The Authoritarianism of Experts

David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith write in

The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy

that climate change too serious to be left to the democratic process.

Let there be no question about it, the people on the Left who are running the climate change scam are would-be dictators.

Prometheus

Have you ever heard anyone make the argument that we must take a certain course of action because the experts tell us we must? The issue might be the threat of another country or an environmental risk, but increasingly we see appeals to authority used as the basis for arguing for this or that action.

In a new book, David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith take the appeal to experts somewhat further and argue that in order to deal with climate change we need to replace liberal democracy with an authoritarianism of scientific expertise. They write in a recent op-ed:

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. . .
There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. . .

We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.

On their book page they write:

[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

So whenever you hear (or invoke) an argument from expertise (i.e., "the experts tell us that we must ...") ask if we should listen to the experts in just this one case, or if we should turn over all decisions to experts. If just this one case, why this one and not others? If a general prescription, should we do away with democracy in favor of an authoritarianism of expertise?

Jonah Goldberg just wrote a book about it.

Democrats Campaign About Nothing

Remember what "Seinfeld" was about? Nothing!

Jonah Goldberg points out that's what the Democrat's race is about:

The rest of their [Hillary and Obama] disagreement boils down to who is a more authentic agent of “change.” In fairness, there’s an interesting debate to be had on that score, as Obama and Hillary’s philosophies of government differ dramatically. Obama believes in a transformative politics where lofty — often gassy — rhetoric is not merely a substitute for action, but actually preferable to the nitty-gritty detail work Hillary prefers.

But that debate is almost entirely theoretical, drowned out by the mad scramble to assemble an identity-politics coalition of generic “Hispanics,” “blacks,” “white women,” etc. It’s amazing how complacent the media is in carrying on with this kind of nakedly reductionist analysis. The notion that Hispanics may be voting one way or another for reasons other than their ethnicity seems never to come up.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, women, blacks and Hispanics vote too, but that’s not how the demographics and coalitions of the right work. GOP candidates actually have to win over people who believe things. (After all, the famed, and tragically frayed, “Reagan coalition” was about different groups of principled people, not a mere hodgepodge of ethnicities and genders.) Exit pollsters ask GOP voters whether they’re committed pro-lifers, whether they think the economy is the most important issue, etc. I’m sure they ask Democratic voters similar questions, but it’s telling how little we hear about that. What Democratic voters actually believe doesn’t seem to be that relevant, in large part because Democrats aren’t voting their beliefs, they’re voting affections.

...

Obama is “the one” — in Oprah’s words — not because of his policies but because his is a transcendent, unifying, super-nifty-cool personality. Hillary, meanwhile, is staying aloft largely through her ability to guilt-trip female liberals into sticking with her. Her cultivated weepiness and dour lamentations about how she’s been so picked on sometimes make it seem like she’s setting up a political version of one of those “how-does-a-Jewish-mother-change-a-lightbulb?” jokes. Answer: “It’s all right; I’ll just sit in the dark.”

Recall how her crying jag in New Hampshire, which apparently turned things around for her, was all about how important it is to her to be president. Message: Go ahead and vote for Obama; I’ll just sit here in the dark. Indeed, I’ve lost count of how many stories I’ve heard on public radio about Democratic women deciding to vote for Hillary out of guilt.

The Republican party is a mess, absolutely. Conservatives are sorting out what they believe, what heresies they can tolerate and on which principles they will not bend. At times this argument is loud, ugly and unfortunate. But you know what? At least it’s an argument about something. On the Democratic side, if you strip away the crass appeals to identity politics, the emotional pandering and the helium-infused rhetoric, you’re pretty much left with a campaign about nothing.

Love of country must always be qualified these days

What's wrong with America? James Lileks explains (read the whole thing)

ANYWAY. Bottom line: we will never be a great nation until we all realize how much we suck, and then we will also realize it is wrong to be a great nation. For that matter, nationhood are overrated. (The only nation that gets to be a nation is France.)
Nations are bad enough, but we’re something else:the only nation that has ever fought a war, acted in self-interest, had a good opinion of itself, permitted slavery, elected leaders who lacked a certain Olympian quality, had a popular culture that included simple catchy melodies and bright pictures, harbored racist attitudes, had a strong religious element, and contained a sizable amount of stupid people.

