Right Wing Nut House

So, the Democrats played “The GOP wants you to die” card with seniors in NY-26 and, as expected, it worked like a charm. A district that was a +6 in favor of Republicans fell to a Democrat by a close, but still solid plurality 47-43.

For those Republicans believing that if only Tea Party candidate Jack Davis had stayed off the ballot they could have won, Nate Silver busts that balloon:

Suppose that Mr. Davis and Mr. Murphy were not running, and that this were a true two-way race between Ms. Hochul and Ms. Corwin. If Ms. Corwin had won all of Mr. Davis’s vote (and Ms. Hochul won all of Mr. Murphy’s vote), she would have won 51-49.

That would still qualify as a bad night for the Republicans, however. Based on the way that the district votes in presidential elections, it is 6 percentage points more Republican than the country as a whole. That means, roughly speaking, that in a neutral political environment with average candidates, Ms. Corwin would have won 56 percent of the vote and Ms. Hochul 44 percent — a 12-point victory. A 2-point win instead, therefore, would have spoken to a relatively poor political environment for the Republicans.

Nor is it likely that Ms. Corwin would in fact have won all of Mr. Davis’s votes. He ran in the district as a Democrat in 2006, and polls suggested that his voters leaned Republican by roughly a 2-1 margin, but not more than that. If you had split his vote 2-1 in favor of Ms. Corwin, the results would have been Ms. Hochul 51 percent, and Ms. Corwin 48 percent.

A much larger contributing factor was the minuscule turnout of 25%. If it had been a normal mid-term turnout of 35%, Corwin probably wins.

But there’s no use playing the “what if” game. The Democrats rolled into the district and demagogued the Medicare issue, spending a tidy sum on ads accusing Republicans of wanting to cut off Gramma and Grandpa’s Medicare. Fine - that’s politics. They saw an opening and they went for the jugular.

But, as George Custer said to his brother Tom as half the Indians on the prairie were charging up Last Stand Hill at the Little Big Horn, “Now what?”

The Democrats have a victory and have portrayed themselves successfully as the defenders of old folks, children, and 3-legged dogs. But garnering political victory by hammering your opponent over entitlement reform doesn’t make the problem go away. And since Democrats have been less than forthcoming - a lot less - in announcing their own plan to “save” Medicare, perhaps it’s time to let us all in on the secret and tell us their brilliant plan.

It’s not just Medicare, of course. One wonders if the Democrats are praying for some kind of miracle that will make the trillion dollar plus deficits magically disappear with no voters experiencing any pain, bear any additional cost for any service they get from government, or get mad at any politician for trying to bring fiscal sanity back to the country. We are borrowing 40% of what we spend. How long can we sustain that without buckling and collapsing in a heap?

I don’t give a sh*t whose fault it is, which party is to blame, whether George Bush was a poopey head, or Obama is a charlatan with a golden voice. If you want to have those arguments, you will find yourselves screaming at each other as our economic house collapses around you. Even then I doubt whether you’d have the smarts - or the courage - to grow up and act like we have a crisis on our hands.

So congratulations, Democrats on your great victory in NY-26. And I anxiously await your plan to fix the entitlement mess where no one will experience any pain, nothing will be cut, only millionaires will pay more taxes, and seniors will live forever.

Did I mention what happened to Custer at Little Big Horn?

NOTE: THE SHOW WILL STREAM LIVE ONE HOUR EARLIER THAN USUAL FROM 6-7 PM CENTRAL TIME.

You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show, one of the most popular conservative political talk shows on Blog Talk Radio.

Tonight, I welcome Jazz Shaw of Hot Air, Monica Showalter of IDB, and Doug Mataconis of Below the Beltway to talk about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of congress today as well as our first in-depth look at the GOP field of candidates for president.

The show will air from 6:00 - 7:00 PM Central time. You can access the live stream here. A podcast will be available for streaming or download shortly after the end of the broadcast.

Click on the stream below and join in on what one wag called a “Wayne’s World for adults.”

