Blessed be the cheesemakers

Federal and state governments set a floor on the price of milk that costs American consumers about $5 billion a year, while protecting dairy farmers from the price repercussions of a chronic oversupply of milk.  As a result, there's more milk than consumers are willing to buy at the inflated price, so the government uses tax dollars to buy up the excess, turn it in cheese, and then ditch it later.

Hilarity ensues when not all states stay in lockstep with the federal price protections.  California, for instance, allows milk to be sold at 2.5 cents per pound lower than the average minimum price in other states, a policy that pits California cheesemakers against California dairy farmers:
With feedstock costs skyrocketing due to the diversion of corn to make subsidized ethanol -- another brilliantly managed business -- California dairy farmers are on the ropes.  Meanwhile, California cheese makers enjoy a competitive advantage because it is illegal for out-of-state cheese makers to buy cheaper California milk. 
In desperation, instead of shipping the excess milk out of state, California dairy farms are shutting down and shipping their cows to states with higher minimum prices, allowing them to contribute to the glut there.  This has caused California milk lobbyists to scream bloody murder, demanding that California bring its minimum prices in line with other states.  Cheese lobbyists just smile, knowing that they have more legislators in their pockets and can afford to sit tight.  That's just how central planning works.
Stand by for one of California's patented Cuban-style solutions to problems of this type:  a move to tax outgoing cattle wealth.

Feed a cold, starve a fever

Or is it the other way round?  I never can remember.  There seems to be similar confusion developing about how to halt the metastasis of government:  shrink revenues and starve the beast? -- or turn the faucets on and wait for voters to notice how much more all of the new entitlements cost?  The answer may lie in who's connected to the faucets.  If it's always the other guy paying the taxes, or (worse) loaning us the money, then a solid majority of American voters seem prepared to vote for government-funded everything-you-can-possibly-imagine.  On the other hand, if the tax burden were flatter and more universal, it would be harder to win a public vote over raising money for more collectivized goodies.

Steve King (R-Iowa) argues that our president may be more than willing to go over the fiscal cliff, because despite the huge recession that's expected to result, at least the tax code will have been forced further into progressive territory.  Terminating the Bush income and estate tax cuts doesn't just mean increasing revenue by a small percentage of the annual deficit, it means feeding class envy.  A thin, dingy silver lining of achieving this goal via broad-based tax hikes rather than "millionaire taxes" may be that the burden will fall on the many rather than the few, which (in time) could restore the feedback loop and temper the appetite of voters to ask for bigger and more expensive government.

But I doubt it.  More likely we'll just damage the economy, increase joblessness, and set off a new round of cries for government rescues.

Winning the future

Ross Douthat:
What unites all of these stories is the growing failure of America’s local associations — civic, familial, religious — to foster stability, encourage solidarity and make mobility possible. 
This is a crisis that the Republican Party often badly misunderstands, casting Democratic-leaning voters as lazy moochers or spoiled children seeking “gifts” (as a certain former Republican presidential nominee would have it) rather than recognizing the reality of their economic struggles. 
But if conservatives don’t acknowledge the crisis’s economic component, liberalism often seems indifferent to its deeper social roots. The progressive bias toward the capital-F Future, the old left-wing suspicion of faith and domesticity, the fact that Democrats have benefited politically from these trends — all of this makes it easy for liberals to just celebrate the emerging America, to minimize the costs of disrupted families and hollowed-out communities, and to treat the places where Americans have traditionally found solidarity outside the state (like the churches threatened by the Obama White House’s contraceptive mandate) as irritants or threats. 
This is a great flaw in the liberal vision, because whatever role government plays in prosperity, transfer payments are not a sufficient foundation for middle-class success.
H/t HotAir and Allahpundit.

Jacksonian America

According to Dr. Mead, we don't much care about Just War.
Readers of Special Providence know that I’ve written about four schools of American thinking about world affairs; from the perspective of the most widespread of them, the Jacksonians, what Israel is doing in Gaza makes perfect sense....

