that claims about extreme often depend upon differences in measure that are well under the noise threshold. The other is the lack of accountability in research.

give me an engineering report on the field measurements, and instrumentation used, calibration data sheets, and a data mean, prove to me that you meet the central limit theorem with the ten or so statistical tests used for Monte Carlo calculations, get it peer reviewed, and most of all, have it all done by a registered PE who can be taken to court and lose everything (including his livelihood) if he’s wrong, and then maybe I’ll take it seriously.

Otherwise, the AGW advocates are just wasting my time. But they won’t do that, because they want to write papers in the echo chamber that is AGW “science.”

The standard used is that of the role of a registered professional engineer. An application for a special use permit to build a million square foot warehousing facility near here was peppered with the seals of PE’s who signed off on various reports and findings. While legal culpability might be a bit much for research findings, the means and methods should not be. The problem with much research about climate is that the usual substitute for legal culpability is under assault. Rather than attempting to enhance duplication of results, any who question are told to shut up or even threatened with unemployment or legal prosecution. There is a smell coming from the climate research community and it is beginning to be noticed.

Leave a Comment

PC BLM and why no solution is in sight

Colin Flaherty provides examples of Cops Fired For Telling the Truth about Black Violence.

“President Obama is proud of his support for Black Lives Matter. He calls stories of elevated black crime and violence “anecdotal” and says a history of racism in America justifies whatever Black Lives Matter says or does.

It matters to Chief Halstead.

After he was fired this month, Chief Halstead broke it down on Fox and Friends: Black Lives Matter is “a terrorist group if you can march down the streets and call for the deaths of police officers,” he said, pointing to videos showing protesters chanting, “pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and chanting about “dead cops.”

Both of those officers knew the risks to themselves their careers before speaking out about the threat of black violence and Black Lives Matter. Both knew the people they were sworn to serve needed to know what reporters and public officials most often try to ignore, deny, condone, excuse, encourage and even lie about: that black crime is wildly out of proportion.

They took the risk. They paid the price. That is what heroes do.

Why are blacks over-represented in jail populations? They are arrested, tried, and convicted more often than other racial groups. Why is that? Perhaps the reason is related to why inner city violence tends to be concentrated in black communities. But, for the left, reality doesn’t matter. The presumption is ‘white privilege’ so blacks become a ‘protected minority’ – isn’t protected a form of privilege? – and jails are emptied because it is obvious to the left that that is the only way to correct an injustice.

Meanwhile, crime rates go up with repeat offenders, black on white crime escalates, and denial runs rampant trying to pretend that what they eye sees isn’t what is really there. Problems get worse, not better. How long will that continue? Why are lessons from history ignored?

Update: HEATHER MAC DONALD Heather Mac Donald in Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, October 19, 2015 regarding The Myth of Criminal-Justice Racism.

The most dangerous misconception about our criminal justice system is that it is pervaded by racial bias. For decades, criminologists have tried to find evidence proving that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is due to systemic racial inequity. That effort has always come up short. In fact, racial differences in offending account for the disproportionate representation of blacks in prison. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas found that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to be sentenced to prison, however, due to their more extensive criminal histories and the gravity of their current offense.

Violent crime is currently shooting up again in cities across the country. Police officers are backing away from proactive enforcement in response to the yearlong campaign that holds that police are the greatest threat facing young black men today. Officers encounter increasing hostility and resistance when they make a lawful arrest.

Some are taking note, others look away. Same ol’ story. What will it take for reality to intrude such that it can’t be ignored?

Leave a Comment

The nature of argument

John Hinderaker provides an example of one of the differences quite evident between sides in current political arguments. A Liberal Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel.

Liberals pursue many policies that cause people to die. They release felons from prison, or never incarcerate them in the first place; they make war on the police, causing murder rates to spike; they impede the ability of pharmaceutical companies to bring life-saving drugs to market; they drive up the cost of energy, exposing the poor to dangerous temperature extremes; they promote gun-free zones that turn innocent people into sitting ducks; they pursue weak foreign policies that cause many thousands to be killed by tyrants and terrorists.

