Squaring the Culture

I’m frequently appalled at what passes for analysis on the left, so I guess Neal Gabler’s unbelievably vapid analysis at the Los Angeles Times, claiming that conservatism was really started by Joe McCarthy, and that what we’re seeing from conservatism is a “McCarthyism Gene,” is no real suprise.

As political science, Gabler’s article is simply incoherent. He liberally switches between “republican” and “conservative” in his descriptions of his targets, but really means neither; when he’s done staggering from pillar to post, he arrives leaning on the pillar of “paranoia in American politics” — the tactic of winning elections by scaring people.

If his criteria included populism and anti-intellectualism, as he suggests at first (before abandoning those), he’s on good ground connecting Ronald Reagan to Joe McCarthy; both led populist movements that were rejected by Washington elites, Reagan with greater success. But surely he understands that those are not sufficient criteria to define a political movement, doesn’t he?

“Use of scare tactics” is hardly a more robust criterion. By the time he lands on “scare tactics” as the common thread of conservatism (or is it Republicanism?) he’s tied McCarthy to Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin.

He accuses Nixon of “fueling resentments as McCarthy had,” without a single word explaining who resented what, or for what reason. It’s a meaningless assertion. Nixon probably won the 1968 election because the Democrats were hobbled by the Vietnam war and by the riots at the Democratic convention; the Democrats’ position that year was not very different from the Republicans’ position this year. He won the 1972 election because George McGovern was a blithering idiot and everybody knew it; nobody expected McGovern to win, and nobody really wanted to run against Nixon.

His sole reason for including George H.W. Bush in the list is the Willie Horton campaign ad, which was hardly the reason Bush was elected; he won because he was a Republican following one of the most popular Presidents in modern history. Michael Dukakis was an unapologetic liberal in an era where the American people identified “liberal” with social policies they detested. The elevation of the Horton ad to the role of chief identifying mark of Republicanism, ignoring every other factor in the election, strikes me as nothing but convenient cherry-picking (I would have said the same about his assertions about Nixon, except that there were not any cherries for him to pick, so he simply asserts his point without support of any kind.)

The anti-intellectual political science continues with George W. Bush. He includes George W. Bush in the list because of his success in tarnishing John Kerry’s war record, skipping right over the 2000 election because it does not fit his narrative. It’s to no avail. Tarnishing Kerry’s record is not even anything George W. Bush did. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were a private organization who advertised in only 3 states, and their message was carried by talk radio and the blogosphere, not by the Bush campaign. Ultimately, though, Kerry’s dishonor on this topic is the fault of John Kerry, who acted as the public face for the military anti-war movement in the 1970s, complete with false accusations of military atrocities. The opposition of Vietnam veterans to the Kerry candidacy was the most predictable political event of my lifetime, and to blame this on Karl Rove (who probably was not even involved in it) is the worst sort of infantile whining.

Palin, finally, earns inclusion in Gabler’s Hall of Shame merely by insisting that the link between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama contains relevant information. Readers of this blog know that that link goes a lot deeper than anything Sarah Palin said about it, and that Barack Obama cannot be defended as anything but a wholehearted neo-Stalinist who has adopted centrist policies just within the last 2 years in order deceive the public and win an election; readers who are new here should begin here, here, and here for background information. Be that as it may, however, one finds it hard to imagine that Gabler could possibly be serious when claiming that simply thinking the Ayers connection is important constitutes the primary criterion linking all conservatives — except, he really is serious.

This is truly the ultimate in slander politics; the mere mention of a negative characteristic of liberalism makes one a “conservative,” and thus a “genetic McCarthyite.” It’s political science without any attempt to assemble relevant facts. There’s no rebuttal for this level of silliness; one simply shrugs one’s shoulders and mutters, “Whatever.”

Absent from this analysis, of course, is any consideration of whether there’s anything to be scared of, or (to put the matter more objectively) any problem to be taken seriously. He simply asserts indirectly, without even making a positive claim, that everybody knows there were no communists in US government, that the Soviet Union was not an Evil Empire, and that radical Islam is not a real threat. He’s provably wrong on all points. The Venona project has settled the question of whether there were communist plants in the US government; we now know there were hundreds, and beyond that, McCarthy’s primary claim was simply that government personnel policies were irresponsible, which they provably were. The millions killed in the Gulag, and the murderous communist revolutions around the world that ceased for some reason after the fall of the Soviet Union (odd coincidence, that) stand as testimony to the evil of the Soviets, and their collapse vindicates Reagan’s policies. I’ve already pointed out that Kerry has nobody to blame for the reaction of Vietnam veterans aside from himself, and that Palin actually had a point about Obama.

