Bows, Genuflections and Proskyneses

Bowing is an act of deference, specifically one of deference to social betters. In Western society, this means royalty or nobility.

We don’t have any of that shit in the United States. Oh, we have social classes, all right, but even after the continued efforts of Progs and Leftoids over the last half-century there is still class mobility, and (more importantly) social class isn’t embedded in our laws or Constitution.

Nobody bows to the President, which is correct; he isn’t a social class superior to anybody. The President shouldn’t bow to Kings, Emperors, etc. because he isn’t a social class inferior, either. The correct box to check on the information form isn’t “inferior” or “superior”; it’s [X] Not Applicable.

When Obama bows to a King or Emperor, he’s joining their system of nobility as an inferior, and by extension placing all of the rest of us Americans in an inferior social class. F* that for a game of soldiers. I absolutely refuse to accept that I’m in any way inferior to somebody whose ancestor was a Hapsburg simply because of that ancestry, and you ought to feel the same way. We’re Americans. We don’t recognize that system, don’t accept it, and don’t abide by it — or shouldn’t.

Corruption is a workaround

for any sort of strong central control, not just “Socialism”, which is a form of monopoly capitalism in which the Government is the monopolist.

What inspired that thought was visiting Mexico again, and once again interacting with Mexican civil aviation. Mexico is a country with a Socialist philosophy at its base, and it has a long list of extremely tight regulations for almost everything. An honest person trying to navigate the maze of regulatory agencies, permissions, forms to fill out, and so on, will never get anywhere, and if the official process was really the way things worked here they wouldn’t even qualify as a Third World country — they’d hardly be a country at all. But if you’re prepared to carry a couple of US$20 bills in your shirt pocket and a roll of hundreds in your pants (are you that happy to see me?…) and grease palms as necessary, getting permission is a piece of cake.

Aviation, of course, is a little different. Airplanes that aren’t maintained properly tend to fall down and go boom!, so not even the richest padron in the system thinks it’s a good idea to bribe the DGAC inspector (Direccion General de Aviacion Civil; sorry about the missing accents, they go on the last vowel of each word) to let it go without proper maintenance. Until recent changes in the US system, Mexico had more and stricter aviation regulations than we did because they simply adopted ours and added more on top — in a country where 90% of the population lives in a few urban areas and with vast stretches of almost-unpopulated desert, you have to file a flight plan for any sort of flight, including gliders, balloons, ultralights, etc. The result is that except for commercial airlines and the boytoys of los ricos, aviation is nearly nonexistent. To the extent it does exist, the aircraft are maintained to US standards or better — if you need work done on an airplane and can afford patience, you can get it done in Guadalajara or Toluca for half price and the work will be as good as anything an American might do.

In the case of development, putting up buildings, and the like, the rich guy sponsoring the work isn’t in danger, so he can freely bribe and coerce the bureaucrats to get permission — or just go ahead and do as he pleases, then bribe and/or coerce for forgiveness afterward. The system is corrupt, and things get built and done. In the case of aviation, el rico is himself at hazard if the requirements aren’t met, so he can’t corrupt the system without direct risk to himself and the system isn’t corrupted. Since it isn’t corrupted, it’s almost impossible to navigate, and only the very rich (or the nearly-insanely motivated) can manage the resources to get through it.

And, at the end, the airplanes are jewelry and the roads and buildings are crap, and a huge fraction of the money that ought to go for development to make things better for the people instead buys Gulfstreams and Learjets for the rich, who fly them off to the US to go shopping with their extended families, and, at the lower level, Armani suits, fancy cars, and big houses with servants for the bureaucrats.

But at least there are roads and buildings and factories, however poorly made they are, and there is a civil and private infrastructure that lets development happen. If everybody was honest and followed the regulations to the letter, none of that would be possible.

