Header Image (book)


Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Video: Our Obese Federal Government

The interview below was recorded in 1995:

Harry Browne died in 2008.

And the recent $1.3 trillion Omnibus signed into law further bloats the federal government.


  1. If only we had a body of people dedicated to reducing the size and scope of the federal government......

    - CI

    1. Exactly. All we get are false narratives, hypocrisy and perfidy.

    2. Fedora Zatsalvsky said

      So what else is new?

  2. It is what wasn't funded that is even more disturbing, namely one wonderful big beautiful wall that can help stop the total destruction of our Nation.

    1. Bunkerville,
      I hear ya!

      Meanwhile, there is a caravan of invaders headed our way.

      We are living in an insane alternate universe!

    2. Yes..get out the tanks and the National Guard.

    3. Fedora Zatslavsky said

      Do you advocate using flame throwers to keep them at bay, or would hailstorms of machine gun bullets be enough for you?

      I think a fifty-foot wide, fifty foot deep moat running the full length of the border filled with hungry piranha in front of Mr. Trump's wall would do wonders as a deterrent, don't you?

      Lots of land mines in front of the moat and along the banks of the Rio Grande would help even more, I should think.

      It's a shame our leaders have no imagination and even less capacity for creativity. From the way they act the average IQ of congress members must be below room temperature with many below freezing.

    4. Fedora, Agreed. Our "leaders" are infantile, greedy, and unimaginative.

      We have a regional problem of gun, drugs, poverty, gangs and corruption, but no one wants to take a systemic approach to address it.

  3. The Repubelicons are a national embarrassment. They hold all the power and have done nothing with it.

    They like big government and pork-laden budgets just as much as DemonCraps.

    They love illegal immigration just as much as the Dems.

    I don't know why that massive Democrat programs budged President Trump signed last week didn't get more play in the media. I thought it was the story of the year. Trump caved, Dems got everything the wanted, and conservatives were left empty-handed.

    President Trump signing that Democrat Dream budget that Republicans McConnell and Ryan ushered to his desk just negated any further reasons to ever vote Republican again.

    Trump, McConnell and Ryan just gave The Swamp a massive refill.

    Fie on them all, and when "Fie on" I really mean another word not fit for this fine forum.

    1. We're getting a repeat of 2000, when Dubya got elected. The GOPe never met an 'R controlled budget that it didn't hike through the roof to payoff its donor base.

    2. SF,
      Fie on them all, and when "Fie on" I really mean another word not fit for this fine forum.

      Thank you for your restraint.

      I agree with you and all that followed in your comment:

      The Repubelicons are a national embarrassment. They hold all the power and have done nothing with it.

    3. Just one crucial point:

      PLEASE don't lump President Trump in with the GOP.

      The Republican Party Leaders are every bit as much focused on making sure that President Trump's Agenda is THWARTED at every turn as th,e worst of the Defecrats.

      With virtually EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the ESTABLISHMENT doing their darndest to DESTROY Mr. Trump and BALK, THWART, DELEGITIMIZE and OBLITERATE his presidency, it's a wonder he's been ab;e to accomplish the many great things he has in fact done.

      Frankly, though I realize Mr. Trump is far from perfect, –– and who among us is not? –– he's probably our ONLY chance to sustain even the HOPE that we may yet RESTORE this nation to full adherence to her FOUNDING PRINCIPLES.

      ... "That the world may be better for this
      That one man, torn and covered with scars
      Once strove with his last ounce of courage
      To reach the unreachable stars!"

      Therefore, I do most bitterly RESENT IT when anyone purporting to be on "OUR" side (if there really is such a thing!) takes pot shots at the president in the hope of portraying himself or herself as "thoughtful," "knowledgeable," "fair-minded," "judicious," and probably "more intelligent" and "better informed" than the rest of us.

      When involved in a WAR, the truly wise and really smart NEVER give the ENEMY the SLIGHTEST BIT of ENCOURAGEMENT or SUPPORT.

      The ENEMEDIA-PROFESSORIAT-ENTERTAINMENT BLOC and the INTERNATIONALISTS who PROMOTE and FUND their ceaseless anti-American machinations truly IS the moral equivalent of The AXIS POWERS who were determined to destroy US in the second world war.

