Tyler Cowen, a professor at George Mason University, has written an interesting piece which totally disparages that great Liberal shibboleth of increasing income inequality in the US which they use as an indictment of capitalism. Surprisingly, it appears in the NYT [which proves even a broken clock is right twice a day] and is a refreshing breath of fresh air against the stale arguments which the Paul Krugmans of the world espouse.

The article is well worth reading, and includes several different arguments which prove that the "gap" in incomes is a lot more complicated, and not nearly as large, as is routinely depicted.

It ends with the following:

The broader philosophical question is why we should worry about inequality — of any kind — much at all. Life is not a race against fellow human beings, and we should discourage people from treating it as such.

What matters most is how well people are doing in absolute terms. We should continue to improve opportunities for lower-income people, but inequality as a major and chronic American problem has been overstated.

I have posted several times on the same idea, but never expressed it so well.

As much as the Liberals need and seek their "causes" to champion to justify their existence,  here is something they are creating from whole cloth, and the fact that it is specious does not stop it from being a caustic factor in our society, resulting in animosity and frictions which are unjustified and should not exist.

As usual, in the name of creating a "better" world, the Liberals succeed in achieving just the opposite and we all pay the price for it.

In our quest for "humane" warfare, the military is now testing a "ray "gun that causes its target to feel hot, but not actually be hurt.  Added to the technology which allows surgical strikes, pretty soon armed conflict will be just slightly more dangerous than a paintball match- and that is the problem.

As we continue to delethalize war,  what we are actually doing is disarming  and incapacitating our ability to defend ourselves, for war without the threat of death and destruction is impotent, as we are finding out in Iraq.

To see this, we must understand what war is- another form the battle of wills takes. In negotiations, that battle is decided by compromise. In war, it is resolved by the imposition of the victor's will.

To achieve that,  the other side's determination must be broken, and the threat of being killed is the predominant way this is achieved. Even the destruction of property is not alone sufficient to bring about victory, as the failure of the London Blitz proved. Only the very real possibility and actuality of death achieves this.

As proof, just look at what the daily body bag count from Iraq has done to the American spirit. Does anyone believe if no one was dying over there that the animus against the war would be so extreme?

And there is the irony- as our enemy seeks to kill more and more people, knowing the effect this has, we try to limit the damage we do with the result that the greatest military force in the world is proving ineffective in subduing a ragtag group of miscreants.

Our humanity , which we take such pride in, is actually our Achilles' heel, stopping us from perfroming in the way we should to achieve our aims in Iraq. The failure to kill, and even to truly threaten, the enemy with death is perceived as weakness, and extends the conflict indefinitely.  Thus our striving for the humane actually leads to prolong suffering, and more casualties for our side.

So when I read about harmless ray guns and the like, I don't have visions of Buck Rogers in my head, or images of peacefully defeating enemy combatants. What I see is our foes laughing at us as they realize we are not trying to harm them, while they are doing their best to slaughter us.

And that is not war, but suicide for us.

Time has truly become the epitome of the liberal MSM, and whenever I feel the need to get agitated I take a peek at it's website [I am never that desperate that I would spend money for it !], and invariably I will find an article  that reflects the values of the Left.

True to form, what should have been a benign report on a survey of American movie viewing preferences  has become yet another instance of the pervasive bias of the media.

The article by Richard Corliss looks at a Harris Interactive poll of the top ten American movie stars, and along with the expected [Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Julia Roberts], one selection really seemed to strike him as weird. RIght up there was no other than John Wayne!

As befits a writer for the MSM , the absurdity of this choice was evident:

The edge of weirdness comes with some of the other selections. Clint Eastwood, Julia Roberts and Mel Gibson make the top 10, though they haven't been seen on the big screen in several years. And the #3 movie star of 2006: John Wayne, who died in 1979. Here's where you begin to wonder if Americans think that film is a medium, or if they used a medium to contact the ghosts of celebrities past. And if so, where's Garbo?