Hillary's $5 Million

Per the Washington Post:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced yesterday that she had lent her campaign $5 million, a remarkable twist for a candidate who raised more than $100 million last year that came as she and Sen. Barack Obama continued to spar over which of them was the Democratic winner in coast-to-coast Super Tuesday balloting.

She is trailing Obama badly in recent fundraising. In January she raised only $13 million to Obama's $32 million.

So Captain Ed asks:

The massive loan may not seem unusual given Mitt Romney's self-funding, but Mitt has plenty of his own money. Where did Hillary get $5 million to loan a presidential campaign? Bill and Hillary have done well on the speaking circuit, and Bill recently got $20 million or so for backing out of his partnership from Ron Burkle. At the time, speculation had Bill wanting to eliminate any potential conflicts between Burkle's business and Hillary's election.

Now, however, one has to wonder whether Burkle may have attempted to float money into Hillary's campaign while bypassing campaign-finance regulations. Did the $20 million, which came just two weeks ago, actually represent a fair-market settlement for Clinton's services and ownership stake in Yucaipa? Or did Burkle inflate it in order to allow Hillary to "loan" herself $5 million to keep pace with a surging Obama campaign?

The Clintons always seem to live at the nexus of questions regarding cash and politics. Whether we talk about Norman Hsu or Ron Burkle, their opacity in financial operations suggests a very, er, flexible attitude towards ethics in government -- and serves as a reminder why so many people oppose a Clinton Restoration.

When is the "Clinton Library" going to lend Billary some money? It has already raised over $165 million.

Can McCain Win Without Conservatives?

Mark Levin makes that case, undoubtedly true, that McCain is not winning over Conservative voters.

The problem is that McCain has a number of factors working against him, including his own long career of hostility toward the people he needs to win the general election. If you can't consolidate and motivate your base, you will not win the presidency. It has been his strategy to distance himself in numerous and provocative ways from his own party. He has used the tactic of alienation to pander to constituencies outside the party. And he has been so prominent and antagonistic in the execution of his strategy that it's difficult to see how he can overcome his own record.

My sister, who is very much a Conservative, has this opinion of McCain:

I just want to tell somebody that I can’t stand John McCain and if he becomes the Republican Nominee I do not think I can vote for him.

And this:

Have I told you lately that John McCain is a pompous little backstabbing gas bag who irritates me more than words can say?
How he gets all these endorsements including Brownback is beyond my understanding.

So will she, and millions of others go to the polls this November to vote for a man why despise?

Probably not enthusiastically and not in overwhelmingly large numbers.

But … but … but … I also have a friend who is a centrist Democrat who does not want a repeat of the Clinton years and is not at all put off by the McCain mutiny. He likes him and is likely to vote for him rather than Billary or Obama.

So is it possible for McCain to create a center/left coalition that dispenses with the Right but co-opts the moderate Left? A weird version of the Reagan coalition that appeals to moderate Democrats who are embarrassed by the Clintons and see Saint John of Arizona as preferable to Billary?

Top Spy's Second Thoughts About Nukes and Iran

Things that want to make you go out and shoot the bastards:

The director of national intelligence is backing away from his agency's assessment late last year that Iran had halted its nuclear program, saying he wishes he had written the unclassified version of the document in a different manner.

At a hearing yesterday of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the intelligence director, Michael McConnell, said, "If I had 'til now to think about it, I probably would change a few things." He later added, "I would change the way we describe the Iranian nuclear program. I would have included that there are the component parts, that the portion of it, maybe the least significant, had halted."

McCain and the Battered Wife Syndrome

Bob Krumm accurately reflects the views of McCain supporters who, now that it appears that he is well on his way to winning the Republican nomination, demands that Conservatives now fall into line.