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.

I’ve actually had two pieces in two days published at FPM. The first is on Obama’s AIPAC speech and the second is on Netanyahu’s address to the same conference.

A sample from my piece on Obama’s speech:

The president’s excuse for this significant change in US policy was the prospect of a vote at the United Nations this fall that would recognize Palestinian statehood - a turn of events that carries great risk for both Israel and America.

But he insisted that the border issue be the starting point for negotiations - a ploy to restart direct talks with the Palestinians - and that other issues like the “right of return” for Palestinians and the status of Jerusalem be worked out later. In effect, President Obama has sided 100% with the Palestinians in their claims just as the new unity government of Hamas and Fatah takes shape. And while Obama stated that “Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist,” he did not make Palestinian adherence to the Quartet Principles a prerequisite for negotiations. (The Quartet principles include recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence, and agreeing to abide by previous negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.)

The Palestinians, of course, were overjoyed that Obama had sided with their long-held contention that a Palestinian state should be formed out of Israel’s 1967 borders. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said, “If Netanyahu agrees, we shall turn over a new leaf…Once Netanyahu says that the negotiations will lead to a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, then everything will be set.”

Note that Mr. Erekat said nothing about “mutually agreed swaps” of land. The reason is simple. As Dore Gold pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Abbas does not believe in such swaps. “Mr. Abbas has said many times that any land swaps would be minuscule,” wrote Gold. It doesn’t sound promising when one side in negotiations rejects the other’s right to exist and refuses to talk about defensible borders.

As Netanyahu told President Obama at the White House on Friday, “[W]hile Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines because these lines are indefensible.” The Israeli prime minister also reminded the president that conditions on the ground in Israel had been altered over the past 44 years, with demographic changes putting much of the Israeli population outside the 1967 borders.

Netanyahu didn’t finish speaking until 10:00 pm central time last night which means I am sucking air this morning. But it was worth it because Bibi did a great job:

The speech was not a preview to the prime minister’s Tuesday address, which will take place before a joint session of Congress. However, he made some references to what he would be talking about. He will speak “the unvarnished truth” about the peace process as well as give his take on the “Arab Spring.” In that respect, Netanyahu will directly answer critics who say that Israel is to blame for all the problems of the Middle East. Pointing out that the millions in Arab countries who have taken to the streets do not do so in opposition to Israel, but rather for the simple reason that they desire freedom, the prime minister raised his voice when he said, “Israel is not about what’s wrong with the Middle East. Israel is about what’s right with the Middle East.” A standing ovation – one of several Netanyahu received – followed that statement.

Netanyahu knew he was among friends and appeared very comfortable talking about what America means to Israel and vice versa. His opening remarks made reference to the terrible storms to hit the Midwest and he offered his condolences to the dead on behalf of the people and government of Israel. Throughout the speech, he sought to cement the bonds of friendship by hearkening to our shared heritage and values.

e called to mind that common bond of liberty that unites the two peoples, stating that the words on the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials can find their echo in the Old Testament. He reminded the audience that Jews were proclaiming “all men are created equal” thousands of years ago when the world was inhabited by slave owning empires. “Israel is the cradle of our civilization, and the modern state of Israel was founded precisely on these eternal values,” said Netanyahu. He added that this civilization was born in “our eternal capital: The united city of Jerusalem” – an observation that received the loudest and longest standing ovation of the night.

The prime minister also pointed out that the Muslims and Christians who live in Israel enjoy complete religious freedom. Reason enough, he said, to give Israel complete control of the holy city since they could be trusted to allow freedom of worship for all.

The prime minister was frequently interrupted by hecklers. The effort seemed well-coordinated because as soon as one heckler was escorted from the premises, another would start up in a different part of the room. It’s a tactic that was refined during the Bush years by Code Pink and other radical Left groups. Netanyahu looked on with bemusement as the crowd would first drown out the heckler with applause, and then begin chanting “Bi-Bi, Bi-Bi” as the miscreant was led more or less voluntarily from the hall. Only once did he directly address the disturbances when he asked the audience if they thought this kind of protest could be held in Gaza. He received another standing ovation.