      They must be FOUGHT –– TOOTH, NAIL, FANG,and CLAW –– with every bit of WIT and WILE, if WE are to have any hope of SURVIVAL.

    4. I'm not on anybody's SIDE.

      I am without a tribe--other than my own clan and perhaps the blessedly non-political Bluegrass/Roots Music Tribe.

      I'll throw rocks at anybody whose earned it, and President Trump earned it big time signing that overstuffed sack of offal.

      I have agreed with you since the campaign that Donald Trump is his own man and he is fighting both the DemonCraps and the RepubeliCants.

    5. btw - The trade war with China is driving the market down, but is it also driving Trump's poll numbers UP????

    6. SilverFiddle said above "I'm not on anybody's SIDE. ..."

      I find that a very disturbing remark on the face of it, my friend. I believe that in fairness to yourself the remark deserves further explication and clarification.

      After all, as English poet John Donne (1572-1631) famously observed, "No man is an island."


      The poem by James Russell Lowell included the following lines, were later incorporated (in part) into a well-known hymn still included in many Protestant hymnals. These words were also quoted by Martin Luther King in his “We Shall Overcome” speech in 1966:

      Once to every man and nation
      ___ comes the moment to decide
      In the strife of Truth with Falsehood,
      ___ for the good or evil side;
      Some great cause, God's new Messiah,
      ___ offering each the bloom or blight,
      Parts the goats upon the left hand,
      ___ and the sheep upon the right,
      And the choice goes by forever
      ___ 'twixt that darkness and that light.

      Then to side with truth is noble,
      When we share her wretched crust,
      Ere her cause bring fame and profit,
      And 'tis prosperous to be just;
      Then it is the brave man chooses
      While the coward stands aside,

      These words of James Russell resonate still today. Now, perhaps more than ever.

    7. Our conversation was about politics. I am not on the Republican "side," and I sure as hell ain't on the Democrat side.

    8. SF, you raise a good point. It's confounding how we've allowed our political paradigm to realistically consist of two reprehensible camps, that unless a true believer, one is either grudgingly shoehorned into, or ostracized for not joining the herd.

    9. CI: Our nation has arrived at a sad point...

      ** I am not talking about anyone in this comment thread**

      Atlantic just fired their lone conservative, Kevin Williamson. Lefties screamed from the moment they hired him, and anyone with a brain knew it was just a matter of time before the diggers and sappers scoured every work he ever wrote or spoke and found something damning.

      Many movement conservatives are only marginally better.

      Why are people so afraid of an opposing point of view?

      Human beings are bastards.

    10. Fedora Zatslavsky said

      "Human beings are bastards."

      If you think that, maybe you've been associating with the wrong people. The world is a very difficult place, I'll give you that, but from what I've seen most cope with its challenges with astonishing grace, dignity, and good humor. I will say this: Too many who take it upon themselves to try to lead others with false promises, and then rudely boss them around once they become 'followers," those people really are the "bastards" you dislike so much. Fortunately, they are not even close to being the majority.

      At any rate God is not a "bastard," and those who honestly trust Him and do their best to obey His admonitions have nothing to fear, even if they end their earthly lives prematurely in front of a firing squad.

      Too few realize the dismal, tragic view of life dominated by anger and resentment is an insult to God.

    11. Jonathan Haidt has the best analysis of the problem I've seen so far.

    12. Fedora Zatslavsky said

      FT wrote this response to Haidt's lecture at your blog, FJ. While he and I don't always agree, I find his determination to maintain a simple childlike faith in a divine, Ultimate Authority to be refreshing and reassuring in this tumultuous, ultra-cynical, tremendously hostile age. Here's what FT wrote to you the other day:

      "Acceptance of "The Word" and of Jesus Christ as Our Lord and Savior, is THE most RATIONAL decision anyone could ever hope to make.

      "Throughout history men who deem themselves "smart" and would like to be regarded as "important" and "influential" no doubt have sought to find every "reason" they could possibly dig out of the ground, pry from under the floorboards, and ferret out from behind the woodwork to DENY, DISPROVE, MOCK, and DENIGRATE the very idea of maintaining faith in a Supreme Being they fervently desire to see as an irrational figment of the human imagination –– a childish yearning from ignorant, unsophisticated, unlettered, provincial minds to find "help" and "solace" from a supernatural source.

