Caffeinated Thoughts |
- Backward and “Forward”
- I Found Somebody Who is Literally Un-American
- Moderation and Moderates
- Christians and the Comics
- The Behavioral Economic Case Against Keynesianism
- Steve King: They Knew What They Were Fighting For
- Latham: If We Don’t Take Time to Remember Them Who Will?
| Posted: 26 May 2012 07:03 PM PDT Custer went forward. Lemmings go forward. The Light Brigade went forward. And now, in an exquisitely apt marketing move, the incumbent president has chosen “Forward” as the slogan for his re-election campaign. The vice-president, in a noisy visit to Keene State College a few days ago (why does he always wind up yelling at his audience, anyway?), pleased the youthful crowd by declaring “we will not go back to the 50s on social policy.” So social policy shall move “forward” if the incumbent president is re-elected. Social policy includes abortion, which will remain legal if we choose to move “forward”. Not safe-and-rare, as former presidents have said in an effort to sound moderate. Just legal, so we don’t go back to the bad old pre-Roe v. Wade days of back alleys & knitting needles and women dying. Listening at one hearing after another in Concord this year on bills that touch on the life issues, I was struck more than once by how many of Roe’s defenders sounded scared of the future even as they said they were determined not to go back into the past. Eugenic abortion was surely one of the twentieth century’s most ghastly ideas – one that belongs in the past, even when it’s prettied up with the euphemism “therapeutic.” Yet this year, I heard objections to New Hampshire’s fetal homicide bill (still in the balance, by the way, with yet another vote coming next week) based on the fear that it might interfere with selective reduction. Assisted reproductive technologies that call for implantation of multiple embryos in a woman’s womb also call for the culling of the surplus once pregnancy is established. Apparently, to protect the brave new world, he only way to face the future is by planting one foot firmly in the past. A bill for informed consent for abortion prompted some women to recount heartbreaking stories of pregnancies gone tragically wrong, with fetal anomalies diagnosed prenatally. The mothers chose abortion, because it “wasn’t fair” to bring such a child into the world. So what’s wrong with informed consent? These women said they resented the assumption that abortion providers weren’t already being perfectly upfront. They also complained that the 24-hour waiting period in the bill would have caused them an additional 24 hours of anguish (with the unspoken corollary being that their anguish somehow subsided once their children were dead). Keep abortion quick and unregulated: no back-alley abortionist from the 1950s could have asked for more. Those shades of the 50s can rest easy, knowing that New Hampshire’s 2012 informed consent bill was killed. New Hampshire public health officials do not collect abortion statistics, letting the abortion industry voluntarily provide whatever information it sees fit. A bill to require collection of statistics was passed this year after being amended into nearly-unrecognizable form, and now a committee will consider whether it’s a good idea to collect the statistics. (This is glacial progress, as opposed to incremental.) Who fought this one? Abortion providers. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England along with the Feminist Health Center in Concord and the Lovering Center in Greenland all sent representatives to the hearings on this one. They all earnestly assured legislators that they DO report the number of abortions done at their facilities. Honest. They do not want oversight even to the extent of accounting for the number of procedures or reporting on morbidity and mortality to the women who have abortions. Again, the pre-Roe industry of illegal abortionists would approve wholeheartedly. In the past, no one kept track of how many women suffered and died after abortion. Bernard Nathanson, MD, a founder of NARAL who later became a pro-life advocate, wrote candidly after leaving the abortion industry that NARAL leaders invented maternal-mortality figures in the late 1960s to try to build support for liberalization of abortion laws. To this day, we don’t know if legal abortion has been any safer for women. The same people who criticize anecdotal reports from pro-life sources, and demand hard figures, flee from those figures when they make their own arguments. (By the way, if you can find Nathanson’s book Aborting America, read it. It’s one of those basic books for the pro-life library.) Moving forward, really forward, means we will want to know for sure how many women are being left to die or suffer permanent injury after abortion. We will want to know who is doing the procedures and we’ll want to know the safety record of the provider (granting that the babies always wind up dead). We’ll want to know at what point in pregnancy the terminations take place. We’ll want to do more for each other than recommend death when disability looms. So, forward, Mr. Biden? Link to this post!        |
| I Found Somebody Who is Literally Un-American Posted: 26 May 2012 03:19 PM PDT