Of course, it’s pretty difficult to listen to complaints about a proclivity for “scare tactics” or the “politics of resentment” from the political party whose most successful theme for the past two decades has been “soak the rich,” that has the government buying up the banking industry over an imminent credit freeze that nobody seems to be able to substantiate, that wants to turn American productive capacity over to a central economic planning organization in order to prevent a global warming crisis that is increasingly imaginary, or that insisted on electing a man with an empty resume’ on the dubious thesis that the only opposition to such a candidate arose from a sort of racism that the US has not exhibited since the 1960s. If Joe McCarthy were, in fact, guilty of scaremongering over a chimera (he’s not), his most direct political descendants would be Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barney Frank, not Sarah Palin and George W. Bush. I suppose Gabler excludes Gore and Frank because leftist intellectuals, for no reason having anything to do with facts, still think they’re right about a few things. It’s not a great reason.

I do think Joe McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin have in common that they announced reason to be cautious and take sane measures against real threats. I think Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Barney Frank have in common their cynical opportunism based on illusory threats. But I don’t think any sound political science could associate them on this basis alone. This is the stuff of bad freshman Poli Sci papers, the kind that earn the sea of red ink in which they invariably swim.

If Gabler wants a genuine recent instance of an anti-elite populist, he should visit Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions project. The only problem is that Gabler would then have to admit that America really is a center-right nation; Gingrich produces copious polling data suggesting that politicians could easily draw 70% or more popular support on nearly any political subject by adopting a center-right policy line. His “Drill Here, Drill Now” theme (yes, that came from Gingrich, not from Michael Steele) arose from the poll suggesting that more than 70% of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, think it makes good sense for the US to develop its own internal oil sources.

In the end, Gabler’s “analysis” amounts to an unthinking, whining complaint about how unfair it is that when Republicans are on message, the American people find what he calls “liberalism” abhorrent. He’s disturbed that so many people think he supports policies that are just, plain bad policies. Tough. They’re bad policies nonetheless, and if saying so makes me a “genetic McCarthyite,” then I’ll be one proudly. Only, of course, it doesn’t; it just makes me Gabler’s political opponent, somebody he’s more comfortable calling names than he is engaging in anything resembling cogent discussion.

The impulse to character assassination of this sort does, in fact, run in political parties; only, he’s got the wrong party. Character assassination is the singular, unifying theme of every Democratic party initiative of the past 70 years; it’s the only thing they do well. Just ask Joe McCarthy. Or Dan Quayle, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Linda Tripp, Ken Starr, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin…

By the President of the United States of America–

A Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor–and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be–That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions–to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us–and generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go. Washington

Prepared by the Division of Cultural History,
National Museum of American History,
in cooperation with the Public Inquiry Mail Service,
Smithsonian Institution

Canada seems to be rethinking its Human Rights legislation. This is good.

The focus is a well-publicized attempt by Islamic activists to use Canada’s Human Rights law to silence the Canadian political weekly Maclean’s, and the author of the Maclean’s articles they objected to, Mark Steyn. Steyn faced about 6 months of official persecution for allegedly violating the Canadian Human Rights Act by publishing his book America Alone, which contains statements about Islam that certain activists feel cast Islam in a bad light. The Canadian Islamic Council (CIC) brought suit, claiming that Steyn’s book, a chapter from which was published in Maclean’s, exposed Muslims in Canada to “hatred and contempt.” The suit was brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and the British Columbia Human Rights Commission (BCHRC), and was heard by human rights judicial panels, which are not properly constituted courts and do not use formal courtroom rules or evidence restrictions. A similar suit was brought against fellow Canadian journalist Ezra Levant and the Western Standard magazine before Alberta’s Human Rights Commission for publishing a couple of the now-famous Danish cartoons depicting The Prophet negatively.

The irony of the claim was noted by an editorial in the New York Post at the time. Steyn had taken the position that Sharia, the Islamic law Muslims intend to apply around the world, is incompatible with Western notions of individual liberty. The five Muslim students who brought the suit on behalf of the CIC wanted Steyn silenced — providing a stunning instance of the very incompatibility Steyn had described, a description to which the CIC objected.

The problem was that Steyn is well-known, and so is Maclean’s. They did not roll over; they launched a well-funded defense, including articles describing the HRCs as “kangaroo courts” and “star chambers.” Several of the articles made it clear that they actually hoped to be convicted, so they could take their case into the Canadian appeals courts and have the Human Rights law overturned in its entirety. By the time the cases were heard, the Human Rights Act judicial machinery was already under close scrutiny by several investigative bodies. Steyn and Maclean’s were exonerated by both bodies, probably because the bodies did not want the negative publicity of ruling against legitimate free political speech. Levant’s case was also dismissed.