      "The vast amount of Anxiety, Depravity, Pain, Suffering, and Death these usually arrogant, bitter, cynical, egmaniacal, self-styled sages have wrought is incalculable.

      "Our efforts should be directed towards finding reasons to CONTINUE believing in God as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. To BOLSTER our belief in the edeeming power of Jesus Christ, our mediator and advocate with the Father, is our best hope for experiencing a joyful, clean, decent, peaceful, productive and rewarding existence.

      "If we want to waste time denigrating someone, let us find "reasons" to despise and reject the "intellectuals" and militantly secular philosophers who torture themselves –– and all who feel obligated to listen to them –– by sowing seeds of Doubt, Derision, Contempt, and Despair in the vast, confounding, depressing, enervating, largely unreadable tomes they've produced."

      FT may be a bit too inclined to embrace simpistic thinking, but I think you would agree that FT is far from being a SIMPLETON, n'est'ce'pas?

    13. FT has remained in conversation with me, a non-Christian, for many years. He is FAR from being a simpleton.

      His solution, the Christian solution, while not mine, is something I still view as "second best". For unlike the Rationalists, Christians acknowledge the foundations of their epistemology in "belief" and not "knowledge". It represents, what I would term, "right opinion". It makes them as wise as Socrates, whom the gods once proclaimed "the wisest of all Greeks."

    14. Our problem today is one of "liberal fundamentalism". It causes us to disdain all opinions which contradict our own. And the "charity" we grant the "other side" lessens with each passing election.

    15. That being said, I disagree with FT's stated conclusion...

      "If we want to waste time denigrating someone, let us find "reasons" to despise and reject the "intellectuals" and militantly secular philosophers who torture themselves –– and all who feel obligated to listen to them –– by sowing seeds of Doubt, Derision, Contempt, and Despair in the vast, confounding, depressing, enervating, largely unreadable tomes they've produced."

      ... and embrace Haidts. Let us not disparage them, but rather ENGAGE them. For it is only through this "struggle" that we can hope to improve ourselves.

      As Socrates once said, "There is generation from opposites."

    16. YUP!

      “Truth springs from argument amongst friends.”

      ~ David Hume (1711-1776)


  4. SF opined:

    President Trump signing that Democrat Dream budget that Republicans McConnell and Ryan ushered to his desk just negated any further reasons to ever vote Republican again.

    A lot of us in the electorate are thinking the same thing!

  5. The Repubelicons refilled the swamp with the latest budget and its horrifically historic level of spending. Schmucky Schumer and Nonsense Nancy Pelosi were grinning ear to ear.

    The only positive developments...

    * DemonCraps are now ringing alarm bells on the national debt,

    *Extreme leftwing radical California is fighting for States Rights

  6. Despite giving President Trump a "D" for Optics, I give him a solid B- for delivering. Would be an A, but he gets an F on this latest budget fiasco and that drags down his overall score.

    * Developments in Saudi Arabia are positively stunning

    * He is rolling back the Administrative State and Emperor Obama's imperial decrees. Howls from the left are evidence of that

    * He will end up appointing almost 1/3 of the federal judiciary, and he is restocking it with Federalist Society judges, a YUUUUGE win for the Constitution and a rollback of the progressive infestation of the judiciary

    * Conservatives, genuine liberals and the rest of the normals are fed up with radical leftwing activists and the dogmatic self-appointed Progressive Popes, and they are pushing back. Hard. Could a rude, vulgar comedienne's TV show really re-teach America toleration and charity of others we disagree with?

    There is hope.

    1. Hope for what?

      I'm genuinely curious why you think Trump is responsible for the limited changes in Saudi Arabia. I assume you exempt the slaughter in Yemen.

      Which rollbacks do you support? The rollback of mileage requirements to allow American companies to return to the days when they weren't competitive?
      Just which do you support?

    2. ALL OF IT, including putting Obama and Lie-awatha's honey pot "consumer" bureau under congressional and executive branch control.

      Yemen is a Saudi-Iranian Mullah proxy war. Iran is winning; you should be happy.

