2016: A Year Of The ‘Big Erection’

BAB's A List, Bush, Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Republicans

By Myron Pauli

“The voters outside looked from Bush to Clinton, and from Clinton to Bush, and from Bush to Clinton again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” So ends Orwell’s “Animal Farm” with creatures; man and pig changed to voters, Bush, and Clinton or was it Clinton and Bush – does it matter? Yessir, 2016 will be a year of the “big erection” as the Chinese might put it. DEE-MOCK-RUSS-SEE – that time-honored institution that has produced such statesmen as Diem, Maliki, Yanukovich, Thieu, and Karzai. This is where the creatures (voters) choose WHICH egomaniac will rack up new deficits, plunge them into new wars, and protect us from new demons.

A more cynical person might mention that the classical definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results – but WHY expect anything different? The spin doctors will assure us that all is brand new – New Deal, New Freedom, New Frontier, New Clinton, New Bush, New Nixon, New Chrysler, and New Coke. And each election cycle will bring new buzzwords to excite the creatures: “Read my lips, no new taxes”, “Bridge to the 21st Century”, “3 AM phone call”, “Hope and Change” – yessir, a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, 40 acres and a mule!

For those who don’t buy off on the new brand of soapsuds, there is always the OLD paranoia. We know that Romney was planning to enslave all blacks had he won in 2012. FEAR gets the more cynical creatures into the voting booth. Hillary will turn us all into Muslims. Bush will rape all women and subject them to coat-hanger abortions. Eeeek and more eeeek.

For the poor suckers of a “progressive” bent, they always get suckered into thinking that the Democrats will once and for all end inequality and racism and whatever in America and empower the poor. Well, boys and girls, where do the Clintons raise their campaign dollars – at the Bingo parlors or in the Hamptons? The “progressives” love the idea of protecting the chickens only to find out over and over that (gasp! and surprise!) foxes guard the chicken coops! Well, Citicorp and Boeing and Kaiser and Archer Daniels Midland have to protect their investments in the Welfare-Warfare State. Any real dissidents like Kucinich will be slightly tolerated if they don’t disturb the primal order.

And what of the poor suckers who call themselves “conservatives” who vote for the same old Republicans? Sometimes, you hear how Bush is a “RINO” – a “Republican in Name Only” – which is mythical nonsense. From Prescott to GHWB to GWB to Jeb to Jorge Prescott – the Bushes have been solid Republicans for generations. It is “nutcase” libertarians like Ron Paul who are the true RINOs – so out of place in the bankster-bailout statist Republican Party that their name cannot be placed in nomination and their votes cannot be allowed at the conventions. The last real insurgent to win was Goldwater and then half the party went trashing him during the general election: Yes – Papa Romney! By 1980, Reagan was reduced to “aw shucks” and “there you go again” with Baker, Shultz, and Bush keeping him in line to pumping up defense contractors. Heck, Blackwater and Bank of America and Carefirst and Cargill have to protect their investments in the Welfare-Warfare State.

Notice how regardless of who wins, Gruber gets his consultant fees and Goldman-Sachs gets pumped up by the Federal Reserve. TSA, HUD, CIA, NSA, NASA, and the rest of the alphabet soup will moan how they are only getting a 5% increase instead of the 10% they need to fix all of America’s urgent problems. The bureaucracy goes on. Fox News and MSNBC talking heads scream at each other. The partisans will get some rhetorical red meat on occasion “you are either with the terrorists or against us,” or “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon” or “shatter that glass ceiling” which you either love or hate as if it makes a damn difference. Rosencrantz and Guilderstern, Scylla and Charybdis, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Bush and Clinton. Welcome to the New World Odor!

******
Barely a Blog (BAB) contributor Myron Pauli grew up in Sunnyside Queens, went off to college in Cleveland and then spent time in a mental institution in Cambridge MA (MIT) with Benjamin Netanyahu (did not know him), and others until he was released with the “hostages” and Jimmy Carter on January 20, 1981, having defended his dissertation in nuclear physics. Most of the time since, he has worked on infrared sensors, mainly at Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC. He was NOT named after Ron Paul but is distantly related to physicist Wolftgang Pauli; unfortunately, only the “good looks” were handed down and not the brains. He writes assorted song lyrics and essays reflecting his cynicism and classical liberalism. Click on the “BAB’s A List” category to access the Pauli archive.

When Arms Of The State Wrestle, Citizens Rest

Crime, Government, Law, Regulation, The State

About the feud between the New York Police force and “Clintonian Mayor De Blasio,” Chris Rossini at Target Liberty has this to say: “[G]overnment vs. government battles should be cheered. The more they fight amongst themselves, the better off the rest of us are.”

The New York Times reports that as a result of the fight, the NYPD has been ignoring “low-level offenses” for the last two weeks: For the seven days ending Sunday, officers made 2,401 arrests citywide, compared with 5,448 in the same week a year ago, a 56 percent decline.

Hold on a second!!

Where’s the chaos?

Jeremy Bentham: Very Bad For Liberty, Indeed

Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Law, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, The State

The following columns make derisive mention of utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham. The columnist (guilty) assumed (guilty again) that her readers, like many good libertarians (namely, natural-rights libertarians), would identify Bentham’s name as a synonym for statism and collectivism, to distinguish from liberty and individualism.

Libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett, I recall, particularly enjoyed this from “A Romp Down Memory Lane With Justice Roberts” (7/6/2012):

“Why would George Bush care whether a judicial nominee can tell Blackstone from Bentham, when he can’t?”

“More of a Benthamite bureaucrat than a truth seeker” is from “PATRICIDE AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT” (September 11, 2002).