Now in a world beset by terrorism, climate changes, precarious energy supplies and so many other significant problems, I realize that discussing this may appear somewhat...trivial. But I think it illustrates exactly what is wrong with the Liberals.

For them, all is progress, and looking backwards is less than a waste of time, its stupid and wrong.
 
Now why Corliss finds it so hard to grasp that Wayne is still known to the public escapes me. Obviously he doesn't have one of those classic movie channels on his cable, or he would be aware that there is almost always a Wayne movie playing somewhere.

And I guess the idea that somebody who would be 99 [as he points out] could have appeal and importance for someone today is just incomprehensible to him. Yes further into the piece he is willing to concede that conservatives might be attracted to the Duke, but unless this country leans way more to the right than most pundits think, its unlikely that only we Conservatives could have placed Wayne all the way up at third place.

No, it is more likely that what he represents in terms of traditional American values is more appealing to a broader cross section of the country than Corliss is willing to acknowledge.
 
As much as he and his ilk would like to see progress manifested even in the taste of the American viewer, it seems that a large group of us still can admire and enjoy those truly timeless characteristics that John Wayne so perfectly captured, and which seem to get more , not less , important with the passing of time.

Maybe there is still hope for this country yet.

Amongst the many paeans to Barack Obama, a universal theme is the fact that

Obama is a work in progress who has the ability to embrace nearly whatever qualities he chooses.

as an article in Newsweek by Ellis Cose puts it. But is that true?

Approaching it from a different angle, let me ask the question : How many of you know a 40 year old man who hasn't determined his political leanings or views on important issues?

Aside from that minority which seems stuck in adolescence, the answer is that most men on the cusp of middle age have developed their operating philosophy ,  and probably will change it little if at all over the remainder of their life. Indeed, this may even be what what mean when we refer to maturity.

Now Obama is an intelligent, well spoken man who no doubt knows what he believes, and in fact it has been reported in detail that his voting record is solidly Liberal, to the extent that

he has earned 100% ratings from Americans for Democratic Action, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Organization of Women, the NAACP and the NEA.

Does that sound like a man who can embrace whatever qualities he chooses to you?

What the MSM is really saying is that he can appear to be whatever he chooses because he has had limited time on the national stage. In fact stage is the operative word here, since he is being treated like an actor who can assume whatever role he wants in his quest to appear presidential. But that is not, nor should it be, the case, or Robert DeNiro would be in the Oval Office today.

We expect [though we are usually disappointed] more from our politicians than for them to facilely take on the coloration which makes them most attractive. When we elect a President, we grant him extreme latitude to conduct business as they sees fit based upon what we believe their core values and beliefs are.  We may be fooled, but we believe we know what lies at the heart of the person we elect.

And for that reason it is perverse to trumpet the lack of substance of a candidate as if he were a piece of clay waiting to be molded by public opinion, even if , like Bill Clinton, that may be the case.

The fact that the Dems have seized upon Obama for this reason is indicative of the fact that they know their values and stands are out of touch with mainstream America, and so they need to present the blank canvas as their standard bearer, hoping that the electorate will vote for a chimera.

It's an amazing acknowledgment of their philosophical alienation from the average American, and a threat to our system of government as well.

They say you get the government you deserve. In that case, when lack of substance becomes an attribute to herald ,  what does that say about the people who would vote that person into office? 

Classical Liberalism is an iconic title claimed by many but deserved by few in today's world. To understand what it means in terms of modern politics, it is necessary to consider its origin and evolution.

WIth it's roots in the Enlightenment, classical Liberalism was the intellectual revolt against the existing constraints and restrictions of the hierachical society that existed in the 18th century. A faith in rationalism led to the formulation of the liberties and rights of all men, and decried the corruption of the Catholic Church and the Royal Court.

It is always interesting to note that Rousseau , one of the founders of the movement, was anti-government, and blamed most ills on society imposing its will on the free nature of unregulated man.  He was definitely a "necessary evil" proponent of government.

With the French Revolution, the standard bearers of this movement got the chance to create things in their own image, and so was born the Liberal love of social engineering and , ironically, big government. 