The problem isn’t confined to Government, let alone to Socialist Government. If you’ve ever worked for a big company you’ve encountered a somewhat benign version  — Corporate Regulations won’t let you do what you want/need to do, but if you go down and wheedle Doris in Accounting you can get her to convince Fred in Purchasing to get you the stuff. Money rarely changes hands in that version, so we don’t think of it as “corruption” in the same way as we do bribes, etc., but it’s really the same thing, it’s just that the medium of exchange for the bribes is different. That version also works (with a vengeance) within the “honest” bureaucracy of Government.

Any time you find a system that theoretically has strong central control and appears to work, closer examination will find corruption — people exchanging favors and/or resources (including money) to get things done by going around The System. Doing it that way is horrendously inefficient, because system resources, most definitely including the diligence and intelligence of the people in the system, are wasted in evasion maneuvers, and smart unscrupulous people can easily insert themselves into the “black market” and make off with huge chunks of the available resources. It’s why small companies get more done with fewer resource inputs than large ones, and why “…that Government is best that governs least.”

UPDATE: Serendipity — Reynolds links to an American Interest piece on a UN report that corruption costs the world something like one and a half trillion-with-a-trill US dollars a year. Just going by what I see in Mexico, I would reckon that’s about a tenth of what’s spilled on the bar internally in “corruption”.

---

I have to disagree with “ef”, who says, in the comments to the previous post

 

Socialism though, only works if the basic instincts/tendencies of humanity are completely turned on their head

Socialism doesn’t work at all. The reason you can sell Socialism to people is that the advertising slogans for it exactly fit the “instincts/tendencies” we evolved during the many millenia we lived as hunter-gatherer-scavengers.

It occurs to me

that socialist-based systems can only work if they’re corrupt.

Discuss.

The future of the Republican Party

is Californication.

While everybody was focused on NY-23, several of the Leftoid blogs were crowing about CA-10, where Matt Ortega has called it for John Garamendi (D), with 42,608 (56.12%) over David Harmer (R), 30,015 (39.53%). Reading Zilani’s piece and associated comments last night, I wondered why that didn’t bother me. CA-10 is in the East Bay, which used to be a Republican area. Now that Hoffman has conceded — no, the absentee ballots aren’t relevant; the (R) ones will be for Scozzafava — it’s become more clear.

The California Republican Party long ago adopted the “me too” strategy with regards to its Democratic opponents. They are “moderate”. They are “bipartisan”. And they are almost entirely irrelevant, it being fairly clear that the only thing they have to offer is a different logo. Once in a while they eke out a win or two, but when they do the person who takes office governs like a centrist or slightly-left Democrat. Meanwhile, conservative measures do very well in the initiative-and-referendum system they have there — I lived in California when Proposition 13 was voted on, and later votes haven’t been terribly different.

Rightist blogs have been commiserating with one another to the effect that the McDonnell and Christie wins make up for Hoffman’s loss. That’s almost correct. It works if you’re thinking only of Party identification in the sports-team sense. Both of the new Governors ran as “me too, but cheaper” Republicans against (respectively) a flaming Liberal and one of the most corrupt and inept people outside Chicagoland. Their wins, plus Hoffman’s loss, add up to vindication of that approach in the minds of the RNCC.

The result can only be continual conversion of the national Republican Party to a larger version of the California one — focused on getting power, privilege, and oh those campaign donations by going along with whatever the Democratic Party proposes. That is, after all, “centrist”. It’s “bipartisan”. It “attracts Independents”. It also results in irrelevance. People who want Democrats will vote for Democrats, not imitations who are clearly only in it for the egoboo.

I continue to believe there is a future for Conservatives in politics, even if it’s only as a minority in opposition, but it’s clearly not with the Republican Party, because there is no Republican Party. There are only the Democrats and the Other Democrats, and the ODP isn’t going to tolerate Conservatism. It isn’t “centrist”.

I’m hearing jokes

I haven’t heard since about 1964.