Americans as a people have never much believed in fighting by “the rules.” The Minutemen who fought the British regulars at Lexington and Concord in 1776 thought that there was nothing stupider in the world than to stand in even ranks and brightly colored uniforms waiting to shoot and be shot like gentlemen. They hid behind stone walls and trees, wearing clothes that blended in with their surroundings, and took potshots at the British wherever they could. George Washington saved the Revolution by a surprise attack on British forces the night before Christmas; far from being ashamed of an attack no European general of the day would have countenanced, Americans turned a painting of the attack (“Washington Crossing the Delaware”) into a patriotic icon. In America, war is not a sport....

The whole jus in bello argument sails right over the heads of most Americans. The proportionality concept never went over that big here. Many Americans are instinctive Clausewitzians; Clausewitz argued that efforts to make war less cruel end up making it worse, and a lot of Americans agree.

From this perspective, the kind of tit-for-tat limited warfare that the doctrine of proportionality would require is a recipe for unending war: for decades of random air strikes, bombs and other raids.
I respect Dr. Mead, who is quoted here regularly, but this argument is half-baked. It's true that in Jackson's time America had no use for rules of war that would have rendered in incapable of fighting back successfully. It's likewise true that those same laws, now, are just another weapon to which you might lay a hand: they are the rules that allow you to treat unlawful combatants to a quick hanging or a trip to GitMo, because their lack of uniforms and discipline does not privilege them.

It's not that we don't get the rules. It's certainly not that they go 'over our heads.' It's all about war not being a sport. When we take to fighting, we mean to win.

And we do take seriously the women and children. Clausewitz's formula isn't against them, it's in their favor. Air strikes are one of the worst ways to wage a war, even especially a war of this type. Ask the Haqqani how kind our drones have been to their women. I have heard it said that the ideal weapon for this sort of war is a knife, followed by a rifle. Poison and silenced pistols are good too.

Against Irony

I have many sins, but not this one.

To really live, to really love, to really be ready to kill and to die for the things to which you are devoted. Is there any man who dares call himself a man who has not these things? Yes: I will give a waver on "to kill," for those such as Quakers who are ready to die in places where we would kill. They have not lost the deep thing.

That thing is true love. Is that not obvious? It is the kind of love that approaches the divine, except that in us it is particular. We in our limits cannot but love certain things, certain ones, if we are to truly love at all.

If any of you have loved just one enough -- perhaps two, perhaps ten, but even just one -- then I think you have begun to understand.

That's How I Got through Fourth Period Algebra:

Headline: "Our brain can do unconscious mathematics."

The Old Gods

Doc Russia used to quote "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" from time to time.
A great bet is underway, a poker game with stakes in the trillions, between those who are buying time with central bank money and believe that they can continue as before, and the others, who are afraid of the biggest credit bubble in history and are searching for ways out of capitalism based on borrowed money.
Great. Yet it just says what we all know when we dare to think about it.

We're broke. Europe is broke. China is broke. The system will end.
What then? Nobody knows, but the history of the times when the Old Gods have ridden high are certainly of interest. The good news, and the bad news, is that they are dependable.

Controlling Americans through Price

A couple of articles today: one on the potential for cheap shale oil to reshape the world in ways beneficial to America, and the other against cheap beer. Of course one of the first acts of the re-elected administration was to try to limit shale oil development.

Barack Obama said that 'under his plan, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.' Of course the health care bill requires Americans to buy a level of insurance that most cannot afford, to be subsidized by government. There's a general mode here: making Americans poorer, more dependent on handouts, and to make things that Americans want more expensive as a way of reducing their consumption.

It's all about control, of course.

UPDATE: Another good example: do you wish Americans ate less meat? How about just "ate less"? The answer is ethanol!

Politics II: Spartans!

Lest we forget our mission to read through the Politics, let's finish the rest of book two today (or this weekend, as you have time). This section treats, among other things, the famous Spartan society, one of the most complete attempts ever to organize society around success in war. The Spartans had vanquished Athens and Athenian democracy for a while, not long before Aristotle's own time. He was born in 384 BC, about twenty years after the Peloponnesian War ended. This is roughly akin to someone born now learning about the Gulf War: far enough removed that it wasn't part of their literal consciousness, but close enough to know many veterans of it and to ask after it with some authority.