First of all, the idea that using American is somehow inaccurate or elitist just plain ignores the facts. I am a citizen of the United States of America. No other country uses America in its official name that I am aware of. It is not Canada of America, Brazil of America or Mexico of America. Latin America is not a country. Second, her correction was no correction at all. If citizens of the US were to start calling themselves North Americans, the Canadians (from the United Provinces of Canada?) could then object. Third, do the people in Mexico really want to think of themselves as Americans when the Iranians or Saudis pile into their streets chanting “Death to America” or the Europeans march with their signs condemning those awful “Americans”? I think not. Fourth, it is too late. If somebody wanted to start complaining about this they should have started hundreds of years ago. Fifth, it is strange to see Americans self-flagellating over this when they rarely offer a reasonable alternative. USAer? United Stateser? We speak USEse? Sixth, if other Latin American countries want to use American, let them have at it. When I use “American” it is not done with any sort of exclusivity in attitude. I do mean citizens of the USA. But if others want to use it, who is going to stop them? Seventh, This has been tried numerous times before and it has failed every time. Link to this post!      |
| Posted: 26 May 2012 02:48 PM PDT
Moderation by definition is not about obeying a law, but using restraint where there is no law. It applies to matters of personal conscience and choice. This is easy to illustrate. There is no moderate position on abortion. You either believe it is wrong to kill people or you don't. In that case, moderation is an illusion. You could no more be moderate on this than you could be moderate on rape, theft or taking God's name in vain. Again, moderation is only necessary where there is freedom Matthew Poole defines moderation as "exercising an even temper of mind, in governing the sensual appetite, with modesty, patience, and gentleness, in opposition to all impetuousness and inordinate affections, yea, to all excess and exorbitance in words and actions." If Poole is correct—and most other translations and commentaries seem to agree—the emphasis is on the requirement to exercise self-control in one's passions and appetites. In fact, the Bible does warn about excess in what we put in our mouths (though there is a lot more about what comes out of our mouths!). Scriptural Examples Proverbs 25:27 It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory. Proverbs 20:20f Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags. These warnings to use self-control, like many others in Scripture, apply in only one direction. In the first case above, God takes what is self-evident (eating too much honey is bad) to illustrate what may not be so evident (seeking your own glory too much is bad). But a warning about eating too little honey—let alone seeking your own glory too little—is not even contemplated, for none seeks his own glory too little! (or too little honey, for that matter.) The second Scripture is not an illustration but a direct warning against excess in two areas. First, in the intemperate use of intoxicating liquors; second in the excess use of food. "Wine" and "flesh" (or "meat") are synecdoches, where an example from a category is given for the whole category. The passage is not speaking against drinking alcohol or eating, but punctuates the warning with an example of what excess in either case can cause: sleepiness or laziness leading to poverty. And, of course, there is no positive encouragement here to drink or eat certain things. Other foods could be used as examples. Eating only powdered-sugar donuts is probably excess. Eating no powdered sugar donuts is not (though it might prove personally almost as difficult as eating only one). While I don't suggest that the Bible provides menus for our daily meals, it is hard to imagine a blanket or general prohibition against milk, eggs, red meat, fish, bread, fruit or vegetables as being unhealthy, since the Bible commends all of these at one time or another. Even in our eating habits, moderation is about self-control, not Biblical law. Does the Bible give us the authority to proffer gluttony charges over how much and what kinds of foods our brothers and sisters consume? How much is too much? Who decides? As Christians, we have no warrant to ban or use the government to discourage the eating of salt, sugar, Happy Meals, Twinkies, or Cheeseburgers. Your mother may make you eat your vegetables, but Uncle Sam should mind his own business. Moderation applies to our attitudes about food more than the actual food itself. Like the proverbial former cigarette smoker who can't resist telling others what to puff on, we are sometimes obsessed with forcing our newly discovered diets upon others, without any consideration to what moderation really means: controlling ourselves and not letting food, politics, or any other thing cause us to be impatient or unkind with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Nor should we lose our focus on Him. A Mother and Her Two