N* jokes. I won’t provide examples. They aren’t quite identical to their predecessors, but only the names have really changed. Rastus and Liza have not yet put in an appearance, but it’s a matter of time, I think.

This, folks, is not a good sign.

Conservatives have no ideas

according to the Leftoids. Responses to my tweet were illuminating:

crewislife RT @Shoq: .@RicLocke Judging from the “lefty ths,” & “lefty that, ” in yr pontifical screeds, entertaining that U’d whine abt stereotypes

And, of course,

noiselessflash @RicLocke The fact is that conservatives are still republicans and Bush was your Waterloo.

Perfect, isn’t it? Absolute stone blindness to anything representing “argument”, plus invocation of the bogeyman.

What I generally use as a characterization is “Leftoids”, unless I have some reason to use the more direct term. It represents what’s really going on, which is a mishmash of ideas traceable to Socialism and communalist (or communitarian) sources, mixed up in a muddled mess that really doesn’t have any consistent basis other than envy, jealousy, and total misunderstanding of how things work.

As a conservative, I’m happy enough with the designation “Party of NO!” That is, I don’t consider it a bad thing to be saying “No, you shouldn’t stick bobby pins in the electric sockets” or “No, smashing things without figuring out what they do isn’t a good idea.” “Conservative” means just that — not wanting to make changes blindly.

And, as I tweeted earlier, I’m happy enough to grant good intentions on the part of a huge proportion of Leftoids, but that doesn’t make it better, it makes it worse. They’re happy to embrace simplistic “solutions” to what they perceive as problems — the proper adjective is “sophomoric”. They think they know what’s going on, but are largely wrong.

What they really are is spoiled preadolescents.

“Daddy, I want a pony.”

–No, dear, we can’t afford it, and besides, we live on the 14th floor and a pony wouldn’t fit in your bedroom.

We then go through the wheedling phase, the screaming tantrum phase, and are now in the penultimate phase, which is our spoiled brat explaining to her (stereotypically “her” — boys express it differently, as a rule) contemporaries that the reason she can’t have a pony is that Daddy is a hateful stingy selfish creep who hates ponies, hates her, and wants little kids to suffer, and when she and her friends get old enough they’re going to make all Daddies buy their children a pony, because that’s faaaaaaaair.

Follow the Leftoids on #tcot and tell me I’m wrong.

Conservatives vs. Republicans

Democrats own the Left. Might as well accept it.

It would appear that the National Republican Campaign Committee has thrown in the towel in the NY-23 race. As I said yesterday, it looks like at least some Republicans can see lightning and hear thunder. Even Michael Steele looks like getting a clue. (All via memeorandum.)

It’s about time.

Mark Ambinder at The Atlantic snarks, “…Republicans versus Conservatives, Governing Conservatives versus Theoretical Conservatives, Palin-Beck Crazies versus Sane Modernists.” Well, yes, shorn of the sneers, that’s just what’s going on.

If both parties have the same policies and ideological orientation, there’s no need for two parties. People who want to vote for Big Government, for “compassion” (meaning redistribution, envy, and jealousy of the more fortunate), for a society of dependents who can’t wipe their butts without aid from the Department of Personal Hygiene, are going to vote for Democrats. No amount of “me too!” is going to attract them to Republicans, because Democrats have made those things their emblem and standard. A Republican campaigning on “compassionate conservatism” is behind the curve right from engine start, because the Democrat will always be ahead on that issue.

If there is a future for the Republican Party, it is opposition to that kind of policy. That’s what the TEA Parties are all about; that’s what the “Palin-Beck crazies” are preaching. It’s impossible to build the Republican Party back up by moving it to the Left, because the Democrats own the Left.

The McCain-Gingrich Republicans see the issues as part of a “big tent” strategy, in which the Republican Party should adopt Leftoid policies and strategies to attract independent voters. It would have been a perfectly appropriate approach as recently as Bush I, and indeed it was the strategy largely adopted. Events since have demonstrated that it is the wrong strategy now.