  7. When Mr. Browne states that monopoly is control of a market by a single company it's obvious that his analysis is more than a bit superficial,
    Monopoly capitalism generally evolves to three or two or three companies gaining control.

    The recent developments with Sinclair broadcasting are instructive.

    1. Did he mention the historical fact that behind every monopoly is a government wittingly or un-wittingly sponsoring it?

    2. So what you are saying is that laissez-faire capitalism wouldn't evolve to monopoly?
      That doesn't make sense.
      What you are espousing is that we just give up.

    3. Give us some historical examples of "laissez-faire capitalism" (a marxist invention) evolving to monopoly.

    4. Just go back to the robber baron era.

      Libertarians try to sweep that one under the rug.

    5. Specific examples. If you can't puke them up, you're full of it.

    6. The robber baron era... like the railroads being granted free land by the government?

    7. Without the assistance of the U.S. government, railroad construction between 1860 and 1900 would have been greatly curtailed. Building a railroad was an expensive venture. Private banks, fearing the railroad companies would need a long time to pay off their debts, were reluctant to loan money to the companies. To remedy the situation, Congress provided assistance to the railroad companies in the form of land grants. The land grant railroads, receiving millions of acres of public land, sold the land to make money, built their railroads, and contributed to a more rapid settlement of the West. In the end, four out of the five transcontinental railroads were built with help from the federal government.

    8. ...sounds to me like the Government picked almost ALL the winners in THAT one.

    9. Damn... Farmer, I wanted you to wait to unload until Ducky quacked out his weak response.

      I already knew the answer to my question. He CAN'T come up with any historical examples because there are none.

      Theoretical marxism is a discredited fairy tale. Reality is not the Left's friend.

    10. A centrally planned economy like ours, and that of the Chinese, needs an ever-larger army of university trained "mandarins" to keep the wheels on the economy. Democracy become less and less important.

      What's lacking in the American system is a requirement that civil servants undergo mandatory castration less the "deep state" be tempted to conduct a coup d'etat.

    11. Adiosa Tudalulu said


      Democracy SUCKS!

      The Founders wanted none of it, because they knew, and were not afraid to say, that "the masses are asses."

    12. They wanted KINGS to RULE THEM! Who knew?

    13. Ducky? Hello?

      We're still waiting for you to explain how "laissez-faire capitalism" "evolve(s) to monopoly."

    14. Adiosa Tudalulu said

      And I'M still waiting for that Farmer fellow to explain his silly quip about the Founders wanting to be ruled by Kings and Queens.

      I thought he at least had enough brainpower to know the difference between "democracy" and the kind of government created by our founding fathers. "Democracy" was the last thing they wanted to establish. An honest exploration of precisesly what it was they DID attempt to do for us might be a conversation worth having. I often wonder if anybody knows anymore, since it hasn't been taught since the 1950's.

      Talking with that duck creature makes about as much sense and is about as rewarding as trying to spit across the street in a windstorm.

    15. It's called "sarcasm".

      And yes, the Founders created a Republic. But that still doesn't mean that the "elite" can do whatever they want. THEY must subject themselves to the same laws as the rest of us. And on important matters involving changes to our Constitution, the people must be consulted so as to produce the "super majorities" needed to alter it. Even Mitch McConnell isn't stupid enough to go "nuclear" (enact democracy) on EVERY issue... but we do seem to be moving ever closer to it.

      But THAT is the price you pay when you allow SCOTUS to re-interpret the Constitution to suit the fad of the day (ie - redefine terms like "marriage").

    16. Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" spells the dangers of Democracy out pretty well. The Declaration of Independence spells out the inequities of rule by haughty know-it-all "elites".

    17. Madison's Federalist 10 addresses the democracy issue more comprehensively.

    18. SCOTUS has not redefined MARRIAGE. FJ. It has, instead, decided to give a broader spectrum of the population ACCESS to the blessings, the curses –– and the legal obligations –– that venerable instituation implies.

      ... Those obsessed with legal status
      May grow to feel remorse,
      For what they may learn too late is
      The cost of a divorce!


    19. Sell that theory to Thomas Jefferson, FT. I remain an "originalist".

  8. Replies
    1. Keep on trying to deplatform Fox, McDuck.

    2. I love how those who made the Sinclair video left out the reading of the part of the actual script which asked viewers to provide feedback to the station if THEY felt that they were being propagandized....


