“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Deep, Wide and Repeatedly

Amidst all the prurient political noise this week the Bush Administration announced that the Federal Budget deficit has been reduced to $247 billion, down from it's 1993 high of $500 billion. The reduction also comes 2 years and 4 months ahead of schedule. That bit of good news is cause for a celebration! It should also serve to quiet the Democratic spin machine which has been spewing the fiction that Democrats are more fiscally responsible.

So much for Democratic fiscal policy. How many times must their backrupt economic ideas be discredited before they are once and for all consigned to the dustheap of history? I'm glad Podhoretz takes the opportunity to throw Krugman's and Feinstein's words back in their faces. It should be done loud and repeatedly. The public should know, voters should know that the Democratic Party is a sham. A shameful sham bankrupt of real ideas, clinging desperately to a ragged playbook of trick plays designed to deceive with misdirection and motion. They claim to be fiscal conservatives but does anyone honestly believe that the Democrat tax and spend scheme is a viable economic policy to promote growth and prosperity? They are hollow shells rabid for power but without substance. They deserve derision and defeat but the Republican party politicians must also look in the mirror and acknowledge what they have become. Big spending, big government, Washington insiders. Republican politicians must realize that they are public servants, elected and sent to D.C. to serve their constituents and their country. Unless this is done, Republican politicians risk finding themselves left with a shell of a party as the angry electorate swings to an as yet unknown and charismatic independent "new voice."

At it conservative core, there is much in the Republican party to be proud of and Republicans should recommit to the basic conservative values which have proved attractive to most voters over the past decade. True conservatives of the party need to reassert control. Its time for a proud, reinvigorated party to proudly and confidently trumpet its successes. After the elections, the party can clean it own house. but for now, it's time to follow Podhoretz's lead and go on offense.

Its time to bring out the rhetorical shivs and cut the opposition deep, wide and repeatedly. Its what they deserve.


  1. There has been a rash of IRS auditing amongst small business owners that I am aware of.
    Increased scrutiny of "mom and dad" bookkeeping. Lots of penalties and fees, plus the tax liabilities.
    If this has ben a nation wide enforcement effort, than it is little wonder that the Federal revenues have increased dramaticly in the short term.

    There may be some revenues accredited to an improved business cycle and economy, but also to improved enforcement, perhaps to a greater extent than politically or popularily imagined.

  2. Whit,
    I agree reluctantly. I will vote. I will vote Republican. I will vote without joy and do so because the Democrats have nothing to offer. I think the last Democrats I respected were Paul Tsongas and George McGovern, neither of which I agreed with politically, but they were honest good men. McGovern was a B24 pilot in WWII with 35 combat missions. He was a good man with strong convictions and presented them honestly. He was rejected by the American people and lost with grace.

    Paul Tsongas was a man of virtue with a charming wit. He once said,"That's a good question. Let me try to evade you." It was hard not to like the man even when you disagreed with him.

    I do not know what the Democrats represent today. That is sad. America needs a good opposition, a loyal opposition, a party of virtue and able to honestly express what they believe in and fight for their ideals. A good Democratic Party would make better Republicans. Without that opposition the Republicans have become slovenly, cynical and have lost their idealism over pragmatism.

    The Republicans will get my unenthusiatic vote. They do not deserve more.

  3. Alternative Energy.

    I hope the Republicans are smart enough to add this initiative to their domestic and foreign policy agenda.

  4. Retail cuts of horse are similar to those of beef. The meat is leaner, slightly sweeter in taste, with a flavor somewhat between that of beef and venison. Good horse meat is very tender, but it can also be slightly tougher than comparable cuts of beef. The meat is higher in protein and lower in fat. The meat of animals beyond three years of age is a brilliant vermilion color and has better flavor. The meat of young horses is more tender but lighter in color.

  5. PIECES OF HORSE MEAT (Italian Style)
    Horse meat
    Tomato sauce
    Extravirgin olive oil
    Parsley, carrots,chilly pepper, laurel , celery

    Take some horse meat cut in cubes and let it browning in a pan with some onion till it takes some taste.

    Add 1 litre of tomato sauce every        
    kilo of   meat and don’t forget to add carrots, parsley , celery and two leaves of laurel,
    that bruised in the extravirgin olive oil
    ( like Salento DOP) and chilly pepper( diavolicchio) as you like it( the more it is the better is).

    The cooking should happen over a very low heat, in a terracotta pot put in the fireside.

    Take away the foam at the beginning of the cooking and let it cooking very slowly for  4 hours at least.

    Serve it in small dishes accompanying with big slices of home made bread cooked on the embers

  6. And don't forget to remove the saddle.

  7. Rufus, always so sensible. Your comments on the goat post caused some red wine to find its way into some frontal nasal cavities. My wife hates all of you.

  8. On the earlier post about Islam, TP of Finland checked in. He is our kind of man.

    TP said...

    I discussed this issue on a local forum here in Finland some time ago, and though it was a complex and engthy debate, the basic idea I wanted to present with others was that Islam is simply, well, unconstitutional.

    It is not even necessary to argue whether Islam possess ethically sound basis of core values or not (though it would be easy to condemn them--and for good!), as one merely needs to consider the basic values and principles that are inherently and inexorably pertained to Islam--this can be done by studying the Koran and what is taught therein; and then compare these core rules or precepts of Islam--that are not and can never be subjected to debate--to the word and the spirit of the constitution.

    One can quickly see they do not fit.