These are just a few obvious examples. Yet conservatives don’t call liberals murderers. We extend them the presumption of good faith. We debate policy, we don’t assert that liberals are pro-death. But liberals are not similarly fair-minded. The latest case in point is Josh Marshall, proprietor of TPM, who tweeted:

The example provided is a Tweet from Josh Marshall that proclaims that anyone against gun control is “pro-massacre.” This is right in line with anyone questioning climate change alarmism as being a science denier or nearly any of the accusations about being a racist. It is ad hominem and it cannot be excused as “both sides do it” because the pattern in its use is quite lopsided. The question is: how can you solve any social issue when up against such a lack of intellectual integrity?

Leave a Comment

Prosecute the deniers!

Russell Cook provides an example for comparison and contrast in methods of ‘debate’ when concluding that Those scientists who want to use RICO to prosecute AGW ‘deniers’ have a big problem. Names are listed with specific behaviors and citations. Detail is provided sufficient to make your eyes water.

At least it can be said I’ve never been accused of begging anyone to trust the assertions I make. Legions of pro-global warming people, including Pope Francis, President Obama, and nearly all of the mainstream media essentially beg us to trust them about the settled science, despite the existence of highly detailed climate assessments compiled by skeptic climate scientists. The egregious tragedy of this situation is that so many pro-global warming people have been blatantly misled about immoral “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change” when no such evidence proving it exists, and when evidence is so easily found on how the accusation stems from one highly questionable source.

Begging for ‘trust me’ or an implicit assumption of a false reality abound on the other side of the argument. See for example Smart Grid Technology and Applications by Ekanayake et al that cites “Electric power systems throughout the world are facing radical change stimulated by the pressing need to decarbonise electricity supply” and uses a “consensus” to support its views. When alleging criminal activity, as in the RICO charges raises it to a whole ‘nother level.

Leave a Comment

Is the smoke clearing?

Perhaps the behavior is being noticed in the arguments about important political issues. For example. Kurt Schlichter says Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.

The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

In light of this sort of opposition, there is very little one can do as far as any debate goes. That means the argument proceeds to the next level and that is where the situation gets worrisome.-

Leave a Comment

Manufacturing data: climate alarmists

Fist up is John Cook on Manufacturing doubt about climate consensus.

Scientists have observed distinctive greenhouse patterns such as winters warming faster than summers and a cooling upper
atmosphere. This consilience of evidence has resulted in overwhelming agreement among experts — 97 per cent of climate scientists
agree that humans are causing global warming. But where does the 97 per cent figure come from?

Then there’s Ross McKitrick answering the question that the Claim that 97% of scientists support climate alarm cannot be supported.

In my column I pointed out that people who invoke the 97 per cent consensus often leave vague what is actually being agreed upon.
John Cook does this too: Note that his wording is consistent with a range of interpretations, including that greenhouse gases
definitely cause only a tiny bit of global warming.

He cannot claim that 97 per cent of scientists believe greenhouse gases cause a lot of warming and that this is a big problem, since the surveys either didn’t ask this, or did but didn’t find 97 per cent support.

Who is it that is going psych by putting up the issue of denial as an item of interest? Who is carefully defining terms and issues? Who is alleging “cherry picking” without specification or rebuttal?

Yes behavior is an important factor to consider. But rather than label that behavior in derisive terms (e.g. “denier”), look for choices of words and manner of reasoning. There is a good comparison here.

Leave a Comment

More on the nature of man and the implications of different beliefs

Dennis Prager starts with underlying beliefs about the nature of man in looking at the Differences Between Left and Right: Part I.

Left-of-center doctrines hold that people are basically good. On the other side, conservative doctrines hold that man is born morally flawed — not necessarily born evil, but surely not born good. … To those who argue that we all have goodness within us, two responses: First, no religion or ideology denies that we have goodness within us; the problem is with denying that we have badness within us. Second, it is often very challenging to express that goodness. Human goodness is like gold. It needs to be mined — and like gold mining, mining for our goodness can be very difficult.

This so important to understanding the left-right divide because so many fundamental left-right differences emanate from this divide.

Material poverty doesn’t cause murder, rape or terror. Moral poverty does. That’s one of the great divides between left and right. And it largely emanates from their differing views about whether human nature is innately good.