The freedoms which had been espoused as paramount were now augmented and eventually supplanted by the imposition of "solutions" to problems which demanded government enforcement and regulation, and which replaced the goal of liberty with the aim of equality, two things which  are actually mutually exclusive.

Thus European Liberalism led to Marx and his utopian Communism.

The Founding Fathers of the US adhered to the original beliefs of liberalism, as can be seen in the Bill of Rights, which seeks not equality of results but of opportunity by restricting the government's powers and forbidding them to intrude in such areas as our religious beliefs or private property.

In deciding on the liberties which were sacrosanct, many deferred to the concept of the Natural RIghts of Men, which actually were taken as Divinely ordained, Nature and God being equated in this pre-Darwinian time.  The idea of license and complete personal freedom for the individual was NOT what was sought, nor would it have been seen as acceptable.

With the Great Depression, European Liberalism finally invaded our shores, and has refused to leave in the intervening decades, much to the chagrin of many of us.

So today we have the Libertarians, who believe in almost anarchy in the sense that there are no restrictions on personal behavior,  the Liberals, who, in their quest for a perfect society, have sacrificed the concept of liberty at the altar of egalitarianism, with the results that Rousseau must be spinning in his grave at seeing those who claim to be his progeny creating the most massive and intrusive governments in history, and the Conservatives, a term which is used for those who are seeking to retain the existing order and thus is defined by the society in which it arises.

In  the case of the US , that society's norms includes the belief in the original freedoms that Voltaire, Montague, Diderot et al would recognize as their aspirations, combined with the respect for the institutions which men have developed to tame their urge for individual license and thus make civilization possible.
 
In other words, the Classical Liberal ideals before the exercise of power corrupted them, and resulted in the tyranny of reason harnessed to the demands of the majority.

So all those who disparage Conservatism as antiquated and ossified should consider what it is that we are seeking to conserve. If they did they would find those classical Liberal freedoms and values that they claim to value so highly and which the Left and the Libertarians are doing their best to erode while claiming, falsely, to be their modern defenders.

By now most everybody is aware that the NYT  wrote an inaccurate article claiming the majority of women in the US are no longer married, hailing this "momentous" occasion as a major news item.

The article has since been dissected and shown to be not just inaccurate, but just plain wrong, and that marriage is alive and well in this country.

Several months ago I posted about a different Times article which also claimed that conventional marriages were  dropping,  an article which I had alot of difficulty understanding given that the math it used did not come close to adding up.

At the risk of appearing cynical, and doubting that the NYT is just objectively reporting what it believes to be true, one must ask what could be the agenda which drives them to print these articles.

There is an obvious answer- by disparaging conventional marriage, could they possibly  be trying to undercut a major argument against it being revised to include gays?  If marriage has become the choice of a minority of people, well how can one argue that the gay minority should be excluded? If marriage is no longer the building block of our society, why shouldn't it be treated like all the other institutions and made politically correct?

The Times may just be incompetent ,and printing spurious pieces which seem to fool no one else, and if that is the case their editors and publisher should be taking a long, hard look at themselves.

Or they could be pursuing the Liberal agenda at the cost of objectively informing their readers of important news.

Either way, its easy to see why they have fallen so far in the estimation of so many people.

As the Barack Obama campaign moves into high gear, its unique racial component will always be a factor to some degree, and seeing how the media deals with it will be interesting . The columnist Clarence Page has already weighed in, and I think it is instructive to look at what he has said.

Page posits that Obama’s candidacy is a test for both him and all of us, which implies that there is a right answer and a wrong answer to the exam, and we will be graded accordingly.

What this means for Obama is that he will be required to run a professional, competitive race which requires even the possibility that he may have to give up smoking [who says politicians don’t make sacrifices?]. As tests go, this one is fairly self explanatory.

The nature of our exam is a little more ambiguous it seems to me. For Page, this race will help serve to rectify many of the lingering problems of the racial divide, and again, this is pretty obvious. The question I have is, how does he envision this healing occurring?