Aristotle himself was not from Athens, but from Stagira. As a student of Plato's, of course, Athens would have occupied a place in his thought. But Stagira had its own history of violence: in Aristotle's lifetime, it was destroyed by the Macedonian kingdom. However, in gratitude for Aristotle's work tutoring his son Alexander (the Great), then-king Philip rebuilt the city rather than leaving it in ruins.

Some Thoughts on Cats



Thank you for the apologies; although it was clear at the time that most of you were simply playing off the original jape.

I think, though, it's also appropriate that I offer an explanation of why I reacted so badly to was truly intended to be a joke.  The following comes against a background of my never having been able to see the humor in animal cruelty jokes.

That earlier post mentioned our dog, Cinder.  We'd grown up together, and in my 18th year, while I was at college, she died in her 18th year of old age.  The last half-dozen years of her life, we'd also had a Siamese cat.  Intended to be my mother's cat, he wound up gravitating to me, I suppose because a kitten preferred the company of an adolescent to that of an adult.  In the event, we became pretty inseparable.  Until the last couple of years of Cinder's life.  In those last two years, Cinder grew more infirm and was becoming incontinent; although she still seemed happier with her life than without it.  But my cat saw the failing, too, and he moved to Cinder's side.  I generally was the last one out of the house at the day's start and the first one home in the evening.  Thoth would be asleep beside Cinder on her rug as I left, and he'd be there when I got home.  He made sure Cinder knew she had company immediately to hand for all of those last months of her life.

Fast forward a decade to a time when my wife and I were able to have pets of our own.  We got MFWIC out of the local pound as a young adult.  Whether due to his surroundings or to his having been abandoned once already, his timidity in his cage was palpable; still he approached us as we walked down the row of cages.  We had to take him in.  A year later, a kitten showed up on the doorstep of some acquaintances, and they asked whether we could give her a home.  Bast grew in to a small, feisty cat, fearless of no one and no thing, but she and MFWIC became inseparable.  She came to an untimely end when her aggressiveness toward a roadrunner bigger than she by half did her in.  MFWIC never got over his timidity, but he and Bast, while she was with us, had high times chasing each other through the house and the yard.

After we arrived in Plano (and MFWIC had died), we got Cisco out of the pound as a middle-aged cat.  He'd plainly been abused before he escaped/was released to the pound; he still had a BB under the skin behind his right ear and was even more timid, initially, than MFWIC had been.  He was, though, overjoyed to be out of the pound and with us.  History rhymes closely, sometimes.  Phoenix showed up on our doorstep as a kitten, and she was the spitting image of Bast.  Those two cats gave each other great good fun with the same cat-chase antics (although Phoenix also gave us fits going into heat before she had any reason to at her age—still a kitten—and before she was old enough to be spayed safely). 

Enter Dennis.  He, too, had been abandoned, this time in the wilds of the Arizona desert.  He, though, was big enough, and mean enough, to survive into his adolescence.  He was about three-quarters grown and half-feral when he showed up at our daughter's door.  Our daughter already had a young cat, Satin, who was sociopathic in her own way, expressed by avoiding strangers at all costs, and hissing and spitting at them if she couldn't hide from them.  Our daughter, though, could not look past Dennis' strait, and she took him in.  Initially, Satin, as the older, dominated Dennis—and she did so in spades, lording her seniority over him.  As Dennis grew into adulthood, though, he figured out that he was bigger and more ornery than Satin could be, and he dominated her.  They had a troubled, although not dangerously antagonistic for the most part, relationship from then on.