One of they key understandings in looking at this is that the belief starts at home. The belief that all people are basically good means a belief that the self is intrinsically good as well. That mean’s one motives must be good ones and the impulse to control the behaviors and thoughts of others must also have ‘good’ motivations. That also leads to the idea that ‘since I an basically good then those who don’t agree with me must be bad.’

The striving to overcome one’s own evil tendencies leads to introspection of one’s motivations and to skepticism about one’s conclusions. That is one reason why science and reason has flourished in a Christian environment as science requires taking a close look at reality and weighing one’s observations against a greater whole.

Leave a Comment

What you want vs what really is: Vietnam Vets

Successful Dallas financial advisor B.G. Burkett remembers how flummoxed he was by the media’s frequent portrayals of Vietnam-era veterans as “losers, bums, drug addicts, drunks, derelicts—societal offal…with the potential to go berserk at any moment.” His large circle of veteran acquaintances looked and acted nothing like these descriptions, holding down long-term jobs, with houses and children and voting records.

Currently, there are around 21.3 million veterans in the United States, comprising 9% of the adult population. Every year, around 250,000 veterans return to communities across the country, willing and eager not just to reintegrate into civilian society, but, as the Veteran Civic Health Index shows, to strengthen it.

‘Broken’ no more: Military veterans are civic assets, data shows.

The image of Vietnam Veterans is in the same bed as the rest of the fantasies about that war held by the left to rationalize their uncivil behaviors in anti-draft riots. Hard data refutes this fantasy. Again.

Leave a Comment

Integrity loss

No, both sides aren’t the same.

The American left has come to condone and accept untruth as an appropriate way to conduct their affairs. They are abetted by a media that actively covers up their scandals, while exaggerating the faults of their opposition.

A preacher recently observed in a sermon about lying that “accepting the notion that the ends justify the means leads to a climate where lying becomes the norm.” According to sociologist Robert Nisbet, “What sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.” Our culture’s embrace of lying indicates moral breakdown on a profound level, in which people have begun to satisfy their selfish impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others.

Kenneth Blackwell: The lying game — “Liberals operate on the notion that the ends justify the means.” We are finding meaning in the old saying “there will be hell to pay.”

Leave a Comment

The nature of the debate

First up is the battle about the State Propaganda Machine in regards to education of the children. Emmett McGroarty and Jane Robbins describe how The ‘fix’ is in for AP courses and
“The College Board’s revisions resemble Common Core politicization.”

When controversy erupted a year ago about the lack of balance in the College Board’s new AP U.S. History (APUSH) Framework, the College Board initially dug in its heels and stubbornly defended the new course. … So even if the College Board “fixed” the fundamental flaws of APUSH, which is unlikely, the problems run much deeper than one course. The only way to halt the College Board’s nationalization and politicization of American education is to attack the College Board’s monopoly. Competition, as always, will serve the cause of freedom.

Next is a look at Earth Day where Stephen Moore shows that State of the planet: It’s better than ever and why “Chicken Little and his friends are wrong again.”

Forty-five years ago when the first Earth Day was held, the catastrophe that awaited us was mass starvation, overpopulation, our supplies of oil and gas running on empty, and even a coming second ice age.

Every single one of those predictions was spectacularly wrong. The opposite occurred. But the doomsday machine rolls on. The declinism on the state of our planet and the well-being of our species permeates our schools, our churches, our malls, radio, TV, the Internet and our whole culture.

This is one of the greatest misinformation campaigns in world history. The state of our planet has never been stronger. Nature has never been more bountiful.

Consider the following six statistics, which go a long way to proving how well we are doing:

Finally, Tammy Bruce comes up with the idea that children and adults think differently – sometimes. Liberals and magical thinking — “How the fantasy view of the world guarantees failure.”

We all know that children think magically, and naturally inhabit a world of fantasy and imagination. It’s the perfect place to be when you’re a kid. The problem is, adults on the left seem to have decided they deserve to live in that same magical world, where facts and logic and reason just don’t exist. … While this behavior does not bode well for the Democratic Party or left-wing special-interest groups, conservatives shouldn’t necessarily celebrate. The strength of our system relies on competition and challenge. If half of our political and social structure is melting down because of disconnected magical thinking, our entire system will be the worse off.