Here’s his take:

Yesterday when Ed Driscoll interviewed me for an upcoming Pajamas Media segment on XM Radio (don’t yet know when it will air) I told him that Democrats are surely recording all the Republican anti-McCain harangues so that they can run ads attacking our nominee with our own words in the fall.

It’s already started. Here’s Harry Reid quoting Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran’s comments about McCain:

The thought of him being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me.”

Thanks a lot. For all the yammering you do about how John McCain is the end of Reaganism you sure as heck didn’t follow Reagan’s eleventh commandment.

Here's my response:

Bob,

Implicit in your comment is the assumption that Conservatives are Republicans and owe some kind of loyalty to the Republican Party no matter what candidate the party nominates as its standard bearer. It’s as if you expect us to be those famous “mind numbed robots” that Rush Limbaugh is always accused of creating with is program.

We can all honor McCain for his courage and bravery during his years in captivity. But this war hero shtick is wearing a little thing (see what it did for John Kerry) and the fact that he has an (R) after his name is not an automatic stamp of approval unless you are an automaton.

To me McCain represents McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, the Gang of 14, and the Keating Five. McCain represents a finger in the eye of Conservatives when it was a choice between the approval of the MSM and his party.

So now it looks as if the is well on his way to the nomination and he is demanding that we get over our differences, pipe down and shut up. He’s not asking for our vote, he (and you) are demanding our loyalty. Well, I’m not going to exhibit all the characteristics of the battered wife who comes back to her husband asking for forgiveness after he has beaten her black and blue for the umpteenth time. I’m looking for a change of heart, not the political equivalent of “look what you made me do.”

Do you understand? If not, it’s going to be a long, hot summer.

Where I've Been

In case you're wondering why I have not beenm posting ... I have been away for about 10 days in God's Country playing in the snow.

Back soon.

Populism, Whiteness Studies and Nazi Jew Hatred

Part of an interview of Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism.

One of the more under-appreciated motives of the Nazi extermination campaign against the Jews was how it was driven by paranoia. Nazi anti-Semitism wasn’t merely bigoted, it was conspiratorial. The Nazis and affiliated intellectuals firmly believed that the Jew was behind the scenes, pulling strings, manipulating events, rigging the system — even the language — in profound and pernicious ways. Carl Schmitt — quite popular on the left today — was tasked with the job of purging the Jewish spirit from the law. Other similar projects were launched across the political, economic and intellectual landscape. Jeffrey Herf recently wrote an absolutely brilliant book on this exact point, bringing to the fore what was long considered mere background noise of the 12 year Reich. I wrote about his book, The Jewish Enemy, here.

The white male is the Jew of liberal fascism. The “key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race,” writes the whiteness studies scholar and historian Noel Ignatiev. Whiteness studies is a cutting-edge academic discipline sweeping American higher education. Some thirty universities have WS departments, but many more schools teach the essentials of whiteness studies in other courses. The executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture explains, “There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of color . . . We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today . . . which damage and prevent the humanity of those of us within it.” The journal Race Traitor (ironically, a Nazi term) is dedicated “to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race.” Now, this is not a genocidal movement; no one is suggesting that white people be rounded up and put in camps. But the principles, passions, and argumentation have troubling echoes.

First, there is the left’s shocking defense of black riot ideology and gangsterism. The glorification of violence, the romance of the street, the denunciations of “the system,” the conspiratorialism, the exaltation of racial solidarity, the misogyny of hip-hop culture: all of these things offer a disturbing sense of déjà vu. Hip-hop culture has incorporated. On college campuses, administrators routinely look the other way at classically fascist behavior, from newspaper burnings to the physical intimidation of dissident speakers. These attitudes ultimately stem from the view that the white man, like the Jew, represents every facet of what is wrong and oppressive to humanity. As Susan Sontag proclaimed in 1967, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” Meanwhile, Enlightenment notions of universal humanity are routinely mocked on the academic left as a con used to disguise entrenched white male privilege.