Our daughter then married a man who was allergic to cat dander, so we inherited Dennis and Satin.  Cisco, by then, was confident enough in his place in our household that he had no trouble holding his own against both Dennis and Satin.  He, in fact contributed a great deal to our efforts to calm both of them down, and the three of them would have fun chasing each other, with Dennis and Cisco occasionally wrestling.  Both Dennis and Satin, by then, had become loving cats, along with Cisco and Phoenix, except toward each other, with Dennis head-butting to get pets and Satin just getting in the way until we petted her.  You could think of Garfield with a mean streak and think of Dennis.  By then, the only time Dennis got dangerous, though, was when a strange cat would show up outside our front door (all four cats were now wholly indoor cats; there are both coyotes and bobcats running a green-zone creek about a block away from our house).  Cisco and Phoenix didn't care, but both Satin and Dennis reacted very strongly to the strange cat, and Dennis, unable to attack that one, would attack Satin instead—his feralness dominated totally, and I always had to physically intervene.

Phoenix, though, couldn't handle the stress, and both Dennis and Satin, sensing that, took advantage.  Phoenix wound up dying in my arms at the Vet's office from that stress.  Shortly after that, Cisco died, too, of kidney failure.  He spent his last weeks insisting on being in my lap, between my laptop and me.  On the Vet's recommendation, he, too, died in my arms as the Vet put him down.

Then Dennis became afflicted with his cancer.  The last time I took him to the Vet for treatment or to be put down, he didn't even resist going into his cat carrier for the trip.  The second time prior, on taking him in for his annual IRAN, he'd scratched me up and bitten me quite a bit as he resisted the carrier—the only time he'd ever actually attacked me (although he often swore at me when I wouldn't let him do this or that).  And the last time, just a few months prior to this final trip, I'd had to sedate him to get him into the carrier.  For all that, the Vet had always had to gas him in order to examine him.  This time, when we had him put down, he already was unconscious from anaesthetization for the cancer exam, but he died with my wife and I stroking him, anyway.  Maybe something got through.

Now we have only Satin, who's getting on in years, but who now, as the only cat—or at least without Dennis to harass her constantly—is calming down even further, and talking to us ever more.

Sorry for the long post.

Happy Proto-Thanksgiving

After today, we're in the pre-Thanksgiving planning phase. It happens this year I'm doing the cooking for everybody. That's going to be interesting -- it's never been on be entirely, before now.

But hey. There comes a time when we have to sort it out for ourselves. At some point, no matter how Hank did it, we've got to do it ourselves.



This evening I went to a charity benefit for the Classic City Rollergirls ("Waging War on Wheels"), a rollerderby outfit to which a female friend of mine belongs in a kind of prospect capacity. They're a serious bunch, in their way: the sport involves tackling roller-skating women at high speeds on concrete. It's a violent sport, and these women are bold to engage it. I like them.

The benefit was fun. I'm discovering things about myself, the more that I deal with people here back home. I had three people hit me tonight. The first was a woman who was angry about something I didn't understand, but I let her hit me until her hands were worn out -- it really only took about four hits -- so she wouldn't take it out on whoever she was mad at at the time. Then I made her boyfriend hit me too, so he wouldn't mock her later for being unable to get anything out of hitting me. He didn't either.

He offered me a return 'fair play' punch on himself, but I declined. It really wouldn't have been fair at all.

Then there was another woman, drunk as you can want, who was demanding that everyone comply with her or shut up and respect her. Her particular complaint was that religion was necessarily associated with intolerance and violence, which proposition she intended to enforce intolerantly and with all necessary violence. I did my best to get away from her, but she happened to pin me down in a way that forced me to be close beside while she undertook to declaim a man present I thought deserving of respect. I explained that she was wrong on the facts, and she told me to shut up or she would slap me. I told her to do her best, and she did.

I guess it's a function of the South that a woman can feel free to hit a man without fear of reprisal. She hit me, and I told her she'd have to do better; she hit me again, and I told her she'd have to do better than that. She hit me a third time, far harder -- something about the blow suggested to me that she was at her psychological limit -- and I grinned and told her I thought that now she was getting started.

And so she went away, and didn't even look in my direction the rest of the night. Others apologized for her, but really, she'd only done what she wanted and what I invited her to try. No harm was done, and maybe she learned something about her ability to use violence and threats to push others around.

