Quantitative Easing Explained

Rush Limbaugh and Bricks on the Road to Hell

By now, I guess about 99.44% of the Dextrosphere has weighed in on the Obama Administration's attacks on Rush Limbaugh for the latter's statements that he wants the former to fail (to enact policies harmful to the nation). I figured I didn't have a lot to add to the discussion until just now. I can see this as just another example of an ongoing problem in arguing against leftists.

They always focus on intentions: The stated goal of one of their programs trumps any actual effect it may have. As a result, every debate is framed as virtuous crusaders for social justice against evil racist, sexist, homophobic despoilers of Gaia. How, for instance, could one vote against the "Employee Free Choice Act"? If you oppose it, you're against employee free choice! Well, we know the answer to that; the legislation isn't about free choice at all! It will deprive employees of the secret ballot in union organization elections.

When President Obama says we have to pass <Noble-sounding legislation title here> because it will create/save <Made-up number here> jobs, he is stating an intention, a hope, and/or a wish. Well, out here in Flyover Country, we have a saying about wishes: "You can wish in one hand, and s--t in the other; see which one fills up first."

His camp hopes that the voting public will give them credit for that good intention/hope/wish; that their noble end will serve as a blank check justifying whatever means the legislation actually employs. To a thoughtful student of history, the phrase "the end justifies the means" should trigger mental alarms. I suspect those alarms are what's stimulating the sector of the economy that manufactures ammunition.

Since the Left uses intentions, wishes, and hopes to sell their policies, they are particularly threatened when someone like Rush comes along and says "I hope he fails (to enact his damaging agenda)". The only response they are able to make focuses entirely on the hope, the wish, the intention, the end (ironically, not as Rush, uh, intended that wish, but their reframing of it); they can't talk about the means because if they do, they won't be able to push their legislation through.

I once had occasion to encounter this at the local level. I was managing a small retail business in a municipality considering an ordinance regulating signs. At a meeting with Planning Commission staff, I pointed out that the wording of the ordinance would require a permit for the sticker that says "PULL" on the front door of the business. The staff member answered by saying "that is not the intent of the proposed ordinance". I then asked "if that's the case, will you amend the wording to conform to the intent?". The response was one word: "No." At that point, it was crystal clear what the true intent of the ordinance was: to give the Planning Commision staff arbitrary power to cite any business as violating the ordinance, so that their subjective whims be supreme. That's not the "government of laws, not of men" that our Founding Fathers designed.

Time and time again, we see how the actual effect of an action is not included in the stated intentions of its advocates. I'm sure that the vast majority of people who support the President's plans do so because they honestly hold those intentions, and only a very few have ulterior motives. But it doesn't really matter what the intent is; the only standard by which a rational person can choose a course of action is to extrapolate the potential consequences of that action, evaluate them (intended or not) and decide if the costs are justfied by the benefits.

It is absolutely imperative that we break the political ascendancy of Good Intentions. We have to demonstrate how reality is impervious to our intentions, and responds only to our actions. My late father taught me that the road to Hell was paved with good intentions. We have to tear those bricks up. Rush has on his hard hat, and is in the driver's seat of Excellence in Bulldozing, doing just that.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Arnold Bucks

States like California are finding it difficult to pay for all of their vote-buying programs. It looks like tax refunds will have to be in the form of IOUs, which prompted our friends at Reason.tv to poke fun at... Arnold Bucks!

Biggest Boobdoggle in American History...

Powerline Blog has...
'A Dozen Fun Facts About the House Democrats'Spending Bill'

... or, if you've got some time and want to see what happens when a bunch of spend-crazy hedonist legislators get a chance to run wild with a 'President' who lacks the executive experience to keep himself from signing anything they put in front of him...

Head straight over to ReadTheStimulus - but I suggest taking a bottle with you.

...and some tissues.


- MuscleDaddy

That's IT??

Seriously,

There I was, sitting on the couch with MuscleBaby-The-Elder...

I turned on the debate (a little late) and listened to the first question to come across (the one about "What is the bailout specifically going to do for people in trouble?").

After listening to the first 30 seconds of McCain's "answer" I closed my eyes and exhaled.

Then I heard MBTE (who is nine, btw) say to me:

"He's just yappering now, isn't he Daddy?"
"Yes Baby, he is - c'mon, go brush your teeth - it's time for you to go to bed anyway."

Losing's easy - I was really hoping to show her how a presidential candidate wins.

- MuscleDaddy