Obama Finds Gulf Oil on His Cape

Slipping the phrase "Obama's Katrina" into Google yields about 1.8 million results. Such ought not surprise; if every President runs against his predecessor, the latter's follies serve to flail the former. But in Obama's case, the nature of the problem strikes at the heart of his presidency.

When Hurricane Katrina wrecked New Orleans, we wingnuts were quick to draw distinctions between acts of Nature and acts of Bush. I myself, at this very blog, put it thusly:

I'm not of the species that seems to want to blame the New Orleans Water Park on FEMA. I've yet to see anything from a source I trust that indicates that FEMA did anything different in regards to Katrina than they did with regard to any other natural disaster in living memory, and I'm pretty well convinced that the caterwauling to that end is a cynical manipulation by a bored press and a frustrated opposition upon discovering that the Cindy Sheehan and Hokum and Wailing Circus wasn't going to be the spark that lit the Bonfire of Bush's Vanities.

Conservatives do not believe that government exists to prevent bad things from happening, and they certainly don't expect the federal government to fill roles that belong to state and local governments. So we defended Bush during Katrina, because we were not surprised.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, came to the White House preaching the virtues of government as an agency of righteousness, a means for the general will to achieve its ends. His supporters likewise desire a government that acts, instantaneously, to do Good Things. And with every day that the crude continues flooding into the gulf, that vision becomes the weaker. Lo and behold, the President cannot fly below the surface of the earth and plug the leak with his eye-beams. He cannot, by virtue of his sonorous voice, make BP work any faster to plug the leak than they already are (you do realize that every drop of oil that ends up not in BP's tankers is lost money to them, right?). He's just a president; the waves do not, in fact, obey him.

And while this King-Canute moment is satisfying to conservatives, like Mark Steyn and Charles Krauthammer, it is gall and wormwood to progressives, who find themselves with nothing to do or say than "why can't somebody do something?" They do not appreciate being made to feel this way by a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress. They may not revenge themselves upon him for this, but their anger is palpable, and their hearts may not be his much longer.

The Essayist #20: The Right of Revolution

An oppressed people are authorized, whenever they can, to rise and break their fetters.
-Henry Clay

Every revolution contains within it something of evil.
-Edmund Burke

       With which of these two elegant quotations would the average person agree? The difficulty of the question becomes more apparent the longer it is considered. In the West, where the American and the French Revolutions constitute the birth-cries of the modern age, we feel an obligation to assent to the former. Yet any serious study of the French, Russian, or even the American Revolutions will compel us to give at least credence to the latter. We may shrug it off by retorting that revolutions are not made with rose-water, but this is the more persuasive with the understanding that whatever revolution we live under need not be repeated and will not be undone. In other words, we may ignore the blood of our birth so long as we need not be born again.
       But is revolution permanence? Have we established political structures so rooted in truth as to be past changing? To an extent, democracy is justified on answering, “yes” to this question: when the people rule, they need not revolt. But it is hardly a novelty to point out that majority rule can be tyrannical; James Madison pointed this out repeatedly. And if a majoritarian tyranny comes into existence, a revolution could surely be justified in destroying that democracy. Couldn’t it?
       Or could it?
       This essay will argue that every political system exists not for its own sake, but to protect a certain value that its framers held as essential to justice and order. This may seem obvious, but consider again its implications with regard to our current and beloved political ideal: democracy is not an end in itself, but a means to protect society. If it fails in that end, it may be reformed, altered, or even destroyed. No system of government is absolute; every state has an escape clause.

Music is the Devil's Tool

So Iran has banned Music, and Jay Nordlinger of NRO draws a parallel to Lenin, who apparently never touched the stuff, for fear that it would awaken human feeling, which was anathema to his work. He also makes mention of the oft-quoted fact that the Nazis were great lovers of art and music. How do this circle be squared?