Remember Reno!” (9/8/2006) equated Benthamism with legal excesses, whereby the law, “intended as a bulwark against government abuses,” had become “an implement of government, to be utilized by all-knowing rulers for the ‘greater good’—the founders’ Blackstonian view of the law” having “been supplanted by a Benthamism that encourages ambitious prosecutors to discard a defendant’s rights.”

“‘Mad Dog’ Sneddon Vs. Michael Jackson” (7/5/2005) mentions once again the Benthamite notion of “the law as an implement of government, to be utilized by all-knowing rulers for the ‘greater good.’”

The Library of Economics and Liberty expounds a little more about Bentham the utilitarian, whose “publications were few,” and whose foundational belief was “that all social actions should be evaluated by the axiom, ‘It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.’”

In a word, utilitarianism, and by extension, statism and collectivism.

Counter to Adam Smith’s vision of “natural rights,” Bentham believed that there were no natural rights to be interfered with.

Trained in law, Bentham never practiced, choosing instead to focus on judicial and legal reforms. His reform plans went beyond rewriting legislative acts to include detailed administrative plans to implement his proposals. In his plan for prisons, workhouses, and other institutions, Bentham devised compensation schemes, building designs, worker timetables, and even new accounting systems. A guiding principle of Bentham’s schemes was that incentives should be designed “to make it each man’s interest to observe on every occasion that conduct which it is his duty to observe.” Interestingly, Bentham’s thinking led him to the conclusion, which he shared with Smith, that professors should not be salaried.

In his early years Bentham professed a free-market approach. He argued, for example, that interest rates should be free from government control (see Defence of Usury). By the end of his life he had shifted to a more interventionist stance. He predated Keynes in his advocacy of expansionist monetary policies to achieve full employment and advocated a range of interventions, including the minimum wage and guaranteed employment.

Jeremy Bentham was a thoroughbred statist; the quintessential bureaucrat and social engineer, who devised ways to tinker in oder to optimize the individual pawn’s common-good conduct.

How Long Before The DSM Invents Diagnosis Of … Gun Incompatibility Disorder?

GUNS, Law, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry

Gun-restriction advocates want nothing more than to restrain “predisposed” individuals before they transgress. The central authorities will decide who falls within this extremely plastic category. The same planners will act with the complicit assistance of the pseudo-scientific profession of psychiatry. Seriously: How long before the Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM # infinity) invents a diagnosis of gun incompatibility disorder? Against this kind of prior-restraint argument even Ivy league statists have argued, albeit with respect to limitations on speech only.

We are witnessing today a tremendous and ominous expansion of preventive law in the area of civil liberties. More and more, our controls are being devised not as punishment for actual wrongful conduct, but with a view to preventing future evils by a series of restrictions and qualifications that seriously jeopardize freedom …

In the spirit of prior restraint is the case of a veteran who presented with symptoms of insomnia and had his guns confiscated. (With the active encouragement of the liberty loving police force. It figures. The local police monopoly certainly made snide comments of displeasure on handing me my firearm license.) Via American Thinker:

New York State Police ordered the permanent confiscation of Mr. Montgomery’s registered handguns after he sought treatment for insomnia. The confiscation was ordered under Cuomo’s “SAFE Act” gun-control law.

The allegations in the case are downright scary. The complaint contends that Montgomery, a Navy veteran and retired police officer who rose to the rank of detective sergeant during his 30-year career, voluntarily sought treatment for insomnia at a hospital on Long Island in May of 2014 after relocating to a new home several hundred miles from his previous residence.

According to the suit, the hospital diagnosed the plaintiff as “mildly depressed,” and his clinical evaluation stated, “Patient has no thoughts of hurting himself. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts…” and “there is no evidence of any psychotic processes, mania, or OCD symptoms. Insight, judgment, and impulse control are good.” The suit further alleges that a psychiatrist told the plaintiff, “I don’t know why you were referred here. You don’t belong here.”

Nonetheless, the suit contends that five days after being discharged from the hospital, the local sheriff’s department showed up at Montgomery’s door and seized his four registered handguns, including his former duty sidearm, after the sheriff had been subjected to “repeated pressure” by the New York State Police, who claimed that Montgomery had been declared mentally defective and had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

The gun confiscation aforementioned is a logical conclusion to prior restraint legal arguments.

Mentioned above is the Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). The Rosetta Stone of the profession has grown since its inception in the 1950s from 60 categories of abnormal behavior to over 410 diagnostic labels and counting. Many of the disorders described in it are more about trend and niche than science.

In the late 1990s, I told readers of my Calgary Herald column about one Dr. John Ratey, a Harvard associate professor and a well-respected, prominent psychiatrist, who claimed, in his 1997 book Shadow Syndromes, that quirky behaviors were actually mild mental illnesses resulting from brain dysfunction.

The lout who is appropriately obsequious with the boss because he knows where his bread is buttered, but who is less dainty with the wife, even thumping her occasionally, would be a candidate for compassion. He is after all doing battle with what Dr. Ratey terms “Intermittent Rage Disorder”. And the dad who dotes on his children while they are with him, but fails to mail them child support money as soon as they are out of sight, is simply afflicted with “Environmental Dependency Disorder”: He remembers his kids only when they are around. Is there proof for these sub-rosa disease categories? None whatsoever, although this has not prevented Ratey and many like him from coating their pronouncements with a patina of scientific respectability—and then cashing in.

Given the tenuous ties between psychiatry and science, how likely is it that “evidence” for new diagnoses will be marshaled in order to keep more people from being able to defend their lives and loved ones with guns?

Very likely.