If the test is whether we as a country can take Obama seriously as a candidate, and judge him by the same criteria as we use for all our politicians, then it is well worth taking, and if we fail we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Of course, by almost all accepted standards Obama is unqualified at this stage, and combined with the recent revelations about his Muslim upbringing he may already be dead in the water. But that is the  nature of the job he is seeking.

However, based on some of Page’s comments, I do not think this is the test he has in mind.

Rather, he subtly, and not so subtly, makes the case that Obama’s color should be a significant, if not the overwhelming , consideration in assessing him. For instance:

His sheer winnability as a black candidate or, if you prefer, not-all-white candidate, offers a comforting reassurance to many that this country is not as racist as many Americans fear it still might be.

And:

And, unlike Edwards, he offers a bonus: He assuages white guilt.

These are the justifications for an affirmative action campaign, where rather than evaluating him on his merits, we are expected to overlook his drawbacks because he is black. And if this is the test, we will fail it if we do not elect him to office based on the color of his skin.

Affirmative action is a dreadful concept which institutionalizes racism by refusing to look past it. It is destructive to all involved, from the whites who miss opportunities to the blacks who are forever stigmatized . To attempt to extend it to the presidency of the US is more than just wrong, it threatens the very tenets this country was founded on, and offers the possibility that the most powerful position in the world will become a hostage to the white guilt Page references.

As Barack Obama goes forward, every attempt must be made to judge him fairly based on his skills and talents and capabilities , and while his race will always be a factor, any emphasis on it for either good or bad must be resisted and hopefully ignored , for using skin color as a positive consideration is just as wrong as using it for a negative one.

 In foreign policy, Liberals seek not safety nor respect nor national interests, but rather- to be liked!.

I am not a psychiatrist, but the almost primal urge by the Left in this country to use multiculturalism to turn foreigners into reflections of themselves, and then to seek the approval and love of these people seems like the same defective psychology exhibited by individuals who can only validate their existence by external affirmation.

Joshua Muravchik exhaustively details this behavior throughout the career of Jimmy Carter,  giving example after example of this failure of a president  kowtowing to the world's despots as he proclaimed them kindred spirits and world leaders.  Reading this piece is like entering the mind of a psychotic, and considering he was the most powerful man in the world for four years, is truly frightening.

More proof of this mindset is given in an article in the Christian Science Monitor, where the Iranians' overwhelming love for America is hailed , proven by people dancing in buses [ I am not kidding] and the warning given that if we do anything to interfere in this country we endanger that, so we must be on our best behavior.

Even assuming the validity of this author's observations,  and it's interesting to note at one point even in this lovefest he mentions the Iranians may  envy us, a feeling not equated with good relations historically, why do Liberals correlate likability with successful management of foreign affairs?

It's easy to laugh at Machiavelli's dictum about it being better to be feared than loved, but that is a brutally realistic assessment that has been demonstrated time and again in numerous countries and cultures.

Read Making Friends with Hitler by Ian Kershaw and you will see how many of the English espoused these same beliefs about Nazi Germany right up until the panzers were in Paris. They ,too, saw the Germans as their compatriots, and believed that Hitler was possibly a great man, and certainly one they could work with. 

We look back and  wonder at  the stupidity they demonstrated , and yet we are doing it again.

Even if the average Iranian is just like Aunt Sarah and Uncle Joe, their leader is a egomaniacal zealot with visions of Armageddon dancing in his head, and even if it causes them to dislike us , we cannot sit idly by while he pursues his fanatical policies. 

For me being loved by the foreign community couldn't mean less.  My model is the Romans, who ruled their world with haughty dignity and condescension for hundreds of years. Their opponents may have hated them, but they feared and respected them too, and as a result they were able to impose a Pax Romana which we can only admire with our mouths open.

Being liked usually requires deferring to the wishes of others, demonstrating a vulnerability which can elicit an almost sympathetic reaction [ how I HATED that after 9/11!] , and subsuming your needs to those whose approval you are seeking , actions appropriate for the class clown maybe, but not the World's Superpower.