Apparently dismissing these cases did not help the commissions. Steyn noted today in The Corner that the Conservative Party voted nearly unanimously to abolish the “hate speech” section of Canada’s Human Rights Act at their annual convention, and that at least one liberal in the government renewed a motion in the House of Commons to do the same. Steyn also notes that Professor Richard Moon’s report to the CHRC on free speech rights recommends the repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, so that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal would no longer hold jurisdiction over “hate speech.”

The Hate Speech provision of Canada’s Human Rights Act has already been used to persecute a Christian pastor for declaring his belief that homosexuality is sin. In fact, Ezra Levant recently published the same letter that earned draconian punishment from the HRC when a Christian pastor published it, and the HRC declined to take action (Levant is Jewish); Levant notes that in its entire history, the hate speech law has only been used successfully to prosecute white Christians and conservatives, never Jews, Muslims, or gays. This, along with Steyn’s and Levant’s experience with the CIC, illustrates that “hate crimes” laws are inherently inconsistent with free speech rights. There is such a thing as unprotected speech — pornography comes to mind, as does incitement to riot — but the notion of “hate speech” inherently assigns illegality to speech that offends the group at which it is directed, and political speech almost always fits that description.

Last week’s unfortunate (and arguably craven) capitulation by eHarmony to Gay Rights courtroom thugs will show us quickly what happens when we surrender without a fight. Eharmony had the economic muscle to fight the thugs; the next victims probably will not. Steyn, Maclean’s, and Levant showed us what can happen when we fight steadfastly… and even if they had lost, I would rather lose fighting for liberty than survive while handing it over.

Bravo, northern cousins!

FrontPage Mag has an interview today with Canadian writer Kathy Shaidle concerning her launch of her new book, The Tyranny of Nice, covering this same topic. The interview has details I left out, and is worth a read.

We heard the news last week that the internet dating service eHarmony had settled a lawsuit with customer Eric McKinley that had begun in 2005. While there was no finding of wrongdoing, eHarmony announced that they would launch a dating service identical to the one they’d launched for Christian couples back in 2000, only this time for same-sex couples. They also paid the plaintiff $5,000 for troubling him to sue them, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office $50,000 for troubling them to investigate, and gave the plaintiff a year’s free membership.

Let’s not pretend that this was a legitimate lawsuit in any way. McKinley, a gay man, joined eHarmony looking for a male partner, and then sued because the site did not cater to same-sex couples. There are plenty of sites catering to same-sex couples; most likely, McKinley actually joined in order to sue. As Michelle Malkin observed, the suit is comparable to an omnivore suing a vegetarian restaurant because he can’t order a rib eye there. At stake is the liberty for businesses to choose what services they’re willing to offer. The case, as well as the several other lawsuits launched against eHarmony in other places, illustrates the need for measures that limit the ability to use malicious lawsuits as an offensive weapon.

However, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office intervened on behalf of the plaintiff, who sued in New Jersey, and gave its strong opinion that eHarmony had violated New Jersey’s anti-discrimination law. Ted Olson, eHarmony’s attorney, observed that the outcome of the court case was uncertain. I guess that’s his way of saying he was afraid they’d get creamed. It’s difficult to argue with Ted Olson, who’s got a great reputation as an attorney, but I thought the Boy Scouts of America had already won a lawsuit at the US Supreme Court that could be used as precedent.

There’s no particular reason why gays should not have access to psychologically-based matching services. There’s no particular reason why eHarmony should not offer one if they so choose. There are utterly compelling reasons, however, why businessmen should never, under any circumstances, be forced to engage in business practices that violate their consciences. For that matter, there are compelling reasons why businessmen should never be forced to offer any service that, for any reason or no reason, they would prefer not to offer.

Gay activists, however, insist on forcing every corner of society to scream “You’re normal” in their ears. It’s not enough that they can do anything they like; their inner neediness requires that every citizen, no matter how unconnected, tell them that they’re loved, accepted, and considered just the same as any other person. Tammy Bruce observes that the psychological term describing this sort of neediness is “malignant narcissism,” narcissism that’s so virulent that it’s not content with its own self-focus, but attempts to coerce the focus of others onto itself as well.

Thus, the battle is one that will be fought, no matter how much we’d like to avoid it. Businesses that represent any element of society that does not accept gay as normal will be sought out, targeted, and forced to kowtow.

