Centsless

Given our propensity for self-destruction, typically one bad decision at a time, a paternalistic government has little choice but to intervene.

The most recent attempt to save us from ourselves is a proposed one penny per ounce tax (an estimated 17% increase) on soda and sugary soft drinks.

The thinking, I believe, is theoretically sound: increase the price (of soda) and you’ll succeed in decreasing consumption. The economic cost and consequences will ripple through the private sector, but the State should show a tidy little profit. And not incidentally, a greater good, as they see it, will have been served.

I suppose all that’s left to consider is whether the State, having failed miserably in its legitimate responsibilities, should assume a far greater role in our lives; as in telling us how to live them

Liberty, the next controlled substance.

Be Patient

Time is the treatment of choice for most minor ills and discomforts. It’s equally efficacious, though it takes longer, in curing the follies and fervencies of youth.

The Pew Research Center has determined that the Millennial generation, those under thirty, is the largest group (as a percentage – 29%), of self-described liberals.

“In every other age group, Pew notes, far more describe themselves as conservatives rather than liberals”.

Progressives (Democrats with a philosophy as well as an agenda) are being reminded, most recently, in a column by E. J. Dionne Jr., not to neglect the Millennials, a politically perishable commodity.

Significantly seduced, by the charisma candidacy of Obama ’08, their enthusiasm has waned.

This was to be expected. Obama, then brimming with promise, was more impressive, backlit on a great stage, framed by fluted columns, than sunlit, amidst the litter of broken promises.

The Democrats understand there are mid-term and long-term consequences to the de facto defection of their most gullible constituency.

The greatest concentration of Liberals, is to be found (not coincidentally) among the young (18-29), naïve and ignorant, a mix of temporary and potentially remediable conditions.

The interesting question for the Democrats is, can they arrest the natural maturation of judgment that time and experience typically confer?

Free Lunch

The “Democrats dependency agenda aims to multiply the ways Americans are dependent on government”.

A remarkable indictment, convincingly demonstrated, in a recent column, “Dems and Dependency”, by George Will.

A partial explanation, of the Democrats rationale, might portray them as merely ruthless, powerhungry opportunists, who simply wish to further their own interest (getting and staying elected) by making themselves seemingly indispensable and therefore politically  unassailable.

The language of social and economic justice (fairness), equal opportunity (outcome based), and positive rights (entitlements) has long since replaced talk of, and a concern for whether we remain a free and independent people.

Should the Democrats succeed in their campaign to corrupt and enfeeble the American spirit, the role and size of government would expand (that was always their intention), becoming more intrusive, confiscatory and inevitably imperious.

But behind the uncomplicated self-interest of the political hack there is the self-righteously ideological hardcore.

The Progressives impulse to “reform”is born of their resentment for a system that has allowed generations to thrive and prosper yet failed to recognize and reward their own, imagined, moral and intellectual superiority.

Left to their own devices (i.e. unopposed)  the Progressives hope to do for the middle class all that they have done for and to their fellow black Americans.

Fat Chance

Michelle Obama is about to bring her considerable celebrity and derivative authority to the fight against childhood obesity.

I would caution the incorrigibly optimistic not to buy broccoli futures just yet.

The First Lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign appears to be a predictable mix of misguided  meddling, socio-economic theorizing and regulatory reach (mayonnaise may yet become a controlled substance.)

Regrettably her crusade against corpulence is likely to replicate the results of the War on Poverty, the War on Cancer, and the War against Drugs.

Perhaps we shouldn’t have replaced self-respect with self-esteem.

Yes, I’ll have fries with that.

Zinn-o-phobia

According to Webster: a fear and loathing of Howard Zinn, the freshly deceased author of “A People’s History of the United States”.

First published in 1980, the book has sold two million copies, becoming something of a “standard” text in many of the nations high schools and colleges.

The question, that Zinn’s death poses anew, is how can a simple minded, slanderous screed against this country be adopted, by much of our educational system, as a reliably accurate narrative of this nation’s history.

Presumably those who make such decisions, including our President – the nation’s chief apologist, embrace the book’s politically correct and accusatory premise.

America, according to Zinn and virtually every left-wing, America-hating, socialist sympathizing academic, has grown and prospered at the expense of its designated downtrodden.

Those with official victim status currently include: women, blacks, Native-Americans, the poor, the undocumented, the generically challenged, etc, etc… virtually everyone except upper-middle class white males.

Zinn and the lunatic fringe, of which he was an icon, believe the country’s government and institutions malevolent, manipulative, and morally criminal.

His objective was to influence, especially the young, rather than inform.

Howard Zinn was no more an historian than Joseph Goebbels was a journalist.

Smile

A picture is still worth a thousand (adjusted for inflation) words. Particularly the photo in Tuesday’s WSJ, captioned: “President Obama Monday after speaking about his budget plan”

Following the President, at a respectful distance, was Secretary Geithner, looking every inch the toady.

In stark contrast was Obama’s bearing and expression. There was an almost ceremonial formality, a commensurate arrogance and a thinly veiled, generic, disdain.

Somehow it all seemed evocative of a tin-pot potentate who imagines he bestrides the world. Tragically and perversely, in some sense he does.

That photo was worth its weight (and Jerrold Nadler’s) in psychiatric and political insights.