    It is also important to understand the immutability of the core of that religion: What Mohammad said and taught cannot simply be "disqualified" only to have the Koran work with what ever happens to be the prevailing values and contexes in which it is being assessed. This I've been told by those who know Islam well. And true enough: If you desire to be a Muslim, you do not simply go and say that Mohammad was wrong when he declared this or that! No. You either adhere to all that is there (in Koran) or to none of it.

    And because so much of it is stridently illegal, the religion is also illegal. That is, unless those who practise Islam also clearly state that they do not follow all of Koran, and thereby selectively drop out parts of it or alter them so as to have the teaching of this new "cult" withstand a critical review.

    That ain't gonna happen, as Mohammadians will never compromise the role of Mohammad. Mohammad was always right: He spoke of God's words. The small differences in the interpretations here or there are not important.

    These issues I discussed, and though it was somewhat difficult at first, I think some people grasped the idea. You can't do anything you want, neither can you teach anything you want; be it in the name of a religion or of something else, that does not matter. The freedom of religion does not spell a freedom to undermine the constitution. That's what I believe.

    The constitution is heavily based on Lutherian Christian values, and in my opinion, that is a wonderful source to have it based on in the future as well. Unfortunately, people may realize the threat too late.

    Sooner or later Turkey will be a member of the Union, despite what ever hurdles there are on their way now. From that moment on, Islamic values will be officially OK.

    The writing is already on the wall, as they say.

    I need to go to bed now, it's already a bit too late at night.

    7:15:38 PM

    2164th said...


    I agree with everything you said. I have only been to Finland a couple of times and then in Helsinki. My impression was of a very conservative and balanced society. I have been impressed by the historic and heroic defense of Fiinland against the Russians during WWII. I am curious as to where you see your countryman today in regard to Islam. Islam is antithetical to all western culture and the only compromise that it will offer anyone are terms of surrender, I sense a growing realization amongst the people in Europe if not the leaders that a horrible mistake has been made by accepting them in our countries. The Dutch and the Danes are getting it. The English do as well, but not the media or their horrible masters.

    Paint us a picture of what is going on in Finland. I and my fellow Elephant men are committed to seeing this thing won. We will never accept that Islam will win. Never. There are many more of us than you can believe. We are not afraid to tell these bastards enough and if necessary get out. Stay with us, keep the faith, we will win. We will have to sweep the Left away to defend what is ours but that will happen. Keep in touch. - 2164th


  9. Glad you brought that to the front of the line, 2164th.

  10. BISMARCK, N.D. -- The Forest Service plans to test new rules for livestock grazing on North Dakota's national grasslands, a project that will take at least 10 years.

    The project is part of the final management plan for the grasslands, which include more than 1 million acres in the Little Missouri National Grasslands in the west and Sheyenne National Grasslands in the southeastern part of the state.

    Some grazing rules, such those affecting prairie dog habitat, are being changed to guidelines, which at least one environmental group worries might be less strictly enforced.

    The grasslands project "moves the argument away from the hypothetical and esoteric, to practical field application," regional U.S. Forester Gail Kimbell said in documents released Friday.

    The Forest Service had estimated overall grazing cuts of 9 percent as a result of its plan. Ranchers said the estimates were low by as much as 60 percent. The grazing portion was put on hold in 2002 while a team of independent scientists spent the next two years studying it.

    The scientists last year concluded that the Forest Service's projected grazing cuts were more accurate than the ranchers' estimates. However, the team also said the Forest Service projections were based on too many assumptions.

    "The next logical course of action is to implement this finalized grasslands plan on the ground," Kimbell said.

    The grasslands have other uses besides grazing, including wildlife habitat, recreation and energy development.

    The demonstration grazing project will encompass all the national grasslands in North Dakota, said Forest Service spokeswoman Kathy Bushnell. As their contracts expire, ranchers with grazing permits will develop management plans using the project guidelines.

    Say good bye to the "cowboys", in North Dakota. The Range won't support an economic herd.
    Been there, done that.
    Gone in a decade, less.
    Even eatin' horse won't save 'em

    Time to subdivide the Homestead, sell out to yahoos from Florida, New York and such.

  11. that's only the invisible hand shooting the bird, tho, rat. next comes the increasing price of beef, upon which the inv hand will flex into the 'come-hither' gesture. cowboys get ten years off, max.

  12. David Warren has a great closing few paragraphs, on the NoKo crisis.

  13. Maggie's Farm has a great Yeats up:

    When You are Old

    When you are old and gray and full of sleep

    And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
    And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
    Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

    How many loved your moments of glad grace,
    And loved your beauty with love false or true;
    But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
    And loved the sorrows of your changing face.

    And bending down beside the glowing bars,
    Murmur, a little sadly, how love fled
    And paced upon the mountains overhead,
    And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.

  14. Roger Barry, a 49-year-old sergeant in the Military Provost Guard Service, playing Harold, is fairly confident that the on-lookers will know who he is. "When the archers raise their bows, I will produce a dummy arrow which I will place to my eye and collapse heroically. Then I will retire to the beer tent."

    h/t Maggie, biggest Battle of Hastings re-enactment ever!

  15. Buddy,
    Won't the invisible hand divert more business to feed lot beef?

  16. The cows won't be back to the Federal Range. Not in a decade.
    Once the leases are voided, they won't be renewed. Been watching this for over a decade, now.

    The Federals are reclaiming the land, from the ranchers. The hand of economics will keep the ranchers away, the costs of the Federal land will be to high. Feedlots will provide the demand.

    It's a lifestyle that will disappear. Federal welfare ranching, soon to be a thing of the past.

  17. Doug, most ranchers operate so-called "cow/calf" business, where the yearling goes to a feedlot for finishing, anyway, via auction sales where the feedlot is the buyer. Annual cycle.