I, and a large number of Christians who thought eHarmony was Christian first and a business second, were counting on the company to stand firm and establish the legal wall that says private businesses are still free to choose their own business model. The fact that eHarmony caved and did not fight the battle makes life a lot less safe for the rest of us. I suspect that it will be months rather than years before a church gets sued by a gay couple for refusing to marry them; the principle there is the same as here. It’s only a matter of time before we see legislative efforts to force doctors and nursesto offer abortions, in violation of their consciences; President-elect Obama has voiced his intention to sign a law that could have that effect. Catholic charities have already stopped placing children with adoptive parents in certain locations to avoid being forced to place children with gay couples. Increasingly, Christian conscience, the precious commodity that drew the Pilgrims to the New World, is becoming illegal in the US, and will be outlawed if not defended.

One way of looking at eHarmony’s action would be to observe that eHarmony is a business, not a Christian ministry, and they took the most profitable route. Another way would be to conclude that they love Mammon more than God. Whichever is accurate, the US is now a more dangerous place for Christians to do business as Christians, and religious liberty has taken a blow to the head that has rocked her back on her heels.

I want to offer you three views that I find helpful in understanding why it is that the Left is always wrong.

Notice how extreme that sentence is. I don’t believe that the Left is often wrong, frequently wrong, substantially wrong, ordinarily wrong, or even usually wrong. They’re always wrong. They’re so regularly wrong that they don’t even suffer from “stopped clock” accidents (a stopped clock is correct twice every 24 hours). They’re wrong 100% of the time. This is a remarkable feat; one cannot achieve this merely by being stupid or uninformed, it takes careful practice.

There’s a lot here, almost two hours of video if you watch it all, so obviously most of you are not going to be listening to all of it at once. Take your time with it.

The first is a talk given by humorist and TV producer Evan Sayet before the Heritage Foundation. Sayet, one of the producers of Win Ben Stein’s Money, wrote a book that was conceived as Regurgitating the Apple, but apparently reached print as Hating What’s Right (only it doesn’t seem to be available anywhere.) The ideas in that book form the bulk of the talk. I’ve got the video below, and it can also be found at the Heritage Foundation, but be warned: it’s almost 50 minutes long, so make sure you have the time before you start. Please trust me when I tell you that it’s worth it; Sayet, drawing heavily on Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, has produced a remarkably powerful explanation for the Left’s positions.

In Sayet’s thesis, Leftists argue that all the wars, disputes, problems, discouragements, and disappointments of human history have occurred because people thought they were right to the exclusion of other points of view. Consequently, if the world is to know peace, any position that claims moral or intellectual superiority over other views must be refuted. The position is explained in John Lennon’s (genuinely awful) song, Imagine, in which he argues that without nations or religion, people would have no reason to kill or die for anything, and all would be peace. According to Sayet, Leftists systematically choose to argue that those things we value are worthless, and that those things we find abhorrent are actually no worse than the things we value, in an effort to erase any basis for humans to fight with each other. This is why we find them so often denouncing America or defending terrorists.

The irony of the position Sayet describes is that it’s self-refuting. They claim to be uniquely right in noting that ideas that claim to be uniquely right are the source of all conflict, and yet they do not see themselves as a source of conflict. None of them seem to have the wit to notice that their primary thesis is nonsense. Thus they wind up being intolerant of intolerance, and hating hate with an insane hatred.

The explanation for this sort of blindness appears in the next view. This one is from economist Thomas Sowell, as expressed in an interview with Peter Robinson of Uncommon Knowledge. There are five parts to the interview, and here are the links to them: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 (each segment is about 7 minutes long.) The topic was Sowell’s 1987 book, A Conflict of Visions, in which Sowell identifies the two opponents in the current cultural divide as adhering to the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. In Sowell’s view, the constrained vision, epitomized by Adam Smith, holds that human nature exhibits innate flaws but that that nature is fixed, so institutions need to recognize those flaws and constrain them as carefully as possible; this explains the US Constitution with its checks and balances, its careful enunciation of individual liberties, and its insistence on the importance of law. The unconstrained view, epitomized by Rousseau, holds that human nature is inherently good, and that evil outcomes are the result of selfish or ignorant policy. “The things that we suffer, according to those with the unconstrained vision,” says Sowell, “it’s because of the failure of other people to be as wise or as noble as themselves, because there’s no inherent reason for us to be unhappy.” Thus there is no need for clear laws or constraints; so long as the right people rule, all will be well.