My wife later allowed that it was well she was not present at the time. That's doubtless true! But no harm was done, and some good. There's no reason to resent the violence as such. It was a learning experience for her, for them, and even for me.

Perhaps it speaks badly of me that I feel so comfortable with violence. I've seen much worse, though, than what America currently has to offer. I want people to understand it, and not to fear to think it: I want them to know it for what it is. It is terrible, in its way, but it leads to knowledge. Perhaps I am terrible, too, for embracing it. I didn't use my strength to hurt them, but I let them use theirs against me without protest. Perhaps that is something wrong with me.

But this was very small force, a kind of toy by those who were only playing with it. I think perhaps it is good for them to look in the eye someone who has seen the thing for real, and to know that their toy is no more than a toy. Maybe that is -- perhaps I am -- sent as a lesson for them. That doesn't make me better, for I know my heart embraces far greater force: but perhaps it helps them, and in some small way improves the world. I hope so.

Matthew 5:45

"I learned that Jesus walked the earth to create a more civilized society, Martin (Luther King) walked the earth to create a more justified society, but, Apostle Barack, the name he was called in my dreams, would walk the earth to create a more equalized society[.]"
Actually, 5:46 is good too: "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?"

Mandates

The National Review attempts to make sense of the exit polls, surely a Quixotic task.  If you ask voters what is the most important issue to them, then ask which candidate is most likely to solve the issue, you don't get answers that predict the election results.

I think the problem is that there's a big difference between the issues people say are important to them and the issues about which they support a specific solution.  The economy and joblessness are on everyone's mind, but hardly anyone has a coherent notion of what either a President or a Congress can or should do about them.  People may say that abortion or immigration are less important, but at least they have concrete ideas about how a politician should vote on those subjects.  I suspect a lot of votes were cast as a result of gut feelings about issues that people claimed were low on their list of priorities.

That makes it hard to discern a real mandate.  Not that the newly elected politicians will have any difficulty claiming one, but the 2016 mid-term elections could surprise everyone again if the politicians think the voters have their backs.

A Case for Abortion

Back during the summer, we discussed (see comments here) some finer points about cases in which there really is a moral argument for abortion. The clearest example is the case in which the mother will otherwise die, while the baby is still too weak to survive on its own. In that case, no harm is done to a child who is going to die in any case; and there is a life to be saved.

Unfortunately, a case of that kind has presented itself in Ireland. It isn't likely to draw wide commentary here in America, both because it happened overseas and because we have some very explosive stories in the press right now. Still, it's worth reflecting on as a clear example. Much of the Republican opposition to abortion is not fully considered, a defect that weakens the force of what is otherwise a highly principled argument.

Excellent Diagnosis

President Obama: 'If you've got a problem with Susan Rice, you've got a problem with me.'

Another Petition I Like

This petitions thing is kind of a nifty tool. Here's a good one: A petition to allow any American to voluntarily opt out of Obamacare.

Actually, that alone would solve almost all the problems with the legislation. Just give permanent waivers to absolutely everyone who wants one. I think we'd still have to sort out the freedom of conscience issue -- which is a major issue -- but most of the rest would be settled.

D@$@#, Dog!

Some guard dogs you are. What a sorry lot!

Mine scared a tow truck driver to death the other day. A guy with mechanical problems had ditched his truck in my driveway. When the tow truck got there, I went down to see if he needed help. Buck went with me, and suddenly started running full tilt down the driveway.

The driver climbed up on top of his truck to get away. The dog tore right past him without a second look, and sprinted after a squirrel on the other side of the road.

Night of the Generals.

WTF, Gentlemen, W. T. F.


Fascism Rising?

Greece is seeing a spike in attacks against foreigners by organized groups of Greek men and women. Dr. Mead points to a survey in Der Spiegel that cites increasing levels of xenophobia and anti-Semitic sentiment.

This is natural enough in a period of bad economics, with the systems trusted to hold up the economy collapsing all around you. Why is it happening? The answer, for the Greeks, is that it is a conspiracy by Germany. The answer, if you're German, is that culturally inferior peoples are dragging your virtuous nation down. The impulse to bind together is quite natural and strong.