For me, it bespeaks a difference between a totalitarianism of asceticism, and a totalitarianism of passion. Communism would be the paramount example of ascetic totalitarianism; one characterized by purification of the human spirit. The true Communist suffered for his ideology, was nailed to it like a cross, and was supposed to bear his ills with a martyr's patience. This may be one of the reasons why we tolerate Communists more than other shades of tyrant: Trotsky, Lenin, and Che were perfectly willing to share the misery they imposed on others.

Hitler, on the other hand, had no truck with self-denial. His Nietzsche-derived creed demanded just the opposite, that the desires of the self were holy, and to feast upon the weak was glorious and right. Hence, the Nazis devoured all that was good in every land they conquered, and took the pleasure of this enjoyment as proof of its truth.

Iran strikes me as being more in the ascetic vein, as Khomeni's condemnation of America as the Great Satan is of a kind with the denunciations of Babylon in the Book of Revelation. With all that in mind, the only question becomes "What took them so long?"

In Fairness to Rand Paul...

...there is a downside to public accommodation laws. They often create a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

How did a civil rights principle meant to aid African Americans and others who suffered grievous discrimination for generations come to protect the “right” of Neo-Nazis to parade their Nazi wardrobes in a privately owned restaurant against the wishes of management? The short answer is that legislation and its interpretation doesn’t develop from a coherent set of moral principles, but instead based on who is able to persuade the legislatures and the courts to adopt the principles they prefer. The principle involved in Alpine Village case appears to be hostility to the rights of private property owners, not “civil rights.”

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Apparently the Libertarians have decided that Rand Paul is insufficiently pure.

The Ultimate Libertarian.

I Generally Haven't Used the Term "ObamaCare"...

...to describe the Health Insurance Care Bill. For one, it relies on form of nomenclature leagues away from being as witty as it's supporters believe it, while being fully as tiresome as its opponents lament. For another, Obama didn't write the damn thing; Pelosi, Reid, and their infinite crew of Democratic Congressmen did. Since they're the ones up for election this November, I think the hate should be properly focused.

Now that Jon Stewart et al, are calling it "offensive," however? I won't call it anything else.

Politics: The Art of the Perverse.

About Time, Really....

The Notion, which was my first blog, died, and has been a music blog since December, does not exist anymore. The Music blog has been renamed Genre Confusion, and all the old Notion posts that were about the same stuff that I write about here have been imported and labelled. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Now they must eat the fruit of their own way, and with their own devices be glutted. -Proverbs 1:31

Leviathan Cannot Feed Itself.

At Hot Air:

That explains why socialism is miserable.  It turns feral because it always makes promises it cannot keep, and the primary skill of a successful politician is the ability to avoid responsibility.  As of this writing, it remains the official position of the Democrat Party that not a single one of its members bears any responsibility for the subprime mortgage crisis.  Dodd, Frank, and Obama swam in millions of dollars of campaign donations and graft.  They blocked audits of Fannie Mae, and gave speeches assuring the country that it was completely solvent.  They greeted any suggestion of reform or oversight with furious accusations of greed and racism.  None of them have been punished.  In fact, they all enjoy more power than ever today, although Dodd’s time is running out.

To look at Greece is to look at the future. I think one good shock to the system will finally convince a majority of voters that the game cannot go on, that the stark choice is ahead of us.  The structure for a revolt is already in the works.

Read the whole thing.

The Essayist #19: Rand Paul is not a Bigot, Just a Dumb Libertarian

In the wake of Rand Paul putting his foot in it, Ace does yeoman's work explaining in exact detail why the 1964 Civil Rights Act is not unconstitutional.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were specifically enacted with the purpose of eradicating slavery and duly -- constitutionally -- empowered Congress to pass legislation in furtherance of this purpose. To say such laws are "unconstitutional" is simply in error -- previous to the lawful and constitutional passage of those amendments, such laws would have indeed have been unconstitutional and an unlawful overreach of granted Congressional power.
After their lawful passage, however, Congress did have that authority.

And the reason that Congress decided that it need that authority was because certain states were violating the rights of their citizens, of failing to do the thing governments are created to do. The Constitution thus comes  more fully in line with the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence.