This isn’t a debate. It isn’t even an argument. Children tend to grow out of living their fantasies and put them into dreams so they can deal with the real world. The phenomena that is in front of us seems to be ‘adults’ who are dead set to try to bend reality to fit their fantasies no matter the cost. History has shown that cost is horrific but the APUSH effort is trying to solve that. 

Leave a Comment

Look at everything but the data

In a paper published in Climatic Change, the scientists suggest looking at business interests, partisan predispositions and political ideology for the hurdles to policy action.

“Action on climate change requires courage to face the facts by acknowledging, incorporating and legitimizing the supermajority scientists’ views on the issue while recognizing different opinions beyond science,” says Liu.

At PhysOrg: Hurdles to US climate change action are in economics and politics, not divided science

The question is about the ‘facts’ and how they connect to the conclusions being drawn. It is not only the facts about climate change at concern here, it is the facts about the opinions of ‘scientists’ and the supposed ‘consensus’ being claimed.

Perhaps the key is the focus on “business interests, partisan predispositions and political ideology” rather than on issues, rationale for opinions, and sources of disagreement. It is a diversion that shows flailing for efforts to rationalize ideologies when villains are brought in to substitute for actual matters of measurement and reality.

The task of those seeking massive governmental controls beyond what already exists is that of educating the ignorant. Calling them names and avoiding the questions they ask is not usually a good avenue for achieving that task.

(for a comparison and contrast, see Jennifer Marohasy on a Survey Denying My Position on Climate Change)

Leave a Comment

Adding up the numbers

This is a textbook example of projection, but not the type produced by the Urban Institute or the CBO. The irony is that Krugman’s own lies, combined with the clumsy misrepresentations of math-challenged people like Cohn, have contributed heavily to the skepticism that most Americans feel about Obamacare. Most voters intuitively understand that the numbers don’t add up. Sadly, the same cannot be said about most of the law’s media cheerleaders.

There are those who just can’t handle numbers and then there are those who can but only in ways to support their foregone conclusions. See David Catron: The Right Prescription – Math Is Hard For Obamacarians – The numbers are not their friends.

Leave a Comment

BMV, the Blowhard, and reality. Because: racism, of course.

Colin Flaherty says Spring Break Violence is a Black College Thing. What got him started was an episode of Juan Williams trying to school Bill O’Reilly.

Williams reminded O’Reilly of Freaknik, the annual celebration of black violence and anarchy that got so bad that even the Chocolate City of Atlanta had to pull the welcome mat. Then he mentioned Urban Beach Week in Miami Beach — only reporters call it anything but Black Beach Week — and how that was a celebration of chaos and violence as well.

The annual mayhem continued until 2013, when city officials ran out of ways to describe the “living hell” that 400,000 black people created in Miami Beach. So they turned that small town into a large armed camp.

Today, lots of attendees complain how the cops, the towers, the dogs, the drones, the license plate scanners, the lights, the Homeland Security and the cameras are all killing their buzz. And attendance is down.

large-scale and persistent mob violence during Spring Break is a black thing. Or as the t-shirts say: A Black College Thing.

This is a very long list of black parties that wore out their welcome after several years — and angry city officials determined to never allow that to happen in their towns again.

Most of these large gatherings of black people were cancelled or discouraged after repeated and long-term violence, property damage, lawlessness, fights with police and trash. Always mountains of trash.

There is a problem. Whether it is the mob violence or the blind eye towards seeing it for what it is, there is a problem. It isn’t getting better. Black Mob Violence (BMV) is a perpetrator in a privileged class trying to pretend it is a victim. There is a lot of sympathy for the claim. One can wonder why, but not out loud.

Leave a Comment

Don’t debate. Demonize!

It’s Ed Feulner on Muzzling the marketplace of ideas — “Leftists pounce on those who question their worldview” with a few examples.

““Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The words of the First Amendment couldn’t be plainer. Yet more than two centuries after the Bill of Rights was written, they remain the subject of fierce debate.

Actually, I should amend that (no pun intended). These words would be the subject of debate — if debate were permitted. But these days, apparently, we’re all so thin-skinned that we can’t bear to hear an opinion that challenges our worldview.”

“Part of the problem, surely, is rooted in basic ignorance of American history and our founding documents. That’s why I opened by quoting the First Amendment. It may strike some readers as too basic to even mention, but numerous surveys show an alarming degree of ignorance and illiteracy.”