Sons A lady has two grown sons. Each loves their mother and decides to visit her twice a week, though she lives 140 miles away. Gasoline is $4 a gallon. The environmentally-conscious son drives his fuel-efficient car (which gets 40 mpg) at 40 MPH (the legal minimum), saving about 20% in fuel efficiency or about 1.5 gallons of gasoline and $6 for the round trip vs. the cost of driving the same car @ 70 MPH (the legal maximum). His trip takes 3.5 hours each way. The time-conscious son drives his old beater (20 mpg) at 70 MPH, costing him 20% more, or about 3 gallons of extra gas ($12) since he did not travel the lower speed limit. His trip takes 2 hours each way. Which of these two sons is the conservationist? It depends on what they are trying to conserve. Son #1 has saved gas and money (about 4.5 gallons of fuel or $18) over Son #2. The second son saved 3 hours over Son #1. A series of questions comes to mind. What does moderation require, here? Must both sons drive 55 MPH? Must both drive cars that get 30 MPH? Moderation has nothing to do with requiring people to split the difference between two positions, always taking the middle path. These two sons have the freedom on US highways to travel at either speed1. But which of these two sons wants to impose his definition of moderation on the other? Mostly, it is the first son. First, he wants to limit the kind of car Son #2 can drive. Obama's Cash for Clunkers deal destroyed well over a half a million perfectly fine running cars in the name of better gas-mileage (and the environment), even though this nearly paralyzed the used car market for lower income buyers with large families. Second, Son #1 also has a long record of coercing or bribing states into setting speed limits and tying those limits to federal funds. In other ways, governments at every level sometimes manipulate the laws to encourage reliance on public transportation rather than private ownership. I tried to simplify the difference between the two sons in terms of time vs. money. But the issues are much too complicated to judge based upon the facts given. Perhaps Son #1 does spend the extra time in the car listening to Scriptures on tape or spending time with his wife who has come along. But other factors must be considered. Son #2 may believe that redeeming the time means spending more time with his mother or his family at home. What kind of vehicle should a man with 10 children drive? That is a legitimate question. But really it is only a question for the man with 10 kids, not his neighbors. 40 MPH may be safer in a small car than 70 MPH if everybody else is driving 40 MPH, but if almost everybody about you is driving twice as fast—including those in 18-wheelers and SUVs—you may have become a road hazard. The point here is that judging others on these matters (See Romans 14:1-4) or exercising control over others in these areas is a perilous adventure indeed. Instead, heeding the biblical warnings against immoderate behavior would produce the kind of moderate even a staunch conservative could get along with. ______________________________________ 1 Maximum and minimum speeds were not originally set for environmental or convenience purposes, but rather safety, hence the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) has some jurisdiction on this issue. ______________________________________ David Shedlock has written a book on the Biblical role of government called With Christ in the Voting Booth which features a Foreword by Governor Mike Huckabee. Link to this post!      |
| Posted: 26 May 2012 11:39 AM PDT The news is out that as part of its reboot, DC Comics is going to make one of its existing characters as homosexual. It looks like it will be the latest incarnation of The Green Lantern. In the Comic book companies battle to fall all over each other to appease the gay community while not ruining its motion picture business, this makes sense. The Green Lantern, unlike Superman, Batman, or Spider-man has been the secret identity of several different characters. The current Green Lantern is not the same character as appeared in the 2011 movie or the 2011 animated series, or still yet from the Justice League episodes of the previous decade. If the new Green Lantern sexuality poses a challenge for DC Commercially, they can quietly kill the character off, and replace them with a commercially feasible. The Christian Group One Million Moms is up in arms about the decision:
The truth is, however, that long before 2011, Comic books have had many unhealthy characters and role models. For example, there are at least two demonic possessed Superheroes: Kid Devil and since 1972, DC has been publishing The Demon. Beyond pagan and occult aspects, the comic book characters have become increasingly sexually immoral and crude. The reason for this is that mainstream comic books long ago ceased being targeted to kids. They’ve become the province of moody 30 and 40 something males who like high dose of violence, cleavage, gore, and post-modern cynicism. Marvel and DC play a clever game with consumers and families. They offer this version of the superhero world to their adult clientèle. To kids, they offer more superhero role models with far less offensive material in Saturday Morning Cartoons and Comics. In Superhero movies, they offer mostly admirable heroes or heroes who find their way to being admirable by the end of the film. The recent Spider-man series won acclaim from many Christians. Even Iron Man II earned a bit of a nod from Plugged In for its redemptive qualities:
The formula for successful superhero films is pretty simple: 1) Feature a battle between good and evil and 2) keep sexual content, gore, and foul language to a minimum, and 3) use awesome special effects. Then you pass go and collect three quarters of a billion dollars at the the worldwide box office. If you decide to give viewers a bunch of R-rated anti-heroes like run around your comic books like in the Punisher (2004) and Watchmen (2009), you’ll need the foreign box office to bail your investors out. If you decide to give us a Superman with a child born out of wedlock in Superman Returns (2006), expect to collect about 1/2 to 2/3 of what a Spider-man movie makes. Thus, the reward for virtue is ever present for big media and the reward is in hundreds of millions of dollars. However, these far more wholesome properties create confusion with parents and kids who reasonably think Superman, Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man, etc. are all the same. If Spider-man is okay in a movie, why not in an adult comic book? If you study comic books before kids read them, regardless of homosexuality and other contemporary issues, the One Millions ought to have several million kids who don’t read the adult DC and Marvel titles. Of course, some might suggest that the right course is to completely ignore the world of superheroes and discourage kid’s interest. This may be the right decision for some families, but will be very problematic in a wider Christian culture. Consider the debates we’ve had over Harry Potter. If you can’t convince Christian parents that a series of books lionizing a warlock and full of occult content, good luck getting them to stay away from The Avengers based on stuff they’ll never see on the screen. What we really need are more Christians writing and creating within the framework of a biblical worldview. C.S. Lewis showed how it was possible to create wonderful messages that communicated the Christian message within the worlds of science fiction and fantasy. If we could get Christians to do the same thing with heavy duty explosions and superpowers, we’d have something far more powerful than any protest. Link to this post!      |
| The Behavioral Economic Case Against Keynesianism Posted: 26 May 2012 10:54 AM PDT Recently, I wrote a post on behavioral economics, and I discussed the implications this relatively new economic science has on limited government. For those who read the post, you’ll remember I concluded that behavioral economics is not in itself a threat to limited government, even though nearly all behavioral economists are left-winged. Today, I’m taking it one step further. In this post, I’m going to make a behavioral economic case against Keynesianism Like I said in my last post on this subject, a big problem with behavioral economists is that they tend to focus entirely on the free market and the private sector. Behavioral economics is about studying how human behavior affects the economy, and more specifically it is mostly about studying anomalies and irrational behavior (that standard economic models say shouldn’t exist). Behavioral economists correctly identify a lot of irrational behaviors in human beings that negatively affect the economy (like the tendency not to save enough for retirement, or the tendency to buy a new house just because everyone else is). However, they forget that these very same things apply just as much to politicians; hence relying on politicians to solve problems that occur in the marketplace is far from a foolproof solution. I am going to make four arguments, based on behavioral economics, as to why keynesianism doesn’t work. Let’s get going with the first one: 1) Bad habits die hard. Keynesianism states that the government should attempt to run budget surpluses during the boom, and then spend said surpluses (and even borrow money if necessary) during recessions. In other words, going on a spending splurge when the economy is doing badly is OK, as it will increase aggregate demand. You just have to make those spending splurges temporary and all will be fine. The problem is, when government increases its spending, it’s always and everywhere a permanent increase (data supports this; I don’t think government spending has been reduced a single time during the past 40 years or so). Let’s say we’re in a recession, and the government decides to spend an extra one trillion dollars annually for a couple of years. Now let’s say that three years later, the economy has recovered, and the original raison d’etre for the increased spending is gone. Regular economics says that now, the government will simply reduce spending, and everything will go back to normal. This, however, never really happens in the real world. Why? Behavioral economics gives us a clue about why spending is so rarely reduced during booms, even though it’s always increased during