The question of whether Obama is an implacable ideologue or a principled pragmatist is laughably inappropriate.

When Obama’s judgment seems as curious as it is questionable perhaps is because he doesn’t feel constrained by logic or facts.

As for truth, it’s a bourgeois morality.

Recent reversals could have inspired a serious reconsideration, but that would have required reason and humility.

Instead we witnessed a clumsy attempt to refute reality and “reconnect”.

There is a theory, somewhat out of fashion, that great men can influence events, I suspect that lesser men, given the leverage of office and authority can be equally influential.

Regrettably.

George Bush Ate My Homework

“The Second Year”, (NYT 1/28/10), an analytic dissection and overview of the State of the Union Address begins “The union is in a deep and justifiable anxiety…” the balance of the editorial is an ill-mannered muddle of partisan idiocy, delusion and deceit, not unlike the State of the Union Address itself, in which the President declaimed and decried for what seemed like a weekend in Philadelphia.

In soaring and stilted rhetoric we were given a revisionist review of the prior year and a preview of coming attractions. Taking credit and “blame” (the kind without consequence) the President expressed his disappointments and his determination.

Considering that the “address” was little more than an overpriced paid political advertisement, Mr. Obama should have been more appreciative of the Supreme Courts 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Rather than reprimanding the majority after misrepresenting their ruling, he might have reaffirmed the restoration of our First Amendment.

In any case it was merely one “inaccuracy” among many, including job creation, he claimed the highest of seven “estimates”, climate change, the evidence is conclusive (if contrived) and health care reform, Americans allegedly demand it (polls, tea parties and elections not withstanding), all twenty-five hundred unread pages.

Then not wanting to alarm us, the President and Commander in Chief managed to compress his concern for our national security into a few brief remarks and reassurances.

Mr. Obama’s recurrent theme throughout was the need to change the tone in Washington, if the people are to be best served.

I don’t think it’s the tone, the rhythm, or the melody ….. it’s the lyrics.

“Congress Shall Make No Law”

But it did,abridging the freedom of speech  of corporate entities, other than the press.

Campaign finance reform, and its attendant logic, became a euphemism for the censorship of political speech. Intended (and justified) to prevent seeming and supposed corruptions of our political process, it has reduced our liberties without restoring our confidence in the system.

If you are “big oil, Wall Street, insurance companies”, among others you might be too big to fail but not too big to be selectively silenced.

Some might think that unusual, most would think it un-American

Last weeks Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 5- to – 4 in favor of freedom, restored a foundational liberty to its preeminent and pre-adulterated self.

Our President and live in constitutional scholar commented with professorial detachment; “this ruling strikes at our democracy itself”… “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest”…. “a major victory for powerful interests”.

Coincidently those ‘powerful interests’ have recently been vilified by the President.

Populists need designated enemies of the people.

The NYT editorialized the day after the ruling; “The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights”… “The Constitution mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections – the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations”

Nor does it mention abortions.

The Times faults the majority for its “broad interpretation of free speech rights” yet has  applauded the application of the First Amendment to ‘virtual child pornography on the internet’ , the printing of classified national security information, on its own front pages, and to topless pole dancing (soon to be, I hope, an Olympic sport).

Good law, sound logic and Constitutional fidelity notwithstanding perhaps the most convincing case  to be made for the Courts decision are those who oppose it.

If Only:

Martha Coakley had been a better candidate.

If only she hadn’t called Curt Schilling a Yankee fan.

If only the DNC had gotten involved earlier.

If only she had exhibited a little independence of mind.

If only she had asked the President to actively support her candidacy.

If only she wasn’t so dismissive of those whose votes she sought.

If only she hadn’t considered this Senate seat “reserved” for Democrats only.

If only she knew where the Taliban are still to be found.

If only she hadn’t pledged to support the health care legislation that the majority of Americans vehemently oppose.

If only she hadn’t confused confidence with conceit.

If only “I support Coakley” didn’t really mean “I support Obama”.

If only the people hadn’t come to value integrity and ideas over promises and personality politics.

If only a rational agenda, consistent with our traditions and institutions, wasn’t preferable to a grand scheme that redistributes wealth and responsibility.

Martha Coakley could have won.

If only it hadn’t been put to a vote.

A Heritable Legacy?

Somewhere between probable and problematic lies the political future of Scott Brown and, incidentally, the nation.

The Senate seat, amply filled, until his passing, by Ted Kennedy, should have passed, by divine right, to another, any other Kennedy.

Given their plenitude, self-inflicted wounds notwithstanding, this should have been a seamless succession.

Even for their surrogate: Martha Coakley.

Alas!

We seem to be on the cusp of a counter-revolution.

Reports of conservatisms (small c) death might have been premature and entirely wishful.

The much to be hoped for outcome of Tuesday’s “clash of civilizations” (those who favor unalienable rights over entitlements) bodes well for the republic.

Should the forces of redistribution be repelled, for the moment, some might consider it a referendum on the Obama agenda.

Ya think?

Or, to put it in the words of the soon to be former head of Homeland Security “our system worked”

But whatever the outcome, the revisionists will have their work cut out for them.

Tea parties, town halls and now Tuesday in Massachusetts.

Participatory democracy lives!