Peasants in feudal society weren't technically slaves, but they were peons, persons with sharply-curtailed rights and certain obligations (including deference) to their social betters/masters. I think a fair reading of "slavery" includes the idea of "peonage," too. Unless there is some critical constitutional point here to be vindicated, I do not see any defensible purpose in arguing these amendments outlawed slavery but gave full constitutional blessing to regime of enforced peonage.

Precisely. Slavery and peonage are offenses against liberty, that can only be maintained by the use of force. As Governments exist to secure liberties, our government should be willing and able to act against one person's attempt to destroy the liberty of another. Hence, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a necessary and constitutional redress against 400 years of slavery and peonage.

Would it have been better if it was not necessary? Assuredley. Are there things about the way the Civil Rights Act as been used that I consider wrong, and offenses to liberty? Without doubt. But the law, as intended, has no legal or ethical flaw.

This is a Picture of Mohammed:

Be Offended!

Unclean! Unclean!

I'm trying to figure out why I should care that an Arab-American is now Miss USA. Apparently there are some people on the Right worked up about this.

But having examined the issue, the only thing I can think of saying is "Meow..." Which may not be the remark of a gentleman.

The Baltimore PD Apparently Watched The Wire...

So the WaPo Suggests:

But under Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III, officers in one of the nation's most violent cities are no longer being told to beef up arrest statistics. The number of arrests has declined the past two years. Yet homicides and shootings are down, too - to totals not seen since the late 1980s. 

In other words, they're "shifting priorities" to violence intead of drug abuse.

"I'm not trying to win the drug war," Bealefeld said. "I'm out to win the war on violence and deal effectively with violence."

Which is why the California ballot initiative to legalize pot this November is so important.  If it wins, it's going to be a lot harder for local PD's to say that they have a priority in punishing drugs instead of disorder. A corner will finally have been turned.

Chavez = Fail

JammieWearingFool has the goods.

Great comment as well: "If he were the leader of an eskimo band, they'd have to buy ice."

Theorem: Chris Christie is the Greatest Politician in the History of the Universe.

Proof: (Hat Tip: Ace)

Gov Christie calls S-L columnist thin-skinned for inquiring about his 'confrontational tone'

Those Vicious Racist Quebecois...

“if you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values. We want to see your face.”

No doubt they're all tea-baggers.

Kagan and the Elephant

If I may address the elephant in the living room, the only reason people think that Elena Kagan is a lesbian is because she looks like a common stereotype of one. That doesn't mean she is one, and frankly, I'm not interested. We shouldn't pry into her love life, unless we have reason to believe her love life has affected her job performance.

Frankly, I'm wondering if we aren't just being treated to a smokescreen for Kagan's minimal credential for the job.

Achieve Racial Harmony: Ban the Honkies!

Un-expletive-believable.

An Ann Arbor elementary school principal used a letter home to parents tonight to defend a field trip for black students as part of his school’s efforts to close the achievement gap between white and black students.

Dicken Elementary School Principal Mike Madison wrote the letter to parents following several days of controversy at the school after a field trip last week in which black students got to hear a rocket scientist.

I know there's an obvious reason that keeping white students away makes it more likely that black students will be inspired to achieve, but I'm apparently too stuffed with white privilege to see it.

Law and War are Not the Same

Bush understood this idea, and so, by some appearances, does Obama. But he has not been permitted to admit his understanding by his base. In the New York Post, Robert Turner of the Center for National Security Law lets the cat out of the bag:

Uncle Sugar Wants you to Spend your Money on Crap

Actually, that isn't true. The Government, like any good Mafia Don, just wants to put his hands in your pocket as often as he possibly can. It's just easier for him to do this by taxing saving and investment rather than consumption.

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

Just remember, this is NOT persecution. Persecution does not happen hetero male honky christians, who represent the power structure in society. Thou shalt not question the power structure in society.

Roman Polanski the real victim, says Roman Polanski

In other news, Roman Polanski is a lying sack of crap with delusions of persecution.

It meets the same standards of journalistic evidence.