recession. The reason? Habits die hard. Humans rely on habits to make life easier for us. We don’t think for a long time before picking up our favorite cereal; we just pick the one we’re used to picking, out of habit. This isn’t always rational, but it’s a fact of life anyway. Politicians do this too. They don’t sit around for hours analysing how much spending is optimal; they spend as much as they have a habit of spending (remember, most politicians are not economists, and so often they don’t really have the knowledge necessary to make optimal decisions). Spending an extra trillion for a couple of years soon turn that extra trillion of spending into a habit; it creates a dangerous precedent. What was supposed to have been a temporary measure to increase aggregate demand, soon becomes a permanent part of every future budget. Behavioral economics teaches us that we often continue with habits even after they stop making sense; we don’t evaluate them nearly often enough. Nowhere is this as obvious as with politicians and their spending habits. 2) Politicians are risk-averse, and the benefits from deficit reductions are abstract There are two things we know about humans (and that includes politicians): We are in general riskaverse, meaning we don’t like risk and we want to be compensated for taking on it (ie, we may make a high risk investment, but only if that high risk investment carries a chance of a high reward). Reducing spending (or increasing taxes – that’s another form of deficit reduction) means taking a risk. As a congressman, you have constituents who expect you to bring home the bacon to them – and you may not be able to convince them about the benefits of a vegetarian diet. If you face a decision on whether to increase spending, for example by given them an new park or school, or cut spending, you are more likely to opt for increasing spending, just because the return is more certain. You give people a park, school or something else, and you’ll most likely be re-elected. On the other hand, voting for spending cuts, even when they make sense, is politically very risky. Also, the benefits of deficit reductions are very abstract; they’re hard to understand, hard to picture in front of you. Abstract rewards lead to bad decision-making; for example a big reason why smokers smoke is because while they know smoking causes lung cancer, they can’t really imagine how painful lung cancer really is. “Lung cancer”, to most people who haven’t experienced it, is too abstract to be taken into account when making the decision on whether or not to smoke. Unsurprisingly, the reason many non-smokers give as for why they have chosen not to smoke is because smoking gives you yellow teeth, bad skin, hoarse voice etc – these consequences are not nearly as dangerous as lung cancer, but they’re easier to picture (they’re not abstract). The dangers of the current fiscal policy too are to a large extent very abstract; we really can’t imagine what a complete financial apocalypse caused by a US state bankruptcy would be like. It’s too far from our perception of reality. We can’t imagine the ATM’s stop working, we can’t see in front of us how martial law is declared in all 50 states as riots ensue and looting of shops becomes the only way to survive. This is something that willl eventually happen, much sooner than you think, if the US doesn’t begin to take the deficit seriously. Yet, in choosing between funding a park and winning re-election, and cutting spending and avoiding this abstract dystopic future, most politicians will choose the first options. Surely they’ll be retired by the time the consequences of the deficit spending really begin to set in? And even when it does, it is far from certain that people will understand the connection between the action and the consequence; they won’t understand that it was the fact that their congressman voted for a new park in their district (and all the other pork that they got) that drove the country towards bankruptcy, and so the congressman who did this is likely to get away scot-free. Another difficulty lies in the old age of most senators and congressmen; many of them are old enough that by the time the US (or at least social security) goes bankrupt, they’ll be 6 ft under the ground. It’s not a coincidence that Paul Ryan is the guy behind the bold Roadmap to Recovery. He’s a young man with small kids, and therefore he has high personal incentives to reduce the deficit: He will be around to face the music if nothing is done, and if nothing else his kids will too. I’m not saying that Congressman Ryan is selfish or that he is only trying to deal with the deficit for personal reasons – that would be absurd – but none the less, personal incentives certainly do affect how politicians vote. These two reasons together – riskaversion and abstract returns from deficit reduction – is a big part of the reason why the Keynesian formula is so rarely followed: We spend during recessions, but we ignore the other part about saving during booms because the reason to save during booms isn’t clear enough, and it’s dangerous politically to suggest cutbacks. 