I would suggest that there is a significant danger of this occurring in America as well. You might not think so, because the diversity of the electorate in the recent election was achieved chiefly by whites staying home. If there was increasing tension along these lines, wouldn't turnout have been high?

Yet I think the answer is that the low turnout underlines the danger. Those of my friends who are working class whites and did not vote did not do so because they feel alienated from the political system. If they have resigned from politics as a way of changing a country with which they are very dissatisfied, they will be more open to other methods.

People are asking why they might have so resigned, and not just voted Republican. There are a lot of answers, usually social conservatives blaming moderates, and moderates assuming that social issues are a drag on the ticket. I think the answer is simpler. Look at the Gallup "Confidence in Institutions" poll.

The bottom four institutions are 'Banks, Big Business, HMOs [another big business, but one that regularly treads on toes], and Congress.' The Republican ticket? A man who made his money as a banker before going into big business, coupled with a lifelong member of Congress. Naturally it was easy to demonize people aligned with institutions distrusted by the American people at large. If only Paul Ryan had moonlighted with Kaiser!

The top four institutions are 'the military, small business, police, and religion.' The trend of the change is worrisome: excepting the military, the police, and the criminal justice system, every single institution in the list is trusted less now than it was in the early 1970s.*

Those are the institutions of social control, notice, and not persuasive control -- not church, for example, or newspapers -- but violent, coercive control. That's who we trust, more and more. Church is down twenty points, but the coercive forces are on their way up. A speaker from a coercive background, with the right kind of rhetoric, could easily sweep up millions who have lost all faith in the governing institutions.

For that matter racist and racial grievance sentiments are clearly up, and not just among poor whites: across the board.

My guess is that there is a very real chance of fascist movements breaking out. Unlike in Europe, though, we have a multi-ethnic and cultural state. You wouldn't see one fascist movement built around a dominant race, but multiple hostile movements.



* A partial exception: HMOs went from 17% in 1999 to 19% now. They've consistently stayed at the bottom of the list, though, and I suspect that's within the margin of error.

A Petition for Permission for Secession

As you probably know, a flood of petitions has hit the White House's web site asking for permission for various states to peacefully secede.

Texas apparently has already gotten the required signatures to mandate a review of the request by the White House (UPDATE: Currently nearly a hundred thousand signatures in Texas alone). Governor Perry, who has talked secession in the past, is running from such talk today. Georgia is getting close (UPDATE: The Georgia petition has now achieved enough signatures; Tennessee is within 200, as is North Carolina; Florida, Louisiana and Alabama have passed the mark as well).

A petition for permission to secede is not an act of secession: the states would remain members of the union even if the petition were granted by the White House (which it is not at all clear that the White House has any authority to do, not that a question as to whether they have legitimate authority has ever stopped them before).

However, as a mechanism for underlining the seriousness of the disputes over basic values, it strikes me as a valid and valuable way of protesting. The division in basic values is deep enough, and severe enough, that continued efforts by Washington to impose one-size-fits-all solutions on the republic will destroy it. This is true regardless of which party controls Washington, and which set of solutions is so imposed. Neither liberals nor conservatives can be comfortable in a nation in which they are under constant threat of having their basic values violated by law -- or, as we were discussing earlier today, under threat of being forced by law to violate their own values.

I believe that, in practical fact, we will have a respectful federalism as required by the Tenth amendment or -- sooner or later -- we will have secession for real. It's time people started facing up to the fact that we are pushing against real and deep divisions that will tear us apart if we don't stop.

For which reason, I signed the petition. I would like to have permission to peacefully secede, even if I hope we never need to exercise it. Having that option on the table would immediately undercut any further adventures in the Federal government imposing values and unpopular laws on the populations of states that deeply oppose them.

I want people in Washington, too, to start thinking about just how much damage they are doing to our country by pushing us against these divides. Maybe this will get their attention, and cause them to finally begin to respect the whole Constitution.