“More and more, this is our world. We don’t debate, we demonize. ”

“You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue,” wrote Saul Alinsky in “Rules for Radicals,” the bible of the so-called progressive left. “Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and popularize it.”

Some will try to tell you ‘both sides do it’ but that only gets interesting in seeing what they can offer to support the conclusion. Trying to be nice by pretending such things is a part of the problem, not a step towards a solution. It’s kinda’ like pretending the alcoholic doesn’t really drink any more than anyone else.

Leave a Comment

The difference

See William Connolley at Stoat for an example of the difference between sides in the climate argument.

“All right-thinking people will obviously agree that the top one is better; WUWT is denialism, and AW is primarily known as a blogger, not a meteorologist.”

The topic and entire content is ad hominem buttressed by the vox populi logical fallacy and a straw man thrown in for good measure. There is no discussion of the issues. Opinion is offered as judgment. Anyone who raises a question in the comments about the premise is taken to the woodshed with ‘reduce to the absurd’ type counters.

If you want to learn about climatology and meteorology, look to WUWT. If you want to see the ugly side of human discourse, maybe try Stoat.

Leave a Comment

Fact Checking

Some media outlets started ‘fact checking’ columns to determine whether statements of politicians were true or false. In part, this effort was an outcome of the Left being caught in so many lies and distortions of fact that ‘balance’ was needed by ‘proving’ both sides do it. David Rutz illustrates just how this fact checking effort is severely biased by describing 5 Times the Washington Post Failed At Fact-Checking. What makes the field ripe for ‘interpretation’ is that the expression of opinion can use allegory, example, satire, and other rhetorical methods to make a point. Trying to determine the veracity of this expression can be a matter of opinion and interpretation about what is critical to the argument and what is not and even what the argument really is.

“Goldfarb got super-serious and dissected such details as executive orders versus executive actions and the constitutionality of Obama’s endeavor. He didn’t get into how Obama had said for years that his executive amnesty actions were outside his authority.

Also, it doesn’t appear the Washington Post ever checked for sure that Will Ferrell’s Bush wanted to put Germany, the economy and math into his “Axis of Evil.” That, of course, would have been absurd since this was a silly comedy show. They did get around, four years later, to debunking the idea that Sarah Palin had actually said “I can see Russia from my house,” as made famous by Tina Fey’s impersonation.

We give these blunders double double Pinocchios.”

There are many ways to avoid intellectual integrity. Sometimes, observing behavior yields better results – if intellectual integrity has any value – in determining veracity and truthfulness.

Leave a Comment

Does not compute

Some things don’t make sense, don’t ‘compute’ and become the source of dissonance. Christopher Chantrill describes to of these things for him as The Democrats’ Thugocracy.

“There are a couple things about the Obama years that have registered “does not compute” for me. The first was the complete powder taken by the media. Yes, I know that they are all ruling-class liberals that believe in all the received liberal notions and still swoon today at the thought of a First Black President. But you would have thought that, here and there, a liberal journalist would have popped his head above the parapet to take a potshot at the president. Because fame and celebrity. But really there was nothing for six long years until after the 2014 midterms.

“The other thing that did not compute has been the extraordinary discipline of the Democrats in Congress. … You tell me that none of them saw the 2014 wave coming, and none of them had the self-preservation instinct to break out of the pack and save themselves from the GOP onslaught?”

Trying to resolve this cognitive dissonance leads to hypothesis formation or the attempt to propose different views of reality to one’s self in order to make some sense of the world.

“I think we are coming to understand the other “does not compute” now that the Justice Department has decided to prosecute Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The Dem officeholders have been kept in line because someone is keeping a little list of all their little foibles. It’s a delightful system. The Obama administration does nothing about corrupt acts by its supporters until the day that a supporter breaks ranks. Then it’s: Nice little political career you got here. Pity that something should happen to it.”

“I wonder what the Democratic Party would look like if everyone weren’t looking over their shoulder wondering what California Nance or Bugsy Harry or Big Ears Barry had got on them?”