3) Encouraging spending has long-term side effects It is a common fact among economists that americans (and most other people as well) don’t save enough. No matter what measure you use – whether “saving enough” means being able to keep your current standard of living when you retire, or whether you use the more technical measure of how close americans are to the optimal savings rate (the savings rate that will maximize GDP in the long term), Americans don’t save enough. Yet, during recessions, we hear politicians (and sadly some economists – I’m looking at you, Paul Krugman) proclaim the virtue of spending and how we must spend our way out of the recession (even though we pretty much spent our way into it in the first place). They claim that spending drives the economy, a claim that is ridiculous as it’s really investment (savings) that drive the economy IN THE LONG TERM. Yes, increased spending can give a short-term economic boost, but in the long run a country’s steady state is higher the higher the savings rate is (look up the solow model on wikipedia if you want to learn more). In the very long run, what really decides a country’s growth rate is the rate at which it manages to innovate and become more efficient – technological progress, in short. So what happens when you encourage spending? Let’s assume a “good” scenario (from a keynesian perspective), where americans cut their savings rate from 5 % to 0 % – ie, they start consuming everything they earn, living paycheck to paycheck. Now imagine the recession ends. How do you get americans to start saving again? Keynesians may assume that the savings rate will go up automatically, but like I said in my first point, habits die hard. Most of us save a certain % of our income (or a certain amount of dollars) out of habit, and if politicians manage to convince consumers to stop saving, there is really no guarantee that the savings rate will go up after the recession is over. You see, convincing people to spend is relatively easy – spending is fun, remember. Convincing them to take up saving, after they’ve gotten used to living paycheck to paycheck, is certainly much harder. Saving requires a sacrifice, it requires us to accept delayed gratification. It’s very possible that savings rates may remain low long afterwards, hurting growth and leaving consumers vulnerable to shocks. We should also notice that if you’re a spendthrift who has maxed out your credit card during the boom, to hear an authority figure (such as Paul Krugman, a respected economist) say that all you have to do – now that the recession is here – is to get another credit card and keep the party going may very well give you an excuse (let’s face it, we all look for excuses to do things we think is fun that we know aren’t good) to do so. Americans are already undersaving – why give people an excuse (“I’m doing it for the economy!”) to save even less? 4) Curing a recession with the hair of the dog – not a good way to build confidence I believe every business cycle is unique. Some people try to explain business cycles on monetary policy (austrians), others on animal spirits and lack of demand (keynesians), and some believe business cycles are caused by changes in the fundamentals of the economy (the real business cycle theorists). I’m personally convinced that the search for the “one and only” cause of business cycles is naive. Every recession has its own causes. That, however, is not the point I’m trying to make here. I believe that the current downturn was mainly caused by bad monetary policy in the early 2000′s, which led to an irresponsible increase in the money supply and in lending, which fuelled the property bubble. Sure the banks were irresponsible and the regulation should have been stricter, but without the cheap credit provided by the Federal Reserve, this would never have happened. When the recession hit, the first response from the Federal Reserve was to do everything they had done in the 2001 recession all over again: They lowered interest rates, eventually they became even lower than they ever were during the last recession. It didn’t work very well this time. I’m not surprised. What the Federal Reserve was trying to do was to cure the recession with the hair of the dog. Even though on a theoretical level this makes some sense, it is understandable that it is met with scepticism both from consumers and investors. What if the current low interest rates cause another recession in 8-10 years time? It’s actually not unthinkable and you can understand why investors (including employers) may be reluctant to make long-term investments without being certain that the structural issues the economy has have been adressed. I believe monetary policy works much better when the cause of the recession isn’t monetary policy. It’s just more credible that way, when a central bank has screwed up and been a part of causing a recession, that you don’t rely on them too much to solve the problem. It may make theoretical sense in some macroeconomic model; but that’s not what businessmen and consumers see. What they see is that the government (OK, so technically the Federal Reserve isn’t part of the government, but you get my point) is trying to fix things the very same way they broke them the last time. The same of