I look forward to hearing what the Israeli prime minister has to say to Congress.

My latest column at FrontPage.com looks at the announcement made by the Iranian government yesterday that the reactor at Bushehr has become “operational.” While most analysts agree there is no “immediate” danger from the plant as far as contributing to the Iranian’s ability to make a bomb, there are legitimate concerns about what might occur down the road.

The question with regards to how much of a threat the reactor poses has always been based on the reliability of the current agreements between the Iranian and Russian governments. Once up and running at full power, the plant will produce between 100 and 300 kilograms of plutonium a year – a by-product of spent fuel rods. Since as little as 6 kgs of plutonium is needed to build a bomb, the temptation for the Iranians to cheat will be great.

Whether they could get away with it is the nub of the matter. The Iranians have agreed that Moscow will supply Bushehr’s fuel rods and remove the spent fuel for shipment back to Russia where it will be de-processed. It will be very difficult to divert plutonium elsewhere as long as the Russians don’t deliberately look the other way. Also, the IAEA will be inspecting the plant regularly for safety concerns — a regime that includes keeping track of the fuel cycle at the plant.

This is the logic behind Bushehr being no “immediate” threat. But there are also legitimate concerns about Iran’s intentions with regard to the plant, and even some suspicion about Russia’s motives in selling and reprocessing the fuel rods.

Iran has threatened to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) several times. If they ever made good on those threats, activity at Bushehr would come under increased scrutiny. Within a few years, Iran will be technically capable of creating their own fuel rods, thus obviating the need for Moscow to supply them and consequently, removing the necessity for the Russians to remove them for reprocessing. With Iran in complete control of the nuclear fuel cycle, and no inspectors looking over their shoulder, the chance that the Iranians will take advantage of the situation is too great to ignore.

The question of not trusting the Russians to hold up their end of the deal and allow Iran to cheat is more a matter of politics as it is one of intent. Why would Russia do it? To make life miserable for the US and the West? The risk to Russia would seem to outweigh any value in allowing the Iranians to keep some of the plutonium from the spent fuel rods. No doubt Russia would be considered culpable if the Iranians were to use a plutonium bomb on Israel or the West. There would be unknown, but probably severe consequences from the rest of the world if such an event were to occur.

Another possible threat from Bushehr comes from contacts the Iranians may develop in using Russian technicians to help run the plant. It’s no secret among proliferation experts that Russian nuclear workers are prime targets of nuclear smugglers. Also, the Russians have a history of not keeping good track of their nuclear materials. Bought off nuclear workers might assist the Iranians in keeping some of the plant’s plutonium, and sloppy record keeping by Russia might never discover the discrepancies.

That last scenario is admittedly a long shot. But when discussing nuclear weapons, any possibility, no matter how remote, must be entertained. There is no margin for error — especially when considering Iran’s intent to develop a bomb.

This is more a symbolic victory for the Iranians than anything substantial. They finally got the project working despite enormous pressure from the west. We’ll see if the Russians hold up their end of the bargain, although allowing the Iranians to cheat would not be to their advantage.

You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show, one of the most popular conservative political talk shows on Blog Talk Radio.

Tonight, I welcome Jeff Dunetz of Yid with a Lid, Professor Barry Rubin of the GLORIA Institute, and Rich Baehr of the American Thinker. We’ll look at the big week in Washington for Middle East diplomacy.

The show will air from 7:00 - 8:00 PM Central time. You can access the live stream here. A podcast will be available for streaming or download shortly after the end of the broadcast.

Click on the stream below and join in on what one wag called a “Wayne’s World for adults.”

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.

It’s a big week for Middle East diplomacy in Washington with three events that will shape the future of our policy.