The danger in Leftist ideology arises from their notion that they have no sin. No laws need apply to them, no constraints need restrain them, because no flaw infects their character. This explains how they can hold a view that no view is right (except theirs,) and believe they are creating the perfect world by eradicating the ability to distinguish between good and bad ideas. It also explains why they destroy everything they touch; only the greatest fools imagine they’re free from flaws.

I heard that concept echoed in yet a third opinion this morning. Pamela Gellar at Atlas Shrugs posted a transcript from Victor Davis Hanson’s speech at Restoration Weekend, which took place November 16, 2008. His topic was Barack Obama’s errant notion that the US “took its eye off the ball” by attacking Iraq rather than pursuing bin Laden into Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, while introducing the topic, he gives us this:

All I can make sense of is, [Obama] has a very different view of the world. This view is anti-platonic. And I say that, not to be condescending, but Plato said that the natural order of the world was chaos, it was war—peace was a parenthesis, it had to be achieved and worked at. I think in the Obama view that men like him that are charismatic, articulate, they can change the world because it’s naturally a peaceful thing until people like George Bush rush in and through their stubbornness—”smoke ‘em out dead or alive” vernacular—destroys it…

Hanson describes this as “anti-Platonic,” whereas Sowell, in the first installment of his interview with Robinson, describes the Platonic view as more in line with the unconstrained vision. It’s a difference in nomenclature rather than substance, I’m sure. What Hanson is describing as “anti-Platonic” is in fact the same view of the world that Sowell describes as “unconstrained”: namely, that man is inherently at peace, and needs only the leadership of the unspoiled individuals to obtain peace.

It was while considering these three, consistent explanations of Leftist self-exaltation that I encountered this last video, a stark and disturbing testament to what happens when people who hold this vision actually get control of a nation. The nation in question is North Korea. The specific topic of this video is two young men who were held in extreme prisons, but watch for the clues that show the congruence between Sayet’s eradication of differentiation, Sowell’s unconstrained vision, and Hanson’s anti-Platonism, with North Korean absolutism. Note especially that the prisoners are those who have “made mistakes,” whereas the jailers are those who have “made no mistakes.” Eighteen minutes, and some very disturbing footage.

I conclude that when man views men generally as perfectible, and sees himself as superior in intellect and virtue and needing no substantial correction, he becomes exceedingly dangerous; this sort of man accepts no boundaries on his power or conduct, and assumes absolute authority to force other humans into the mold of his imagining. The result of this sort of absolute power is utter brutality and economic devastation. As C.S. Lewis observed in The Abolition of Man, “The power of man to make of himself what he pleases is invariably the power of some men to make of other men what they please.”

I’m predicting planned, rolling blackouts within the next 10 years, possibly sooner. This is predictable based on policy directions being chosen by the EPA and the incipient Obama administration.

To begin with, environmentalists have been engaging in organized opposition to new coal-fired power plants the way they opposed nuclear power plants in the 1970s. They’ve achieved some success: of 150 new coal-based power generating stations for which the nation’s utility companies have submitted plans since 2000, 82 have been blocked. Coal is the backbone of the US’ electrical generating capacity, providing 50% of existing power.

They’re about to get help from the government. President-elect Obama announced this week that he intends immediately to reduce carbon output from carbon-generating power plants and other carbon sources (see also here.) Because of Massachusetts v EPA in 2007, the EPA now holds the power to regulate emissions of CO2. They published their intent to institute the equivalent of complete economic central planning back in July. This will almost certainly be approved by President Obama once he takes office, possibly after a few alterations. The EPA has already begun enforcing expected regulations, or more precisely, deferring permits until after Obama takes office and implements his policies.

It’s unlikely that Congress will do anything to restrain the Executive’s increasing power. Completing the leftward environmental lurch, Rep. Henry Waxman has just taken over chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee from Rep. John Dingell. Apparently House Democrats preferred Waxman’s environmentalism over Dingell’s auto-industry advocacy.

So, coal plants won’t be built in large numbers. There are several applications for new nuclear facilities, but those take 10 years or more to bring online, they won’t come close to meeting the growth in electrical demand, and there’s some controversy regarding how expensive they’ll be to build.

The new, so-called renewable sources will not cover the deficit. I’ve already discussed the problems of ramping up a new technology to contribute to the mix. California, which has mandated that 33% of its electricity come from renewable sources by 2020, estimates that $60 billion will be required in new capital construction; this is not just for plant construction, but also for changes in electrical transmission. Apparently the grid is engineered for steady sources of electricity, and the renewables are intermittent — the electricity comes in unpredictable bursts. Consequently, the grid has to be upgraded and expanded, which has generated a flurry of licensing activity that’s slowing the process down considerably. Also, because of its intermittancy, new renewable generators need to pair off with new traditional power plants — to cover the times when they’re not producing. For these reasons and other technological shortfalls, energy from renewables will be a lot more expensive than from traditional sources, if the plants can be constructed at all.