If, as a commenter at Akbar’s post suggests, this is the death of the Republican Party, so be it. Parties have died before. It ain’t necessarily so, though. Poll after poll has suggested, and the Palin phenomenon and TEA Parties demonstrate, that there is still a significant conservative sentiment in this country, and if Republicans seize it and run with it they have a chance to remain viable, even if in the minority.

Say it again, say it loud: Democrats own the Left. There is no future for the Republican Party in trying to adopt Leftist philosophies to attract the independent voter. People who want Democrats will vote for real ones.

Nothing excites my interest today, really

The New York Times informs us that Honduras will, in fact, get the Communist Government the Obama Administration insists upon. (via memeorandum) Ms. Clinton says

“We were very clearly on the side of the restoration of the constitutional order, and that includes the elections.”

That’s either a flat lie or pig-ignorance. The Honduran Government did everything by the numbers according to their Constitution; the fact that it doesn’t exactly correspond to ours doesn’t make it unConstitutional. As William Jacobsen points out, it’s simple bullying. The Hondurans don’t want Zelaya, and Barry and Hillary do.

Oh, well, Hugo gets another ally, which was the point all along.

Lots of Congresscritters are in ethical trouble. Ho hum. It would be faster and more efficient to hunt down the few who aren’t scumbags and just shoot them. Might as well make it totally uniform, eh?

It would appear that at least some Republicans can see lightning and hear thunder. I’ve been wondering. Look, guys, if both parties agree on basic policy and procedure, there’s no point in two parties, and voters know that. People who want an intrusive nanny state that guarantees safety and comfort for everybody are going to vote Democratic, and that’s that despite “Me too!”s from Republicans. If Republicans want votes, they have to offer something different.

The kids and I got part of the new fence up and a good bit of the trash lying against the old one cleaned out. Now I need to get in touch with somebody who’ll carry off a huge tangle of old wire of various types — no antique barbed wire, more’s the pity. (That stuff’s worth money to collectors.) The antique gate’s hung, and if I can get the post straight up and down it’ll even swing properly — with the wet ground lately, it’s hard to get it to stay in one place.

Bobbe had an attack of some kind last night. I don’t know what it was, but her feet were numb and she couldn’t walk, fell down on the way back from the bathroom. This worries me. I have to travel to make money, and if I can’t leave her alone, what can I do?

Pray, is what, and I do. Some hits on the tip jar would be nice about now.

Obama Visits War Dead

…in the airplane at Dover Air Force base. (via memeorandum.)

Lefty bloggers snark that “…Count on some right-winger to carry on about the president ‘exploiting’ the tragedy and the families of the dead…” Well, yes. WoofWoof even points out that “Mr. Bush … never went to Dover, preferring to meet with the families in private.” That is, after all, the difference between “photo op” and “compassion”, and it’s easy to tell which is which.

Jazz Shaw at the Moderate(ly liberal) Voice gives the man credit: “The President is in the midst of wrestling with a very important decision regarding our future course in Afghanistan, and this is one aspect of that weighty choice which should never be far from his mind.” That’s certainly a possible interpretation, but given the background and previous actions of Obama and his Administration, not the most probable one.

The Mudville Gazette gets it right:

How to turn the situation around? Some say more troops, some say change strategy, others say withdraw – but someone in the White House got the bright idea that now would be a good time for a photo op.

Yup. The central fact here is that Teh Dear Leader has no idea how to do anything at all except campaign. It’s not just a photo op, it’s a campaign photo op. What the Hell is this man running for now?

Serr8d at Protein Wisdom smells a policy shift in the wind, and quotes Senator Durbin: “Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election.” It’s not a shift, guy. It’s the policy being made apparent.

Think Progress refers to Bloomberg, who notes that the family of the soldier whose casket was front and center consented to the coverage. Good to know they at least asked, isn’t it?