Of course, there are two ways to go with this reconstruction of reality perceptions. One is illustrated by the climate alarmists who remain in stubborn denial. The other is to accept testing of the new hypothesis and adaptation of perceptions yielding to intellectual growth. 

Leave a Comment

Which way do you want it? BOTH ways, say the greens

The story is a Look At The Endless Sprawl Of Greenhouses That Cover Spain’s Desert — “Over $1 billion in cheap, low-quality produce is grown in the middle of the desert each year thanks to environmentally destructive greenhouses.”

Meanwhile, birds fry when desert land is covered with mirrors in an attempt to make solar energy competitive.

On the one hand, it is feeding people inexpensive vegetables. On the other, it is about raising energy costs for those people to limit their abilities in comfort and transport.

Just what is the actual target here?

Leave a Comment

Secret massive governmental industry takeover: Internet edition

It is just like the previous, massive, partisan forced, regulation of an industry where you are told you won’t know what is in it until after it gets past. The Register has two items on the topic: Net neutrality secrecy: No one knows what the FCC approved (but Google has a good idea) and Net neutrality: The world speaks its brains on secret ‘open’ ‘net rules. On the secrecy:

“Analysis US watchdog the FCC formally approved new net neutrality rules on Thursday for America. But you’re out of luck if you want to know exactly how your access to the internet will be now be governed.

Despite getting the green light, the exact rules have not been revealed and will remain a mystery for some unspecified length of time.”

“In fact, the chairs of both Congressional committees that deal with telecoms issues requested that the rules be put out for public review, as did two of Wheeler’s four commissioners, who complained they wanted to publish the documents but were barred from doing so.”

“But that’s not all. Both commissioners expect changes to be made to the document after it has been formally approved by them, with the “OGC” – office of general counsel – given extraordinary leeway to edit and revise the rules even following formal approval.”

The second item is a bit whimsical

“Comment Look at this photo of FCC chairman Tom Wheeler holding hands and smiling with the two Democrat commissioners who backed his “open internet” regulations, the pair wearing vivid blue outfits. It sums all that was both good and worrying about the decisions today to pass secretive net neutrality rules.

Here, we see a historic debate on internet access in America, a crucial complex technology, jump the tracks and career into a quagmire of politics. Jubilant Dems on one side, the Republican commissioners who voted against the net neutrality rules on the other.”

“What do mean “once it’s released”? This is all done and dusted. We’ve got net neutrality, baby! The internet is free again! Rejoice!”

deja vu all over again.

Leave a Comment

An Alinski Jam

Neo Neocon asks What can the Republican Congress do?.

“As soon as the Democrats ended the filibuster for judicial appointments, arguments for Republicans to retain it became weak, because the reason for keeping it was always to protect one’s own minority rights when the time came. This required that both parties support the rule, knowing that someday it would be their turn to benefit from it (when they were in the minority) and another day it would be their turn to be stymied by it (when they were in the majority but not the supermajority). Respect for the rule also required a modicum of compromise from whatever the minority party du jour might be if Congress wanted to get any work done at all. But that sort of thing ended a while ago, too.

So there is no longer any reason to uphold something I always had defended. Now the situation is such that Republicans are fighting a battle where the implicit rules of the game have changed. As “Harold” puts it, they are in an Alinsky jam here. And they better study up on their Alinsky or they’re going to be in huge trouble (they already are in trouble, actually). But I don’t think most of them have the temperament, or perhaps even the interest, to go bold.”

“To recap: they can impeach but not convict. They can pass bills in the House that can’t get through the Senate, or that can get through the Senate but not get past the veto. They can…they can…what? They can decline to fund important parts of government, and try to bully the Democrats and Obama into blinking, but Obama rests secure in the fact that the public will be manipulated by the press into blaming Republican “obstructionism” for any lack of funding. That doesn’t mean the Republicans shouldn’t do it anyway, but it does mean they run an excellent chance of taking the hit for it rather than Obama and the Democrats.”

It is much like the terrorism problem. Just what does it take and just how much does it matter to prevent disaster? When you are up against opponents who do not care about anything but winning at any cost, there is no deal making. There is no effort to resolve issues. That approach is either broken by absolute defeat or you get what you see in Cuba or Venezuela or the many other examples where opposition to the Left decided it wasn’t worth the effort. 

Leave a Comment