It is being reported that the US has begun a program to stop the Iranian infiltration and influencing of Iraq, while at the same time the Shiite militias in Baghdad are finally being pursued and their leaders captured.

The success of both operations are yet to be determined, but the intent they indicate has to be considered a positive development, and crucial to attaining peace in that country.

Within  this context, the Dem attempt to hamstring our military operations becomes even more deplorable and inexcusable. If they are allowed to remove the "hammer" of our armed services at this time, all will be for naught, and failure once again snatched from the jaws of victory.

All those calling for a political solution are ignoring the cardinal rule of  human interaction- everyone pursues their self interest at the lowest possible cost.  Negotiations involve an elaborate calculus of all the factors in play, and the threat of force is a crucial consideration in convincing an adversary that it's best interests involve concessions.

No one has ever won a diplomatic or political victory from a position of weakness. Even  the Vietnamese obtained their strength from the American media's defeatist tirades. 

In the battle with the insurgents, strength is the only thing they admire or understand. We are beginning to apply it more effectively. Let us hope the naysayers in this country don't defeat us again.

The MSM is chortling today about what the ACLU calls "a quintessential flip-flop", the acceptance by the Administration of FISA oversight of overseas wiretaps, the program that the NYT so patriotically exposed last year.

And last night Alan Colmes used similar language when talking to Ann Coulter about  the Bush  policy in Iraq, saying something to the effect that the "New Way Forward" is a flip-flop of "stay the course".

I think this insistent need by the Left to brand every change by the administration a reversal or flip-flop indicates that they have obviously been stung by the use of that term against them, and are seeking payback.

It also allows for creating a no-win situation for Bush, since if he sticks to his guns he is "obstinate and out of touch" and if he adjusts he "flip-flops" instead . 

It is obviously too difficult for Liberals to understand that in war tactics are constantly changing, and this is not flip flopping but rather the very nature of the beast- the need to respond to the actuality of the battlefield while pursuing your strategic objectives.
 
Therefore we can go forward in a new way while still staying the course of  protecting and nurturing the nascent democracy of Iraq until they can stand alone. But whether it is their stupidity or disingenuousness, the Libs never seem to get that.

As for the FISA situation, hidden in the article is the statement:

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the administration is satisfied with new rules adopted by the FISA court to address administration officials' concerns about national security.

This indicates that there have been changes made to address the Administration's concerns about using the Courts, and therefore they have not flip flopped at all but held their ground and reached a working compromise which I hope doesn't weaken our national defense.

But again the Left much prefers throwing around triumphant accusatory rhetoric as opposed to hailing what hopefully is a win-win situation.

Perhaps I am just getting too old, but my patience with Liberal nonsense and "gotcha" politics is wearing extremely thin.  It seems obvious to me what they are doing, but I know there are many people out there who fall for all this drivel, and last year's election is a result.

The shallowness and mean spiritedness of the Left, not to mention their hypocrisy, is front and center for all to see, and yet so many refuse to, preferring to believe that  the Dems are well intentioned and [usually] honest, and just playing the loyal opposition to the Administration.

That seems to me to be far from the truth, and our willful blindness is endangering us in a time of war. We must see the Left for what they are [see the Anti-Liberal Zone for a good post on this] and make them answer for their actions and words, and not just allow ourselves to believe that this is politics as usual.

And I can assure you, on this I will not flip-flop.

A state legislator in Virginia has caused the expected ruckus by saying Blacks should "get over " slavery in the context of his state considering whether it should make a formal apology for that heinous institution.

I say, he's right.

The indignant cries of "How could you" are already arising from Liberals, no surprise there, but their righteous laments really beg the question "So you think Blacks should NOT get over slavery?". Unfortunately, the answer to that is "Yes".

For Liberals, slavery and racism are the two pressure points which allow them to intimidate Blacks into blindly following their failed policies for them. 

As Juan Williams, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell and other commentators have noted, it is time for Blacks to take responsibility for their actions, and improve their condition proactively , instead of waiting for the Government to take care of them.  To do that they have to stop obsessing over the wrongs done to them in the past and begin to take advantage of the opportunities now available.