Who is Hesham Islam?

Questions for the Pentagon:

As told by Islam to the reporter, “The movie would open with Islam as a young boy growing up in Cairo, Egypt, huddling in terror as Israeli bombs came raining down, demolishing much of the building around him and his family.”

There’s one problem with this scene. As far as I have been able to discover, Israel during Hesham Islam’s entire lifetime has never bombed Cairo. Asked to explain this, the Pentagon spokesman duly conferred with Islam, and relayed to me by phone that Islam says this building-wrecking bombing raid took place during the 1967 Six-Day War.
...
The profile goes on to describe young Hesham Islam as a “merchant mariner adrift for three days in the Arabian Sea after an Iranian torpedo sunk his 16,000-ton cargo ship, drowning all but Islam and four of his crewmates.”

That sounds memorable. But after more than a week of my repeated requests made by phone and e-mail, the Pentagon spokesman — despite being presumably in touch with Islam himself — was either unable or unwilling to provide such basic information as the name of the ship, or the date of its sinking. He just kept saying he was “looking into it.” But no answers.

Before I began the marathon requests for specific information, the spokesman had speculated earlier, based on conversations with Islam, that the ship might have been called the Ibn Khaldoon, which might have been registered to the Iraqi merchant marine, and might have sunk sometime in 1979. A check with the U.K.-based Lloyd’s Register turns up two cargo ships registered in Iraq during that time and under that name, but no record that either was ever sunk, either in the 1970s, the 1980s, or beyond. One is still in service; the other was broken up — and not by a torpedo — only a few years ago.



As for records of any incident fitting the generic description of a 16,000-ton cargo ship, under any flag, torpedoed by the Iranians and sunk in the Arabian Sea before Islam immigrated to the U.S. sometime in 1980 (the Pentagon spokesman can’t or won’t say exactly when in 1980), after searching news archives, shipping records, and consulting a number of naval historians, I have yet to come across anything that corroborates Islam’s Iranian-torpedo-in-the-Arabian-Sea story. There were ships sunk by the Iranians in 1980, as the Iran-Iraq war broke out — but that was happening in the Gulf, around the Shatt-al-Arab, on the other side of the Straits of Hormuz, hundreds of miles from the Arabian Sea.

....
This is important why?

So, what qualifies Islam to serve as an adviser to whom Gordon England listens all the time, and whose advice England takes? According to Kevin Wensing, England’s public-affairs aide: “Mr. Islam brings 20 years of experience in the U.S. Navy and international relations to his current assignment.”

This includes an M.A. in national-security affairs, awarded in 1992 at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. For this degree, Islam wrote a 139-page thesis about the Middle East, entitled “Roots of Regional Ambition.” In it, he devoted dozens of pages to lambasting Israel, and the influence of American Jews on U.S. politics. He deplored “Israeli activities which have detrimentally affected U.S. objectives but which have continued with impunity.” He argued that U.S. support for Israel “has negatively affected the attainment of U.S. objectives in the Middle East.” He blamed the influence of American Jews on U.S. policy for a host of ills, ranging from Arab “retaliation” against Americans, to jobs lost overseas, to hampering sales of “defensive arms to friendly Arab states.”

Whether Gordon England (or Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for that matter) considers such views a relevant qualification for Islam’s current duties is unclear. But what’s emerging at the Pentagon is a landscape in which Stephen Coughlin’s insistence on crafting doctrine based not on politically correct assumptions, but on facts, is apparently deemed a bridge too far. Meanwhile, from the office of Deputy Secretary England, Hesham Islam continues his bridge building. The question isn’t just whom to believe, but who’s running this show?

Ed Schultz: Bill Clinton is Lying

Congo Death Toll over 5 Million - UN In Charge

It was all over the news – or not – the death toll in Congo keeps rising. The NY Times claims Congo’s Death Rate Unchanged Since War Ended

In 2004, CBS News reported that 3.8 million people died in the Congo wars and after “peace” was declared 31,000 people continued to die every month.