On top of all this, environmentalists are calling for more electric cars, and auto manufacturers are responding.

The end result has power companies frightened. The North American Electrical Reliability Council — NERC — recently issued a report that included plans for what they call “demand response programs,” in which customers receive discounts in exchange for being voluntarily dropped from service for planned periods. MaxedOutMama has a link to their report, as well as excerpting a portion describing what happens if they don’t get enough participants. It’s couched in technical jargon, but it’s not pretty.

Coyote Blog points out that what we’re experiencing is the result of the CO2 hysteria. Scientists now seem to be pushing back against the hysteria, but it’s too late: the public has already swallowed the hysterical message hook, line, and sinker. Now we’re all going to pay the price, in lost liberty and unreliable, grossly expensive electricity. Coyote thinks the press will turn on the enviros as the blackouts begin, but I think he’s being unrealistically optimistic. After all, what’s a little electric instability against rescuing the planet? It will only result in a few thousand unnecessary deaths…

I’ve created a new category in which to file posts that discuss the practical costs of implementing the left’s insanity, called “WaSs Up.” “WaSs” is an acronym for “We are SO screwed…”

Michael Medved has been doing Herculean labor attempting to dispel cultural myths, mostly the ones being jammed down our throats by Progressives. Today’s instance came from Flopping Aces, and addresses the enduring myth that the US is uniquely and primarily to blame for slavery. It’s based on Medved’s new book, The 10 Big Lies About America: Combatting Destructive Distortions About Our Nation. Take a listen:

Medved likes to emphasize that despite the fact that every nation on earth considered slavery normal at the time, the US is to be blamed for permitting slavery at all. I guess that’s his attempt to mollify the Anti-Racism Enforcement Thugs who called his program (he’s a much more patient man than I am, I kept barking “Shut. Up.” at the screen every time the dufuses interrupted him.) I disagree with him; historical figures need to be judged, if at all, in terms of their own period, not ours, and for an accepted practice, the US had an awful lot of individuals who would not tolerate slavery. As Medved points out, the US came late to the scene, and abolished slavery quickly by comparison to other nations; the US should be commended rather than condemned.

What the US could be condemned for, in an objective universe, is the unusual brutality of the form slavery took in the southern colonies. American slave-holders generally separated families, taught slaves a perverted religion of subjugation, and kept slaves ignorant and dependent. This was not the case in the British Empire, where educated slaves were valued; Thomas Sowell, in The Economics and Politics of Race, notes that to this day the descendants of British slaves tend to be educated and middle-class in greater proportion than the descendants of American slaves. I note gratefully that these practices lie 140 years in the past.

I noticed back in the 1980s that social progressives were using slavery and racism as a sort of lightning rod to excuse their own moral lapses. At the time, they were busily and systematically dismissing classical virtues like filial love, respect for elders, sexual continence (especially this), honesty in business, trustworthiness, selflessness, courage, kind words, love of home and country, etc. Whenever anybody mentioned the deterioration of the culture, though, they’d wave racism as though it were a trump card that exempted them from scrutiny: “Oh, yeah, the culture used to be sooooo moral, look at how they treated the blacks!” Ignoring for the moment that this does not in the slightest way justify ignoring moral virtues, the truth is that the culture was a great deal more moral than they were even with racism taken into account. It seems to me that as the moral degeneration has accelerated, the resort to racism as a whipping-boy for their sins has accelerated as well, with the alleged evil of it growing and growing until there’s no greater possible sin. I’ve seen evidence lots of times that social progressives consider differentiating between genders or races a greater sin than murder. I’m not exaggerating. They have to do it because intuitively, they know how deep is their own sin, but they’ll never admit this; they’ve efficiently hidden it from themselves.

What’s interesting is that they haven’t even really excised racist impulses from their own character. Racism was dealt with as a taboo, not in any constructive fashion. They’ve stuffed it under the sofa, but you can still smell it. One can’t discuss racial issues intelligently with them because it’s still too tender an issue. Some express their fully-intact xenophobia as White Guilt; others simply transfer it to other groups, venting their hatred on conservatives, conservative blacks, or Evangelicals. We saw Kathleen Parker illustrating a few days ago, calling Evangelicals the “oogedy-boogedy” wing of the Republican party; this is not a whit different from the old Step-’n'-Fetchit talk about blacks, or from jokes regarding Jews and pennies. (If you missed Jonah Goldberg’s ascerbic response, treat yourself.)