I wrote about it for FrontPage.Com:

Three major events will occur this week in Washington that will impact US relations with the Arab world and the state of Israel: a visit by King Abdullah of Jordan on Monday and Tuesday, another “outreach” speech by President Obama glorifying the Arab Spring on Thursday, and the arrival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a White House visit on Friday. Netanyahu will address the AIPAC conference on Monday night and follow that up with an address to a Joint Session of Congress next Tuesday.

Overshadowing all of these events is the uncertainty brought about by the marriage of Hamas and Fatah, the continuing rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the surprise announcement that the president’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, has resigned.

But what seems like an opportunity to begin repairing relations with Israel, denouncing the alliance between Hamas and Fatah, warning the Arab world about the influence of Islamists in their nascent democracy movements, and speaking some hard truths about despotic regimes like Syria and Yemen, will not be seized upon by the Obama administration. Instead, we are likely to hear some blindly optimistic twaddle that acknowledges nothing and proves that the president and his advisors are foolishly placing their hopes on a series of foreign mirages that bear little resemblance to what is really occurring in the Middle East.

One need look no further than the Palestinian unity agreement that has ended years of conflict between Hamas and Fatah to see the myopic outlook of this administration. Incredibly, as Caroline Glick reports in her Jerusalem Post column, the administration actually believes that the agreement will “moderate” Hamas, forcing them to agree to the three principles of legitimacy set by the Quartet (US, Russia, EU, and the UN) in 2007. Those principles are extremely mild, and require Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist, agree to respect existing agreements with Israel, and renounce terrorism.

But Hamas has flatly refused to abide by those requirements. So what did the Obama administration do about that? They lowered the bar by pointing out that Hamas, by signing the unity agreement, had made “major concessions” in agreeing to form a government of “technocrats” instead of terrorists, and that they had accepted a 2009 agreement with Fatah brokered by Egyptian President Mubarak, which they had rejected two years ago. That agreement demanded that Hamas not join the army in Judea and Samaria — a stipulation they never agreed to in this most recent treaty.

Glick calls this notion of Hamas meeting any conditions “ridiculous” and rightly asks, “[W]ho does the Obama administration think will control these ‘technocrats?’”

There is no doubt that the unity agreement has killed off any possibility of direct talks with the Palestinians. Recognizing this, and treating it as the last straw, George Mitchell shocked the White House by handing in his resignation as Middle East envoy. In fact, some observers believe that Mitchell’s tenure ended months ago, as he became frustrated with what he perceived as both sides “moving the goal posts” every time he offered concessions.

I am surprised that the resignation of Mitchell did not get more attention. This is a huge embarrassment for the Obama administration, coming as it did on the eve of this pivotal week. Of course, the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement probably was the last straw for Mitchell because there is absolutely no way that the Israelis will deal as long as Hamas is part of the bargain.

That means, for all intents and purposes, the peace “process” is in hibernation - at least until Obama wins a second term or a GOP president takes office in 2012.

A titanic failure for Obama that will not be reported as such. What new?

My latest at FrontPage.com is up and it concerns the continuing stalemate in Libya despite recent rebel successes.

The taking of Misrata may have relieved the population of constant artillery and tank bombardment but it did not change the strategic situation; the rebels aren’t strong enough to militarily defeat Gaddafi and the dictator dare not mount the kind of offensive that could defeat the rebels lest NATO planes smash his forces.

A sample:

As the war in Libya enters its third month, forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi have finally been pushed out of the rebel-held city of Misrata after a siege lasting for most of the conflict. But the fact that a reversal might take place at any time highlights an emerging truth about the NATO-led action: the only decisive blow that could be struck by the UN forces to end the conflict is the killing of Gaddafi.

Meanwhile, members of the Obama administration will meet with the leadership of the Libyan National Transitional Council in Washington on Friday to underscore American support for the rebels. At the UN, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called for a ceasefire to address the massive humanitarian crisis caused by the war, especially in the city of Misrata. And despite claims from NATO that they are only hitting “military targets” in Tripoli, another air strike smashed an underground bunker in Gaddafi’s compound just hours after he made an appearance on Libyan television.