In 2008, the NY Times (an unreliable source) gives us the statistic that 41,000 people die every month in that unfortunate country even as the UN and the international community have poured in billions in aid.

DAKAR, Senegal — Five years after Congo’s catastrophic war officially ended, the rate at which people are dying in the country remains virtually unchanged, according to a new survey, despite the efforts of the world’s largest peacekeeping force, billions of dollars in international aid and a historic election that revived democracy after decades of violence and despotism.

The survey, released Tuesday, estimated that 45,000 people continue to die every month, about the same pace as in 2004, when the international push to rebuild the country had scarcely begun. Almost all the deaths come from hunger and disease, signs that the country is still grappling with the aftermath of a war that gutted its infrastructure, forced millions to flee and flattened its economy.

In all, more than 5.4 million people have died in Congo since the war began in 1998, according to the most recent survey’s estimate, the latest in a series completed by the International Rescue Committee, an American aid organization. Nearly half of the dead were children younger than 5 years old.

Having seen how easy it is to manipulate statistics like this via the Lancet study, since discredited, that 650,000 (others have increased that to one million) people died in Iraq after the invasion, we are apt to take these statistics with a grain of salt.

There are, after all, several thriving industries associated with natural and man-made disasters. In the case of the fraudulent Lancet study, the authors were making the case that the US had perpetrated a calamity in Iraq by invading and deposing Saddam Hussein. They were part of the Soros funded effort to discredit what we have done to try to put the Iraq, and eventually the entire Islamic world, on the path to peace via democracy. They were rushed into print just before the 2006 elections and were an obvious election ploy on the part of the Soros funded Left.

Subsequent analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine puts the number of deaths at 151,000. Interestingly enough, the higher number is still being quoted by the press and politicians, undeterred by facts or reality.

There is another thriving industry consisting of people and organizations, including the UN, who benefit from disasters. The bigger the disaster, the more money is funneled to these organizations to “help.” The fact that this aid does not appear to improve the situation is never examined by supporters. They are merely the basis for the next pitch for more money.

But if we can suspend our disbelief for just a moment and accept these numbers at face value, what can we learn?

That it’s better, much better, to be invaded and conquered by the US military than it is to be “rescued” by the United Nations; especially if you are female.

Enron: Extortion, Interrupted

If you are an investor and own stocks you will receive a number of letters each year announcing that you are part of a class action suit. If you read the documents you will find them to be depressingly similar. They will tell you that the XYZ Company has agreed to settle a suit for millions and millions of dollars. It will include a lengthy but vague description of the possible refund you can expect to get. In order to get the refund you are asked to provide proof of having owned a certain security on a certain date, often years in the past. And you will find that the lawyers who have brought the lawsuit will get millions, tens of millions and often hundreds of millions of dollars.

My clients will send me these documents asking my advice on what to do, for any records of their proof of claim, and often “what is this all about?” What it’s all about is making some law firm partners filthy rich. It’s a high stakes game of extortion and a big money protection racket by the plaintiffs bar. The hapless investors get a chance to go through ancient records hoping to find proof so that they can send away and, years later possibly receive a check that will allow them to buy a Big Mac, hold the fries. The lawyers buy an exclusive compound in the Hamptons and a professional sports team.

This phenomenon is one of the most unsavory features of the American legal system. Today the Supremes have done just a little to stop legal a practice that would be criminal if it were practiced by Tony Soprano.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a decision rejecting Enron investors' attempt to recover from investment banks. The ruling closes an underreported chapter in American litigation history: how trial lawyers used the Enron scandal to successfully and legally extort billions of dollars from investment banks with a legally meritless lawsuit.

Read the whole thing.

George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

The AP reports, and the New York Times expands, on a new study by a supposedly "independent" organization that claims to have assembled hundred of "false statements" by the Bush administration in the course of the Iraq war. However, the Center for Public Integrity hardly qualifies as "independent". It gets much of its funding from George Soros, who has thrown millions of dollars behind Democratic political candidates, and explicitly campaigned to defeat George Bush in 2004

Via Captain's Quarters. Read the rest.

