Pots and Kettles in the Political Spectrum
We've seen underdogma rear its ugly head in many contexts...now, see it in science!
Well, we all knew this would happen one day...CA state senator Lowenthal has apparently decided to introduce a resolution negating an existing law that literally prevents Communist propaganda from being used to advocate overthrowing the government.
And now, UCLA Political Science Associate Professor Michael Ross suggests that in the Middle East it is oil, not Islam, that subjugates women. In his own words in the abstract: "I present evidence that oil, not Islam, is at fault." Quite the useful idiot.
Furthermore, a little editorial thought for the day: are we, in fact, a country of immigrants? Obama seems to think so. And in a way, the answer is no. Unlike a lot of other countries (such as Israel, at least until the last few years), America is not dependent on an inflow of human capital. Sure, a little more is always nice, but immigration needs to rise and ebb, not adapt into a constant stream.
A century ago, William Graham Sumner wrote that "the type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man."
And in the present day, Charlie Martin provides a historical (half-century) walk-through perspective of health insurance, concluding that "in this mandated universal coverage plan, the government comes and makes me give someone money so it can be distributed to other people, and I don’t have any choice about participating. Where I come from, we call that a 'tax.' Whatever it is, it ain’t insurance." All in all a good read.
Armed with the knowledge that our three contending senators (McCain, Clinton, Obama) are in part Scots-Irish, Rand Simberg reaches a startling conclusion:
There is no "Irish-Catholic half" of the Scots-Irish. Scots-Irish aren't Irish at all. Neither are they Scottish. They were mostly Anglo-Saxon, not Celtic. They were also a violent people with an honor culture, mercenaries from the border area between England and Scotland. As the article notes, they were sent by the English to colonize Ulster, to get them out of Britain after the war between England and Scotland was settled and they had no more need for them. The ones too violent for Ulster were shipped off to America, so they're a double distillation of the most violent culture that the British Isles produced. After they fought (mostly for the South) in the Civil War, many of them headed out west.
People who think that America is too violent blame it on the proliferation of guns. But they confuse cause and effect. We have a lot of guns because we have a lot of Scots-Irish (aka rednecks). But it comes in pretty handy during war time.
HFSC Chairman Barney Frank argues for federal intervention in the housing sector. But when George McGovern, David Mamet and Jeff Jacoby all suggest that government can get too big...then well, just maybe, it's settled that federalism has its particular limits.