Illuminating...

During conversations among friends, I'm usually the one who winds up expressing a grudging admiration for the systematic way in which this country's progressives have entrenched themselves in power.  I don't much care for the outcomes that they've produced, but it was an impressive achievement to take over the universities, the news media, the courts, and the labor unions.  One cog seamlessly pushing along the next.  We churn out ill-educated twenty-somethings with bizarre notions of human freedom.  Then we bombard them with daily telecasts that show how right their professors were all along.  Then, in case someone somewhere gets in the way off all of this "progress," we steamroll private citizens with a court system that often seems dedicated to an ever-expanding state role in our lives.  The labor unions serve up manpower, ask-no-questions loyalty, and a reliable revenue stream.  It's all really impressive if you strip away the ideological viewpoints involved.

Of the four entities that I've mentioned here, the courts have always been the most difficult for me to understand.  One might assume certain things about the people who swear an oath to our Constitution and sit in judgment of our adherence to it.  We assume that they put forth an honest effort and try to be impartial and so forth.  One thing that we shouldn't assume is that these people have any particular reverence for the document that forms the basis of our nation.  Not all of them do.





Conservatives have long portrayed progressives as people who hate the Constitution because it's old and outdated. While I have always acknowledged a kernel of truth to this portrayal, I've viewed it mainly as a form of satire. It would be idiotic to think that the definition of human liberty depends on the date on your calendar, right?  Surely our progressive neighbors couldn't be completely oblivious to the fundamental Truths that this enduring document, along with the Declaration, have established for free people around the world. Surely they couldn't really think that it was only a suitable document for rich white guys in the 18th century. Surely they know that our (sometimes messy) transition away from feudal aristocracy and toward an individual right to property was a quantum leap forward for all mankind.

And yes - I'm quite familiar with the Magna Carta and such. I took history classes too, believe it or not. Those kids in Egypt are wearing Nikes and Great Britain still has a queen.  The quantum leap took place in 1776.  It wasn't just about those in the United States either.  What those rich white guys achieved so many years ago was to sow the seeds of discontent among those who are denied their basic human freedom - even to this very moment in places all over the world.

I'm not terribly shocked to hear Ms. Ginsburg's recommendation for Egypt to avoid using the American Constitution as a guide.  She's just... I don't know... one of those.  You know the type that I'm talking about.  America would be really groovy if we would just let the government do whatever it wants... like... ummm... Norway... or whatever.  I was, however, saddened to hear Ms. Ginsburg airing what sounded to me like slightly anti-American views in front of a foreign audience.  That's just a bummer.  If our Constitution is not a worthwhile foundation for a free society, then perhaps Ms. Ginsburg would be better served by stepping down from her lofty position and working instead as an advocate for another form of government.  You know - fox guarding the henhouse and so forth. 

The reason that ours is the longest-standing written constitution is the simple fact that it exists to limit the power of the state.  Nothing more, nothing less.  All humans are endowed by their Creator with certain rights.  We chose to put those rights on paper and defend them against all enemies - even when the enemies have been ourselves or our government at times.  Whether this happened a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, our country would be better off if its Supreme Court justices all understood the concept.  Much as is the case for the rest of our country though, some people get it and some don't.

Surely just a coincidence.

...Warren Buffett, whom President Obama likes to cite as a fair-minded billionaire while arguing for higher taxes on the wealthy, stands to benefit from the president’s decision to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline permit...

Clearly a coincidence, n'est ce pas?

Then again, people who are smarter than I am have always maintained that there are no coincidences in matters of politics and money. The money always leads to the answer and the politics always chase the money. Without exception. So when you find yourself wondering how a coalition of labor unions, environmental groups, minorities, hypocritical billionaires, and common degenerates all manage to support a given political party, you would do well to start with the money.

In this case, one particular hypocritical billionaire has willingly played the role of useful idiot for a few years. He has a payoff coming.  The environmental groups are dispirited and in need of a boost before election season. They have a payoff coming.  The minorities think Gingrich and Romney want to imprison them for looking different, or whatever. No need to worry about them on this issue.  Then we get to the labor unions. The unions got the NLRB fiasco handed to them a few weeks ago, so they're just gonna have to take a kick in the balls this time around.  Tough luck if a few thousand of their members don't get jobs to put food on the table for their kids.  This is a team sport.

Your role on the team?  Paying a few extra bucks for a tank of gas, I suppose.  And standing behind your benevolent president while he tells the Canadians to go ahead and send their excess production to the Chi-coms.  Surely those lovable commies don't have anything but our best interests in mind, right?

Some of them do listen.

Not many of them, but some of them.  By 'them' I refer, of course, to our congressional overlords humble elected public servants.  Responding to the growing chorus of concerns over the SOPA/PIPA 1-2 punch making its way through Congress, one of the Senate version's original sponsors has now decided to ask the Majority Leader to withdraw the bill.  Good for you, Senator Rubio.  And, as usual, he provides a clear and concise reason for his decision.  His explanation is a toned-down version of what most of the concerned folks have been saying all along - this is too broad a power to grant a power-hungry government.  There are better ways to combat online piracy, even if it can never be eliminated entirely.  This statement puts Senator Rubio on record along with several former supporters of the bill, including several co-sponsors.  He's not the first to back down, but he's the most recent and certainly the most articulate.  That's why he's mentioned here today.

They don't all listen though.  The good people of Nevada were kind enough to return a corrupt senile jackass to the Senate last year and the good people of the Democrat caucus were kind enough to leave him in charge.  So what are his plans now?  Apparently he's content to admit that the bill is a problem and move forward anyway.  Yeah, seriously.  He hopes to sort it all out with a managers' amendment later on.  No, I'm not kidding.  Listen to the man himself.  (And in case you need a preemptive debunking of his horseshit talking point about protecting jobs, I would refer you to my earlier thoughts on the subject.)

What was I saying about perception again?

Something comes to mind when I think of the folks working in federal agencies. Hard work isn't really it though. I'm sure there are plenty of government workers who come home at the end of the day feeling like they gave it their best shot and whatnot. The trouble is that the results of their work are absolutely awful when taken in the aggregate. And their pay and benefits are astronomical when taken in the aggregate.

Against this backdrop - yeah, Mr. President, I've met harder working folks in just about every walk of life. The truck driver who has to deal with your asinine regulations is working a lot harder for a lot less money than the federal workers who developed the regulations. The farmer who has to deal with your asinine regulations is working a lot harder for a lot less money than the federal workers who developed the regulations. The gazillionaire CEO that you love to pretend to hate is working a lot harder (for a lot more money in this case) than the federal workers who are paid to make his job more difficult. You know, at least until you pay him back with a federal job of his own.

I guess this shouldn't be terribly surprising, coming from the highest-paid federal worker in all the land.  We hear on a regular basis that this fella is working tirelessly on behalf of the American people.  All those golf games and vacations and lavish parties at the White House are just a form of hard work, you see?  The proles in the private sector - the ones paying the bills - simply wouldn't understand.  So the next time you meet a federal agency employee, maybe you should tip your cap and offer to wash his car or buy him some groceries or something.  After all, you won't meet anyone who works harder.