The dictator had not been seen in two weeks – since the reported death of his son after a Tomahawk cruise missile struck his living quarters in Tripoli on April 30. This led to speculation, both official and unofficial, that Gaddafi may have been badly injured or killed in the same action.

But Gaddafi appeared in a news clip on Thursday taken at a downtown Tripoli hotel meeting with tribal leaders. While there was no sound from the clip, the camera panned in on a desk clock that read “Wednesday, May 11.” NATO refuses to say whether the air strikes a few hours later were the result of Gaddafi’s appearance. “NATO is not targeting individuals,” Brigadier General Claudio Gabellini was quoted as saying.

While there are reports of unrest in the Gaddafi stronghold of Tripoli, the dictator’s forces appear to have a firm grip on the population and there is little chance that a revolt that might overthrow Gaddafi could erupt in the capitol.

A negotiated solution that leaves Gaddafi in power is becoming more likely as time goes on. About the only thing that would dramatically alter the situation would be the death of Gaddafi - something NATO swears they are not trying to accomplish despite several well placed strikes inside his fortified compound.

One can always hope that the dictator will end up in the wrong place at the wrong time…

My latest is up at FrontPage.com and I examine the impact of OBL’s death on the coming debate over our withdrawal from Afghanistan.

As sample:

When the president announced the 30,000 increase in troops for Afghanistan in December of 2009, it was with the understanding that the number of soldiers to be withdrawn beginning with the July, 2011 target date would depend on both the military success on the ground as well as the progress made by Afghan police and army units in their training. To date, the military is pleased with their counterterrorism strategy that has seen substantial progress in the south, especially in Kandahar province where the Taliban is strongest.

But the success in training the Afghan army and police has been uneven at best. For example, in February, we withdrew units from the Pech Valley in northeastern Afghanistan, turning over security to Afghan forces. Within weeks, the Taliban was back, setting up bases and taking over towns and villages that once had been cleared of them. In some villages, the newly trained police and army simply melted away. While there have been local successes with the new Afghan units, the military believes the training will go on for a decade or more before the Afghans will be able to take complete responsibility for their own security.

But there are some in the administration who believe that bin Laden’s death will change the psychology of the war and lead to a more measured draw down of troops. Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls bin Laden’s death a “gamechanger” and believes that besides delivering a blow to al-Qaeda, the terrorist’s death may make it easier for the Taliban to agree to a negotiated a settlement with President Harmid Karzai’s government. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also sounded optimistic about the salutary effect in Afghanistan as a result of the al-Qaeda leader’s death. “We must take this opportunity to renew our resolve and redouble our efforts,” she said.

Others, like Senator Lindsey Graham, believe now is not the time to pull back, but rather, to increase our efforts. Graham believes the killing of bin Laden has given the US effort in Afghanistan “momentum” and that what “we ought to do is pour it on now.”

But voices in Congress calling for a quick pullout from Afghanistan see bin Laden’s death in a different light. A leading Republican war critic in the House, Representative Jason Chaffetz, wrote that “it was not the 100,000 troops that took out bin Laden.” He believes we can still be effective fighting terrorism even if we bring most of the troops home.

If we wait on the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security, we will be there for a decade. That’s why it appears that we are going to go ahead and remove most of our combat troops by 2014 as Obama promised and give special forces the responsibility of standing up the Afghan army.

Will it work? It has a chance if, at the same time, some of the Taliban can be brought into Karzai’s government. But unless we make things very unpleasant for the Taliban - both in Afghanistan and their sanctuaries in Pakistan - it is more likely that they will just await the right opportunity to mount the kind of final offensive they launched in the early 90’s to take control of the country. We’ve told them when we are leaving , which makes their job that much easier.

If I were Karzai, I’d make sure my life insurance was paid up.

PLEASE NOTE: THE SHOW WILL STREAM ONE HOUR EARLIER THAN USUAL BEGINNING AT 6:00 PM CENTRAL TIME.