Shelby Steele took up this topic just today, opining — absolutely correctly, in my view — that Obama could never have won as a white man, and that a huge percentage of his popularity among white voters was the result of White Guilt. Also, check out this response to Steele’s series, recounting how kids can’t believe whites voted for Obama because they’ve been taught repeatedly how racist we all are. The interesting conclusion we might reach is that most Republicans are genuinely post-racial, but most Democrats are not.

I’ve discovered, after my initial moroseness after the election, that I’m actually relieved that it went the way it did. A McCain presidency would have been four more years of Democrat Lite, and at best would have put a little drag on the nation’s slide into the ditch. With Obama at the helm and the Democrats firmly in control of Congress, the slide will be quick and unmistakeable. Yeah, we’ll all suffer — more than we can imagine, I suspect — but history will be enormously clear about what caused the suffering. I hope they’re going to get their filibuster-proof majority, even; if we’re going to see what Progressivism does to the nation, let’s see it full-force. Bring it on, and let’s get it over with.

Opinion Journal video produced a somewhat tamer version of the same point yesterday in an interview with Brett Stephens. He calls it a “no-excuses moment for liberals.” The embedded version did not seem to work on my blog for some reason, so here’s a link to the interview on their site. It takes 5 minutes including the commercial message up front.

Progressives will blame most of the trouble on the Bush administration. They’ll attempt this for years; it will wash for maybe a year, after which it will begin to sound like the nonsense it is. Be patient.

Readers:

Please notice the 2008 Weblog Awards logo at the top of this post and on my sidebar. I’ve been nominated for awards in four categories (actually, I nominated myself twice, and my wife nominated me twice. Boomer-Narcissists-R-Us.) The judges select 15 blogs in each category before anybody gets to vote, and putting little plus signs next to the nominating messages actually helps get sites selected.

So, if any of you would like me to get a little recognition for the work I’ve put in over the last year or so, please be so kind as to click on the links to the four categories where I’ve been nominated (I’ll list them below,) find my nominating message (I’ll also list the dates they were posted,) and click the little plus sign next to the message. Note that the nominating message is simply a comment, like the comments on my blog.

Thanks for your help on this. Voting starts in early December, and I’ll post again when that happens.

Categories where I appear are:

Best New Blog (nominated on Nov 6)
Best Conservative Blog (nominated on Nov 19)
Best Hidden Gem (nominated on Nov 19)
Best Individual Blogger (nominated on Nov 19)

Rachel Lucas, who is 36 years old and taking college courses to meet some requirements for an advanced degree, wrote some entertaining vignettes about her experience with Chem majors who apparently lack some pretty basic concepts.

…way back at the beginning of the semester, we had to do a filtration procedure, where you put a filter paper cone in a funnel on a clamp and pour a solution with some solid in it through the apparatus to get all the chunks out, and the filtered liquid would drip into a beaker below.

This was a very slow process because it was a thick solution. It drip-drip-dripped very slowly through the funnel. So guess what my genius lab partner and a few other brain surgeons in the class decided would be a good way to speed it up?

Why, move the funnel apparatus as high up on the clamp stand as possible, as far away from the beaker as possible! Because somehow, in some alternate universe with vastly different laws of physics than we know here on Earth, that would make the solution move through the funnel more quickly.

I am not making this up.

When Lab Partner started doing this, all spastically as is his way, I told him that all he was accomplishing was making the drips splash harder into the beaker and even out of the beaker entirely. Pretty much, he was just making a mess. He was steadfast, and kept telling me to just watch. “It goes faster!”

I asked him if the solution in the funnel knew where the beaker was and he stared at me like I was being obtuse. I asked again, how could the distance between the two possibly have any effect whatsoever on how fast the solution came out of the funnel because after all, it doesn’t know how far it has to fall, and it doesn’t care. He shushed me and told me to watch.

Pressing on, I asked him if there is some sort of magical force field between the funnel and the beaker, and if he was positing that the beaker was sending a message to the liquid in the funnel, hey I’m far away, you better get through that funnel quickly! I wondered out loud if he knew some special law of physics I’d never heard of. He shook his head and kept repeating, “just watch, just watch.”

It was painful. And the thing is, it wasn’t even only him. Several other groups at our counter were doing the same thing. I was struck speechless and had no choice but to stand there and search for an argument in my brain that did not involve calling anyone “retarded.”