course goes with deficit spending. The US was already running a deficit during the boom, and so when the government told consumers that everything would be alright if only the US would run an even bigger deficit, naturally they didn’t buy it. Expectations didn’t change. If you could avoid a recession simply by deficit spending and low interest rates, then the US would have never entered into a recession in the first place after all. Getting out of a recession is very much about changing expectations. If you can’t make employers believe that there is a light at the end of the tunnel that we’re getting closer and closer to, then they’re not going to hire. The same of course goes with consumers and all the other investors. You do not change expectations when you try to cure by the hair of the dog, and that is why investor and consumer confidence still hasn’t rebounded. There has been no adressing the structural issues behind the crisis. And as long as Obama is in office, there won’t be. One word of caution: I would support monetary policy intervention in Europe right now, as the reason for the Eurozone crisis wasn’t simply lower interest rates but rather it was caused by countries with very different economies naively believing that they could have the same currency and the same central bank. While monetary policy is far from a long-term solution (I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The only solution that will work in the long term is the dissolution of the Eurozone), it is definitely worth a try if it can help countries like Ireland and Spain (Greece is a lost cause I’m afraid) avoid state bankruptcy. Summary This post can be seen a follow-up post to the post I wrote about whether behavioral economics threatens limited government. In this post, I went a step further and explained four ways in which behavioral economics can be used to make a strong case against keynesianism, and, in the end, against Obama. While in order to get the full picture of Keynesianism (or any other economic idea), you need to analyze it from more than just the behavioral perspective, this is none the less an important perspective that I believe has been missed out on in the debate. The conservative movement lately has had an unfortunate tendency to reject academia and scientific research, instead of embracing the discoveries and looking at them through conservative glasses – which is what I as an intellectual conservative is trying to do. I apologize for the length of this post, I hope you all learned something. Thank you for reading. Link to this post!      |
| Steve King: They Knew What They Were Fighting For Posted: 26 May 2012 08:00 AM PDT
“May this Memorial Day weekend help us to put our lives into perspective, so that we can honor those who have given this country the ultimate sacrifice,” said King. “I’ve been with our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’ve seen firsthand the hardships that they face, yet they endure it all with incredible courage and focus. I offer my sincere appreciation for those who have fought in uniform for our great nation. I also recognize the stalwart families who supported their sons and daughters through their difficult journeys. I hope that this Memorial Day we each can be reminded of the greatness of our nation and be grateful for the freedoms we have because they knew what they were fighting for.” Link to this post!      |
| Latham: If We Don’t Take Time to Remember Them Who Will? Posted: 26 May 2012 07:45 AM PDT
Perhaps the most fitting way to observe Memorial Day is to call to mind the collective memories we share of those Americans who sacrificed everything for our country and our freedom. More often than not, these individuals were everyday Americans – our friends, our family and our neighbors – who took on extraordinary challenges and made the ultimate sacrifice. They didn't do it because they expected grand memorials to be built in their honor. They didn't do it for glory or for fame. They did it because it was right. They did it because they wanted a brighter future for every single one of us. They did it because they knew in their hearts that the United States of America – this great experiment born in liberty and justice – was worth giving everything they had. If we don't remember them, who will? Iowa's proud history is full of heroes who served our country stretching all the way to the earliest days of our state. Take a tour of the State Capitol, for instance, and you'll see an exhibit devoted to flags that once waved over the heads of Iowa soldiers who marched into battle during the Civil War. Every major American conflict of the 20th and 21st centuries has born witness to ordinary Iowans making extraordinary sacrifices. On Memorial Day, I think it's appropriate to take a few moments to recall some of these great patriots who fell in the line of duty. Merle Hay is a name familiar to virtually everyone who has lived in the Des Moines area for any length of time because of the road and landmarks that have been named after him. But fewer people probably know that Merle Hay was among the first American servicemen to lay down his life in World War I. Hay grew up in Glidden and served in the