You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show, one of the most popular conservative political talk shows on Blog Talk Radio.

Tonight, I welcome Jazz Shaw of Hot Air, Jeff Dunetz of Yid with a Lid, and Monica Showalter of IDB. We’ll discuss the debt ceiling vote as well as the legacy of Osama bin Laden.

The show will air from 7:00 - 8:00 PM Central time. You can access the live stream here. A podcast will be available for streaming or download shortly after the end of the broadcast.

Click on the stream below and join in on what one wag called a “Wayne’s World for adults.”

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.

Oh my. My last post on definitions and meaning seems to have struck a discordant note with the barbarians of the right who, not surprisingly, proved my point deliciously with their responses.

Doug Ross complains that I am the “Ayatollah of diction (?)” for the right and that, au contraire, I just don’t understand what “socialism” is.

Ross:

The path the modern, MoveOn-controlled Democrat Party is on today was presciently described by Stuart Chase in 1942. He wrote that the agenda of the Fabian Socialists — who had launched a counter-revolution against America’s founding — was to create an authoritarian and completely centralized government apparatus. The tenets of the Fabian Socialists were codified as follows:

• Strong, centralized government
• Government-controlled banking, credit and securities exchange (like Dodd-Frank, etc.)
• Government control over employment (like the “Employee Free Choice Act” and NLRB efforts to increase unionization of the workplace)
• Unemployment insurance, old age pensions (like 99-week unemployment benefits, Social Security, easy access to welfare)
• Universal medical care, food and housing programs (like Obamacare, food stamps, HUD)
• Access to unlimited government borrowing (like massive deficits)
• A managed monetary system (like an opaque Federal Reserve)
• Government control over foreign trade (like China tariffs)
• Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production (like drilling moratoriums, the EPA’s regime of “Cap-and-Trade”)
• Government regulation of labor (like the Wagner Act, monopolistic power of trade unions, et. al.)
• and Heavy progressive taxation (like our current tax code, the most “progressive” of all Western countries).

Rick, the policies of the modern Democrat Party are absolutely synonymous with Marxism. And that’s not just my opinion, that’s the take of historians and Constitutional attorneys like David Limbaugh and Mark Levin.

First - and I don’t want to harp on trivialities - but for God’s sake if you are going to write about American politics could you please get the name of the political party right? It is not, nor has it ever been the “Democrat” party. It is the Democratic party and has been so since 1800. It does not matter that the epithet has been in general usage. Spreading ignorance is not an excuse for getting the name of one of the major political parties wrong.

To business: What alternate reality is inhabited by Ross and others on the right? In what universe does the government “control” banking, credit, and the stock markets? In which mythical realm does government “control” employment? Or foreign trade? And in what solar system do labor unions equate with “government” and regulating industries is a sign that we are living in Marxist society? Or socialist, for that matter since Ross appears to use the two terms interchangeably.

I suppose the sticking point between us is the word “control.” I asked the teller at the Streator National Bank yesterday which branch of the government the bank president reported to and which government manager hired her when she got her job 6 months ago. Her blank stare in response is all you need to know about the idea that the banks are “controlled” by the government.

Banks are heavily regulated - not nearly enough for some, too much for others. The recent FinReg bill passed by Congress is a horrible piece of legislation - overregulating smaller financial companies while cozying up with the big banks with the kind of crony capitalism the Obama administration has become famous for.

But does any of it give “control” to the government of banks, financial companies, and especially the stock and commodity markets? Citigroup doles out fabulous bonuses to some of its managers and Ross’s regulators don’t lift a finger to stop them. The government can’t tell any bank to whom they must or can loan money, nor can the government control stuff like initial offerings, venture capital, or even how hedge funds invest their money.

This is a strange way to control the financial industry, eh? Fact: Regulation is not control. Perhaps to the minds of Ross and his fellow Huns, there is no difference between the terms. Perhaps Ross and his fellows would prefer the kind of capitalism where Bernie Madoff could have made himself king. The problem, in some cases, is under regulation as proved by the dufuses on Wall Street who were too lazy to hop a plane to Atlantic City to gamble and decided to do it with trillions in mortgage securities.