It only went on for about a minute because as soon as TA saw what all these Mensa members were doing, with their funnels high in the air, making the drips splash all over the place, he came over to us and asked why, and some of them actually attempted to present their finely-honed Einsteinian theories about how much more quickly the process would go this way. TA and I and the rest of the class that weren’t acting like crackheads all stared blankly at them for a full 10 seconds. One girl across the room loudly said something like, “I hope none of y’all are science majors.”

Sadly, most of them are. One of the guys so convinced about this technique is a biochem major and at least two of the others are chem majors. Or at least they think they are, now. Wait until they get to organic chem. Oy.

Pretty funny, except some of these folks are going to be trying to design products for American companies.

Comments on the site took over where Rachel left off:

notaclue Says:

A similar problem appears when today’s kids try to do simple arithmetic. The other week the clan of which I’m patriarch took my daughter (same age as you, Rachel) out to eat for her birthday. The check came in around $120 and was to be split two ways. First they split it $69-$69. When we told them this was wrong, they came back with a $40-$40 split. We chose not to pay this one and run. The third try worked with a $60-$60 split.

Some one of the wait staff figured this out on a cell phone calculator, twice wrong, once right. At no point did anyone think, “Half of about 120 is about 60,” or the like.

physics geek Says:

Every time that I led the lab with lasers (interference patterns), I’d unplug the darned things and put signs on every desk and on the board which said “DO NOT LOOK INTO THE END OF THE LASERS OR THEY WILL BLIND YOU!!!” Invariably, I’d catch some dipshit looking into the aperture from a distance of about 4 inches. If I hadn’t unplugged the freaking things, I’ve had had blind-in-one-eye retard students, instead of the regular sighted kind. After I got done yelling at them, they listened. For a while.

However, not because I’m a prick… okay, that last part is a lie. I finally got so disgusted with my students that I charged up a few Leyden jars and left them at each lab station, with signs stating “DO NOT TOUCH”. I also spoke directly to each student, telling them to not touch them the jars. Then I’d turn around to the board to write some notes and, seconds later, I’d hear “OWWFUCK” from behind me. I didn’t turn around, but merely stated to the chalkboard: “Following instructions can be quite helpful.”

There are lots of reasons why this is happening, and everybody has their favorites. The urge to touch things that are marked “Do Not Touch” is human nature, but there’s a growing lack of ability to control these impulses, or even to understand why doing so is a good idea, that has something to do with too-gentle parenting, too much TV, absentee parents, low expectations, etc. There are also bad theories of education dominating the classroom, and some folks like to cite lack of parental involvement, teacher quality problems, too-low teacher salaries, physical plant problems and the like.

However, it does not pay to try to figure it out, as though education was something a central, thinking bureaucracy had to solve. If we could just apply free-market principles to the problem of educating students, not only would sound and innovative solutions find their way to the top of the heap quickly, but parents’ complaints about improper social or religious content of education would pretty much disappear. A full-voucher system would do the job nicely, especially if the requirement for teacher certification were removed.

I understand that teacher certification is one of those things that people believe is necessary for a sound education, but these people need to ask themselves whether it’s really accomplished that anywhere they’ve ever been. All certification does is prevent gifted amateurs from entering the system, and enforce orthodoxy in education theory from the major universities. In my humble opinion, it’s modern, orthodox education theory that’s the largest factor at fault in the steady decline of American education.

I used to think homeschoolers would end up as managers in all the nation’s businesses, and public school grads would work for them. That may happen — if the public school grads don’t end up murdering the home school grads en masse.

By the way, at least one brave reader at Vox Popoli (my man Vox also thought Lucas’ vignette was pretty funny) ventured his opinion that the stubborn lab partner was actually correct, and pointed to water towers all over the country to prove it. The difference is that water towers use a closed system, with pipes leading from the tank to the water system; it takes advantage of Bernoulli’s principle. Letting water fall through the open air has a different dynamic. Ms. Lucas was correct.

Vox Popoli’s comments were also entertaining, albeit a little highbrow. His crowd gets that way.

I enjoyed this one:

This reminds me of the discussion I had with a 3 friends–all college graduates, who thought that there was a strange force in outer space that prevented anything from falling faster than a certain speed, anywhere in the universe, something like 25 feet per second. It was called ‘terminal velocity’. And it was the same everywhere in outer space.

Sigh…

I explained that it only applied to planets with an atmosphere, and that each of these planets would have a different terminal velocity depending on the thickness of the atmosphere and the size of the planet. You would have thought I just became a Holocaust denier from their indignant replies. One of them spent the next half hour trying to correct my assumptions, getting more angry the more I laughed, and when I said “go look it up” he left with “Oh I will… and then I’ll let you know just how wrong you are.”