In other words, they have to get over their slave past.

Now this does not mean it should be ignored, forgotten or minimalized.  What it doe mean is that we should all learn from it, perhaps even memorialize it, but  not allow it to provide excuses for preventing Blacks and society as a whole to move forward and progress.

As any psychiatrist will tell you, to move forward with your life you have to get over past problems and tragedies. This holds true for groups as well as individuals.

The tragedy of the Holocaust is an example of a catastrophe that has marked the Jewish people, but not prevented them from founding a country or succeeding in life.  While never forgetting, they "got over" the Holocaust, understanding that was the only way to triumph over it.

Until Blacks understand this, and do the same, they will always be chained, not by physical shackles, but by emotional and psychic restraints that are even worse for being unseen.  "Getting over it" really means freeing themselves from a horrible memory which prevents them from joining society as full and fruitful members.

 The fact that Liberals are appalled by this idea should really give the Black community pause and reason to wonder if perhaps all the paternal policies enacted for them are just a gilded cage.

Just to prove further [for anyone out there who still doubts it] that Liberals have never met a position, stance or belief they cannot at least try to wiggle their way out of, Joe Klein of Times Magazine [at least I think it still considers itself a magazine on some level as it continues to get smaller and smaller. I suppose "Time News pamphlet" hasn't got quite the same ring to it] now presents the counterargument to their disparagement of Bush based on his original lack of experience [see article, 3rd item].

For those who can't wait to find out how the MSM is now going to circumvent one of their dogmatic mantras re Bush so as not to have it come back and bite Barack Obama on his posterior, the new clarion call for the Liberal pundits is that experience is not all that important, but that knowledge and curiosity are!

Actually, considering the ivy tower mentality of the Left, this has probably been their closet belief all along, and now they are finally proclaiming it. However, Bush made such a tempting target for the "lack of experience " argument that I suppose they just couldn't resist it.

But times have changed, so don't expect them to give much credence to their previous concerns, at least as far as their political darlings are concerned.  Now it is just necessary for them to be curious.

And looking at the Democratic group running for President, I think it is safe to say that they are indeed a curious group.

The WaPo is the latest MSM outlet to wail about  the  marketing of "sophisticated" mortgages to the unsuspecting and naive, who then find themselves burdened with debt that they cannot handle. As usual, it is hard not to be righteously indignant upon initially hearing about all the hardship cases, but  as is often the case, when you really consider the matter things take on a whole other aspect.

First, to get it out of the way, yes there are all sorts of unsavory salespeople out there trying to sell you everything imaginable. and we have to exercise caution anytime we think of dealing with them. I suspect that this has been true since our ancestors were enticed with purchasing a cave with more modern amenities.

Having said that, why are so many people getting these mortgages?  Some may honestly not know what they are getting themselves into, and if this is a result of deceptive marketing, law enforcement is called for.

However, just reading this article, it seems that some people just don't understand, and ignorance is not a crime nor something which lends itself to correction through regulation. 

Try outlawing the sale of something to people because they are too ignorant to understand it if you want to see a maelstrom of political correctness arise in moral outrage.  This is truly one of those no win situations where one cannot address and correct the problem because to do do would imply there is a problem, and everyone knows that there is no such thing as "stupid" just "iQ challenged".

But even allowing for this contributing factor, it seems to me that the real cause of the burgeoning problem is that these loans are in demand. As much as this may be  discounted,  there is a large group of people who either need these loans because they cannot get any other kind, or want them because they appeal to their greed and seem to offer a "free lunch", something any self respecting Liberal should be able to understand, since it is their basic governing philosophy.

Now it was not that long ago that banks were castigated for not offering mortgages to the poor, especially minorities,  a situation which did not reflect bigotry but the economic reality that conventional mortgages were not suitable to their financial conditions. In essence they were priced out of this market.

So now that there are all these new products which often bypass downpayments,  require no documented income and can adjust to smaller salaries, home ownership has skyrocketed to record levels as the formerly unqualified now can have their own castles. Liberals should be beaming.