The kind of government “control” that Ross is bitching about doesn’t depend on one party, nor one president. Conservatives as diverse as Kirk and Oakeshott have recognized that in order to maintain a well ordered society, government regulation of business is necessary. Yes there is too much regulation - only added to by the Democrats. But an increase in regulation does not mean that government “controls” anything.

Definitions are important. Meaning is important. If it makes me the Ayatollah of diction (?) to point out that you can’t willy nilly make up your own definitions of words to satisfy a political objective, then I suppose you better give me a Koran and put a funny-looking hat on my head.

A few other observations…with inappropriate digressions and stray thoughts included.

Is giving easy access to “welfare” - food stamps, housing assistance, etc. a sign that we live in a socialist country? Again, I really, really, want to visit this planet on which Ross and his cohorts live. No poverty on Terra Ross and if you happen to hit a stretch of bad luck, well, tough. Go to your local church and get help there. Or knock on a rich guy’s door and beg for crumbs. Or ask one of your equally poor relations if you and your kids can bunk with them.

Of course, there are conservative principles that can be applied to the management of social welfare programs - that should have been applied since their beginnings - that would have prevented a permanent underclass, a culture of dependency, and even vastly reduced waste and abuse. But to finger welfare as a harbinger or poster boy for socialism? Why, then, blame Democrats exclusively? Why not point out the “coup d’etat’ that took over the GOP too? Those programs have run and been augmented by both parties and by all presidents since the 1960’s.

And Fabian society or not, the idea that a modern industrialized society should get rid of old age pensions in the form of Social Security and Medicare is daffy. Of course they are set up to bankrupt us eventually - especially Medicare - but reforming them so that old people literally aren’t shivering in the streets or eating dog food is what is needed, not repeal.That is, unless you want a law that makes it mandatory that mom and dad move in with you when they reach the age of 65.  If that were proposed, I daresay that agitation for repeal of Social Security and Medicare would taper off substantially.

Somebody has got to take care of them. If not you, then who?  There are a thousand ideas on how to reform these programs for seniors but few that advocate deep sixing them altogether.

Does having these government programs mean we are a socialist country? Earth to the Visigoths: the calendar has flipped a few pages since you last looked. We don’t live in an 18th century pastoral, coastal society of 7 million people anymore as much as you would wish to go back to the pre-constitutional days of the Articles of Confederation. We live in a 21st century urban, industrial republic with 30 million people who cannot go out and gather berries, hunt their own meat, build their own log cabin, or turn their rye into whiskey and float it down the river to market. The liberals (and George Bush) call social welfare programs “compassionate” government. They are wrong. It is common sense government to care for those who, for whatever reason or excuse, can’t do for themselves. That there is waste, fraud, and abuse goes without saying. That the programs are vital to the survival of millions is equally indisputable.

Does government tell Shell or any other oil company where to drill, how much to spend on developing fields, who should run the company? No, not now and not anytime soon. “Cap and Trade” is an insidious piece of legislation that couldn’t even reach the floor of either chamber when the Democrats had a supermajority, so it is hardly a threat to anybody or anything. The Obama administration is taking the term “control” to the outer limits with its ban on offshore drilling and CO2 regs by the EPA. But will the companies themselves be run by Washington? Of course not. They will be heavily regulated, not controlled.

The difference is meaning. The difference is intent and usage as far as Ross is concerned. I don’t care what some neo-socialist thought in 1942 about how to “socialize” America. It is irrelevant when talking about “control” of businesses and industries.

There is a difference between the Democratic party and socialists. There is a chasm-like difference between the Democratic party and Marxism. “Socialism” and “Marxism” are not interchangeable terms despite Ross’s attempt to make it so. There is a difference between “regulating” and “control.”

And there is a difference between manufacturing definitions and using the correct lexicon to criticize your opponents.