The Incredible Shrinking Media Audience

To Vote Against

This seems worth remembering (even while feeling bad about Fred leaving the race):

Somehow, the following observation from Robert Heinlein seems quite apropos.

‘If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”

“If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.”

Yea, verily. I intend to see what the Virginian Pilot says and then do the exact opposite.

A bomb-making factory is discovered in a Columbia Professor's House

Via Ann Althouse:

Cops evacuated the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood around the Remsen St. home of Michael Clatts, a medical anthropologist, after finding seven pipe bombs fitted with fuses in his flat, police sources said.

The frightening cache was discovered almost by accident - Ivaylo Ivanov, the man living with Clatts, accidentally shot off the tip of his left index finger and sought police help in the street about 1:15 a.m.

When investigators went to the 37-year-old Ivanov's apartment, they found the bombs, already capped on both ends and filled with powder. One of the pipe bombs was inserted into a Nerf football, cops said.

A 9-mm. handgun, two ammunition magazines, a 12-gauge shotgun, silencers, a bulletproof vest, a crossbow and bomb-making equipment, including a drill and threading machine that could be used to make pipe bombs, were also recovered, cops said.

If you read the comments you will soon run across some idiot who criticizes Ann for getting this story from Michelle Malkin's website.

Then I realized that I have a similar reaction when anyone cites the NY Times or the Virginian Pilot. But then again, there are more lies in those organs of the press.

Iowahawk on the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission

When it comes to ridiculing the ridiculous, nobody, but nobody is better than Iowahawk.

DEFENDANT(S): ______Ezra Levant, Publisher, Western Standard magazine________

IF NOT WHITE MALE, PLEASE EXPLAIN ____________________________________





NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Plaintiffs accuse defendant of republishing Danish caractures charictures cracatuires cartoons of Mohamed, subjecting the Prophet and Islam to ridicule and in violation of AHRCC Form 18-55-d, Guidelines on Canadian Blasphemy Reduction Act of 2006.

DAMAGES SOUGHT:

Retraction, formal public apology, two goats, $4,500, conversion to Islam, beheading

Read the whole thing.

New York Times ‘Killer Vet’ Story Exposed as Erroneous by Pro-Troop Group

The NY Times has spent quite a bit of energy during the last 40 years painting a picture of the American soldier as a sad sack loser, alcoholic, homeless, and now a wanton killer.

Several people and organizations have struck back, with humor, and now with statistical analysis.

It underscores what a growing number of people are now willing to acknowledge, the NY Times is a deeply troubled and dishonorable paper.

In an age of heightened sensitivity over slurs involving race, religion, sexual orientation and so forth, why is anti-American bigotry considered soci

Blogger Jeff Couba notes an appalling exchange on Bob Edwards's XM satellite radio show:

[Edwards] was talking to someone named Tom Miller, who has been to Cuba as a journalist. Miller was describing a visit where he was just sitting on a park bench talking to someone when a policeman came by and asked for their papers. After going to his police car and checking something, Miller was arrested and taken to some government building where he was questioned for a couple of hours. They asked if he had been handing out copies of a 1948 declaration on human rights. Apparently someone matching Miller's description had been handing them out.
Miller said "I wasn't mistreated per se, but it wasn't a happy experience." And Edwards says (may not be exact quote) "At least you were treated better than people over in Guantanamo."

It's a "joke," we guess, but what a distasteful bit of anti-American attitudinizing. Does Edwards really mean to suggest that one ought to treat terrorists captured on the battlefield the same way as people sitting on a park bench, minding their own business--or for that matter than people who actually were doing what Miller was "suspected" of, namely handing out copies of human-rights literature?

In an age of heightened sensitivity over slurs involving race, religion, sexual orientation and so forth, why is anti-American bigotry considered socially acceptable?