No, it isn’t. There’s nothing good about the whole thing.

The MSM has been lusting for years for access to Dover, where the bodies of slain servicemen are returned to their native soil in solemn ceremony. What they want, of course, is to turn it into a circus, and to be able to feature a continuous stream of coffins every night on Teh News, with lugubrious commentary to the effect that These Valued Dead Have Given Their Lives In Vain to support American Imperialism! This is the thin edge of that wedge.

It’s a fact that the U.S. military is unlikely to be defeated in the field by any currently-credible entity, although defeat or at least loss in any particular battle is always possible. Fortunately for our enemies, it isn’t necessary to defeat the U.S. military. All you have to do to win is wait until a Democrat is elected, whereupon the Americans run like rabbits.

Swine Flew

My wake-up talk radio was all about swine flu this morning. The New York Times says, in part:

…despite months of planning and preparation, a vaccine shortage is threatening to undermine public confidence in government…

It doesn’t surprise me at all that there’s a vaccine shortage. What I want to know is: why is there any vaccine at all? If I were an investor, I’d be looking up the companies making it and shorting them like mad.

Let us imagine the best possible case: the vaccine works as expected without side effects. Nobody who takes it gets the flu or gets sick from the vaccine itself. What’s the result?

Clearly it wasn’t a big problem in the first place! Now, let’s convene a Congressional investigation inspired by the legions of news stories complaining about the fact that the drug companies charged the Government six bucks a dose for something that cost them pennies to produce. After all, the CDC, inspired by the sheer Goodness and Compassion of the Dear Leader (who wouldn’t be in office for a year after the effort began, but that’s a picky detail), identified the strain and provided the seed stock; all the drug companies had to do was grow the stuff, which is easy, not to mention cheap. Damned profiteers grasping for every dollar…

The most probable result, of course, is that the vaccine works well but not perfectly. Some people who take the shot get the flu; some people who take the shot have side effects, perhaps serious ones. What will the political climate look like?

The damned profiteers can’t even get it right! The CDC, inspired by the sheer Goodness and Compassion of the Dear Leader (who wouldn’t be in office for a year after the effort began, but that’s a picky detail), provided everything they needed… and they screwed it up. People got sick when they shouldn’t have! People got sick from the messed-up vaccine! Let there be stories in the Press! Let there be huffs from Arianna and company, let there be fire-breathing denunciations at FireDogLake, spitting on the damned drug companies for cutting corners in making the vaccine, all to make a profit! Let there be investigations by every committee of the Congress that can claim a corner of the issue! And, of course, the ATLA will immediately grasp the opportunity presented by the sufferers of side effects. Surely twelve good cretins and true can be found in Alabama to make them hand over million$ for the unnecessary pain and suffering caused by their negligence!

Of course, the worst case is that the vaccine works badly or not at all, or has severe side effects. In that case, just take the reaction to the normal or best-expected version, above, and multiply by approximately one hundred.

Defense? Don’t make me laugh. Given the clear orientation and past behavior of the Obama Administration, you can expect them to be leading the charge to blame somebody, anybody, other than themselves — which, in this case, would mean the damned profiteering drug companies, the Republicans who allowed them their grasping greedy ways, and (of course) George W. Bush (yes, they’d find some excuse). The talk-radio host, this morning, suggested that the drug companies would do it out of patriotism and desire for the health of the American people. If they know, in advance, that even in the very best case they’re going to be insulted, and in the worst case destroyed, with no chance whatever that anyone in a position of responsibility will defend them, how strong would that motive look?

So in the very best case the drug companies can expect to be denounced and calumnified for nasty vicious profiteering, and in any situation where the results are better than perfect they can expect ordure to be heaped upon their heads, with the possibility of losing the company entirely to the trial lawyers. What sane person would take that bet? If I were a stockholder, I would already be sending indignant missives asking why the Management is assuming such a risk for no reward.