Of course they are not because eventually the bill for the proverbial meal comes due, and in this case some of these mortgage holders are finding they cannot manage, and some are at risk of losing their homes,though recent figures show that this percentage is still tiny.

So what are they losing? The house they would not have had at all if not for this mortgage which is being questioned. And since many don't put anything down to buy it, you cannot even make the claim that they have lost their life saving, or some other Liberal bromide. 

Would they have been better off renting than living in their own home, even if they eventually lose it?  I don't think so for many reasons, especially the fact that in a rising market they can sell their home and make a profit never  really having risked anything .  

So when the Libs sound off in righteous anger about the poor people who have been taken advantaged of by the financial industry,  stop and think about that fact that without these mortgages many might be living in squalor if not worse, at the mercy of landlords charging exorbitant rents and with no chance of ever having their own homes. Will some lose their houses because they cannot afford them? Yes, but they wouldn't have had a home otherwise,and many others will keep them and build up equity while living in security. 

Are these mortgages "fair"? If they allow you to buy a house you otherwise couldn't , I think they qualify exactly as that.
 

Monopsony is the flip side of monopoly- it is the case where there is only one buyer of a good or service. Economically it is just as destructive to the working of a freemarket  in that it skews decisions and does not allow competition to decide the availability of products.

I bring this up because the Dems are trying to enact a law authorizing the Government to negotiate for drug prices [ see article ] using the justification that it will be able to get them lowered due to their basically having a monopsony.

Their argument is of course valid, and thus potentially harmful to the working of the market. One dominant buyer can cause prices to be artificially low, just as one seller can cause them to be unnaturally high. Either scenario distorts the economic decision making , and results in inefficiencies and wrong choices.

While the harm of higher prices is easy to see, the danger of prices that are too low is more insidious in that it results in products never being brought to market at all.  The result is that supply may be limited, and new products never developed at all.

Of course the Dems would dismiss all this for the opportunity to preen about getting lower drug prices for their constituencies,  while trumpeting their triumph over "Big Pharm" as they like to call it. Lost in the shuffle will be the fact that the market will once again be constrained by government, and important products offering huge benefits may never be made available at all.

Bill Kristol, who is one of my favorite pundits, has written one of his usual bitingly insightful pieces titled appropriately enough Boneless Wonders.

As you would expect, it castigates the spineless politicians on both sides who are putting electoral considerations before national security while seeking to take no responsibility for failure or defeat, an extremely difficult juggling act requiring  these modern day Solons to contort themselves into the most ridiculous of positions. They really couldn't do any of this if they had any kind of skeletal structure.

I highly recommend you read the article which is short but hardhitting.

One specific sentence towards the end really caught my attention:

And how about Sen. Obama on the Today show? "We're not going to babysit a civil war."

Kristol rightfully calls this nothing more than a soundbite, but why should we allow Obama, the darling of the Left, off so easily.

This flippant remark is actually saying we have no dog in this fight, and that it's none of our business.

Does this mean Barack doesn't understand that the lifeblood of the industrial world, oil, is on the verge of being held hostage by an enemy which is trying to destroy our civilization? 

Does it indicate that he does not see that a fleeing US will energize the entire IslamoFascists movement like nothing to date, and that these people who value strength more than anything will claim the prize of having defeated the World's Superpower?

Does he not care that it is almost unanimously thought that a bloodbath involving the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives will result from our leaving Iraq prematurely?

Does he not grasp that Iran will fill the void we leave behind, and that their President is making preparations for Armageddon even as we speak?

And if none of this matters to Obama, how does he feel about Darfur, or is it okay for the US to fight where we have no strategic national interests?

Obama is a blank slate, and so far that has been his strength. However, with remarks like this we are starting to be able understand this hero of the Left, and the picture slowly developing is not attractive or encouraging. His lack of knowledge and compassion, so succinctly summed up by this one sentence, should give all the moderates in this country pause, for they indicate that the Liberal darling is not only boneless but brainless as well.