trenches of France after the U.S. entered the Great War. In the early morning of November 3, 1917, German forces raided Hay's trench. He fought valiantly with his bayonet in the dim light provided by flares, but, when the Germans withdrew, it was discovered that Hay was among three American casualties. World War II brought out the same kind of heroism from Iowa servicemen. Captain Darrell B. Lindsey, a native of Jefferson, led a formation of 30 B-26 bombers on a mission to destroy a strategically important enemy-held railroad bridge in France two months after D-Day in 1944. His bomber encountered fierce anti-aircraft fire, and his right engine took a direct hit before the bombing run could be completed. Flames burst from the engine and threatened to engulf the entire right side of the aircraft. Lindsey knew the gasoline tank could explode at any moment. But rather than abandon the mission, Lindsey continued to lead the formation toward the target. Only after the bombing run had been completed did he order the crew of the aircraft to parachute to safety. With no regard for his own life, he held the doomed plane in a steady glide long enough for the rest of the crew to jump. Before he could evacuate, however, the gas tank exploded and his plane crashed. He was awarded a posthumous Medal of Honor for his selfless heroism. The Korean War produced no shortage of Iowa heroes. One such hero was Sgt. 1st Class Junior D. Edwards, an Indianola native who was also awarded a posthumous medal of honor. After serving in World War II, he later re-enlisted in 1947. His platoon was ordered to defend a strategically vital high ground in Korea in early 1951. The platoon was forced out of its position by withering enemy machine-gun fire. Edwards individually charged the hostile position with grenades three times. His third charge enabled his platoon to regain its vital position on the high ground, but the final daring assault also resulted in Edwards taking mortal wounds. Without his heroic sacrifice, an entire corps of South Korean troops likely would have been captured by communist forces. Then there's 2nd Lieutenant Robert J. Hibbs, a graduate of Cedar Falls High School and the State College of Iowa. Hibbs received the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions in Vietnam. While commanding an ambush patrol in a dense jungle area, Hibbs learned that a wounded American soldier was stranded between the two opposing forces. Although he was near safety, he refused to leave a man behind. Hibbs and another of his comrades attempted to rescue the stranded soldier. While his partner dragged the wounded man back toward friendly lines, Hibbs laid down cover fire. He was eventually struck down and succumbed to mortal wounds. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, moved a new generation of heroes to wear the uniform of the armed services. New threats and challenges ensured that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan would be of a very different nature than the wars that preceded them. But the heroism and sacrifice of those who served – and continue to serve – are just as profound. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Jaime Jaenke died in June 2006 when her Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb in the Al Anbar province in Iraq. A native of Iowa Falls, Jaenke was the first Iowa woman to lay down her life in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Army Sergeant Brent Maher, of Honey Creek, Iowa, made the ultimate sacrifice in April 2011 when the vehicle he was traveling in struck an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan. Both Jaenke and Maher left behind young children. Their stories remind us that the families of fallen servicemen and women must also bear a heartbreaking burden and are equally deserving of our thanks. While we remember and honor the fallen Iowans I've just mentioned, we must also note that their stories are far from isolated. Rather, they are part of Iowa's long and storied tradition of service. As I mentioned earlier, Iowans have served their country and died in every major conflict since the founding of our state. Although these stories are drawn from nearly a century of history and from conflicts that span the globe, each of these Iowans shared an unshakable belief in a cause greater than themselves. No one has done more for the cause of freedom than those who gave up their lives in the service of our nation. They died because they selflessly assumed the responsibility of defending the United States of America. Because of that, it's our responsibility to make sure they are never forgotten. Because if we don't take the time to remember, who will? Congressman Tom Latham (R-IA) represents Iowa's 4th Congressional District. He is currently running for the newly drawn 3rd Congressional District in Iowa against incumbent Congressman Leonard Boswell (D-IA). Link to this post!      |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Caffeinated Thoughts To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Are you looking to make cash from your websites or blogs by running popunder ads?
RăspundețiȘtergereIn case you are, have you considered using PopAds?