“Saying ‘I’m a Socialist’ = Saying ‘I’m a Massive idiot'”

Britain, Capitalism, Celebrity, Fascism, Hollywood, Socialism

“About the only people who haven’t figured out that saying ‘I’m a socialist’ is the same as saying ‘I’m a massive idiot’ are Western academics and zillionaire celebrities.”

Nice, pithy blog post at ProfessorBainbridge.com, as to why “aging ex-supermodel Elle MacPherson,” who professes socialism, is known as “the Body” and not “the Brain.”

I disagree that the US and UK continue to enjoy capitalist economies, as Professor Bainbridge cheerily asserts, but his point about the stupidity of a well-rewarded celebrity class is well-taken (and well-made).

What MacPherson desperately needs is for the proto-angel from It’s a Wonderful Life to take her on a tour of what MacPherson’s life would have been like if she had been born in, say, East Germany or the Soviet Union in, say, 1955. Maybe they’d have time for a quick visit to the Gulag Archipelago. Or the angel could show her what her life would have been like if she had lived in Cambodia in the late 1970s.

Besides, we hear a lot about undue corporate influence on politics, but precious little of Hollywood’s access to the Idiocoracy in DC.

In a Perverse Way, Afghan Justice Is Less Perverse

Christianity, Crime, Justice, Law, Middle East, Military, Morality, Natural Law

“As a Christian,” reasons Thomas Fleming, in his highly recommended Mail-Online blog, “I can say plainly that Afghans have a truer sense of justice than the catechisms of most Christian churches today. As post-Christian savages without a sense of justice, we were quite wrong to conquer this primitive people.”

“The Afghans do not pretend to see beyond the end of their nose or outside the limits of their settlement. Their simple and wholesome ethic is: You kill my people, I kill you. They are demanding nothing less than the transfer of the killer to Afghan jurisdiction. After a speedy trial and conviction, he will be turned over to the relatives of the victims to kill in whatever way they see fit.”

“Americans may pretend to understand this demand as a temporary outburst of grief and rage, but, when they do not relent, in a few weeks we can expect to hear condemnations of the primitive Afghan understanding of justice. We shall be reminded of the Talibans’ mass executions in sports stadiums. ‘They don’t want justice,’ we shall cry, ‘only vengeance,’ and no one will spend half a minute explaining what the difference is.”

“Here in the enlightened West,

we know that the purpose of a criminal justice system is two-fold: to rehabilitate the criminal and protect the public. It was not always so. The ancients believed that a criminal act–murder, assault, robbery, rape–put the universe out of joint. The purpose of punishment was to put it right again. Killers are killed, robbers robbed, beaters beaten.
It was not always so simple as “an eye for an eye,” and Roman and Christian law made allowances for motives, circumstances, and appropriateness of punishment, but they never forgot the primary purpose of punishment was retribution or, to use a simpler word, vengeance.
Leftist Christians will howl in protest, citing, “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord,” little understanding that the same Lord, according to St. Paul, delegates the power to punish evil to the rulers of the world. Not in vain, Paul declared in an authoritative chapter of Romans, does the ruler hold the sword, nor is it a terror to the good but only to the wicked. It follows that a ruler who casts away the sword on a humanitarian whim is no longer a legitimate ruler. The Church always begged for mercy in specific cases, but never disputed the right and duty of kings and parliaments to execute criminals.
Even Imanuel Kant, who got most things wrong, saw through the lies of all the liberal theories of punishment:
“Judicial punishment can never be used solely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for society, but instead must in all cases be imposed on a person solely on the ground that he has committed a crime….woe to him who rummages around in the winding paths of a theory of happiness looking for some advantage to be gained by releasing the criminal from punishment or by reducing the amount of it….

MORE.

Bully Power Vs. Balance of Power: Russians in Syria

Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Russia

Al Arabiya News is reporting that “Russian special forces have arrived in the Syrian Mediterranean port city of Tartus.” The news agency’s website front-page features an image of western-looking soldiers under which this caption appears: “A Russian ship carrying a unit of ‘anti-terrorist marines’ is reportedly docked at the Syrian port city of Tartus.”

DEBKAfile, the “Israeli-based open source military intelligence website,” confirms the information, running it as «Breaking News.»:

A Russian ship carrying marines anchors at Tartus, Syria
DEBKAfile March 19, 2012, 6:00 PM (GMT+02:00)
Two Russian naval vessels have anchored at the Syrian port of Tartus, Russian Black Sea headquarters at Sevastopol reports. Their mission and identifies were not disclosed, excepting that one was carrying a unit of “anti-terrorist marines” and the other, a military tanker which joined “a Russian naval reconnaissance and surveillance ship already tied up in Tartus.”

In “Onward to Iran!” I commented that the US uses the world as its combat canvas, “a bully’s universe.” Essentially, the US operates upon the premise “that American men and matériel should be capable of reaching [and controlling] all corners of the world.”

Perhaps this intervention is a Russian attempt to restore a balance of powers, and thus prevent more Libyas, which the US and its NATO subsidiary used for regime-change practice.

Austrian Analysis Seeping In To Mainstream

Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Media, Reason

You know the country’s commentariat has traveled some distance when PBS’s Paul Solman concedes that, given the role of the Federal Reserve (and, presumably, Fractional Reserve Banking) in the economy, it is “not a zero probability event here in America” that “the US could go the hyperinflation route of a Zimbabwe or Germany, freeze, face increasingly punitive interest rates and eventually require drastic overhauls.”

Solman, who still invests in Treasury, and is optimistic against all odds, also admits that “Since the Federal Reserve was created and got into the act in 1913, the U.S. dollar has lost somewhere between 94 percent and 99.7 percent of its value. (See MeasuringWorth.com for a range of conversion options: constant basket of goods, unskilled wage, etc.)”

But because Solman thinks that the debasing of the coin by the Fed also coincided with America’s becoming “the world’s dominant global economy,” he is not that concerned. That’s what happens when correlation is confused with causation.

The Republic has managed to thrive despite the Fed, not because of it.