    3. Who or what the hell is SINCLAIR?

      The only ones I'VE ever heard of have been UPTON SINCLAIR, SINCLAIR LEWIS and the SINCLAIR OIL CO. from which we used to purchase gas and oil for our Buick when I was a wee bairn.

      I don't knoat happened to SINCLAIR OIL. It seems to have disapeared from the American scene.

      I also knew of an Englishman named St. Clair Bayfield. His first name was pronunced "Sinclair" but with the accent on the second syllable. All his friends, however, called him "Bay." He was a Shakespearean actor who achieved a bizarre kind of fame, because he had been the common-law husband of Florence Foster Jenkins.

      Jenkins was a unique American weirdo who fancied herself a gfreat concert soprano. She was very popular with the musical cognoscenti of New York who eagerly filled carnegie hall o hear her sing, because she was so incredibly bad the experience was a comic treat.

      Florence Floster Jenkins was recently portrayed by Meryl Streep in a movie of th,e sme name. Hugh Grant have a symatheitc portrayal of St. Clair Bayfield.

    4. From the NYT:

      On local news stations across the United States last month, dozens of anchors gave the same [exact] speech to their combined millions of viewers.

      It included a warning about fake news, a promise to report fairly and accurately and a request that viewers go to the station’s website and comment “if you believe our coverage is unfair.”

      More at the above link and HERE.

      There was quite a kerfluffle over this matter about 4 days ago.

    5. They're a Maryland-based company. It's the only reason I knew anything about ducky's "complaint".

    6. Thank you, both. I had figured that out –– sort of –– but felt impelled, as I often do, to try to inject a note of levity and share tangential information as well into what-had-become a leaden conversation [always the case where Canardo is allowed to make himself the center of attention].

  9. I actually think that the Democrats, Liberals, Progressives ,and all the other Psychopaths, Sociopaths, and all other maniacs, lunatics, and unstable people with mental disorders and their sycophants in the media attack and lie About anything that President Trump says because he is not a member of their tribe and doesn't follow their orders

    1. It would be refreshing then, if Trump didn't treat lying like a competitive sport.

    2. CI: Good one!

      Some pundit the other day made an astute observation about Trump, loosely paraphrased:

      "Trump has an animal instinct ability to spot enemy weakness, exploit it, and goad them into a fury-blinding madness."

      I used to think it was funny, but even a rabid pack of chihuauas can do some damage, and we're talking about our republic and society. The unhinged left is in a foaming, insane rage, and I don't see it subsiding. Nothing good can come of it.

    3. SF,
      I have mixed feelings on that topic -- probably out of my own sheer frustration.

    4. Yes, AOW. As devout pragmatist, when it comes to matters of fiscal strategies and public policy, I find the stiff-necked righteous posturing on the part of committed idealists more than a tad irritating.

      WE are IN a WAR.

      When The Enemy was The AXIS POWERS, only anti-American leftist agitators showed any desire to try to be "FAIR" and "UNDERSANDING" of the motives of the despicable KRAUTS and the God-damned JAPS.

      The HEAT of BATTLE is no time to wax PHILOSOPHICAL, to develop refined sensitivity to NUANCES or to ponder the ETHICS of what you're doing in attempting to NEUTRALIZE a SWORN ENEMY ––– OR to achleve a WORTHY GOAL for that matter.

    5. FT,
      That's one way to look at the matter -- and I agree to a certain point.


      When the heat of war is over, the reforms will not stand if there is no philosophical basis for those reforms.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. AOW, I don't disagree with your statement, but I don't see it as a response to the point I've been trying to desperately to make ––without any apparent success, Alas!


      We all TALK. few of us LISTEN, and most of us are intrested primarily in the issues that stir us sufficiently to make passionate outbursts, and then indulge in ideological combat.

      We seek DISSONANCE based on "personality conflicts" and eschew the kind of cordial, measured discourse that might bring us i to harmony with one another.

      I hasten to add that this opinion is NOT directed particularly at YOU –– or anyone else in particular –– but at the atmosphere one's apt to find in the blogosphere in general –– CAPTIOUS, FRACTIOUS, DISPUTATIOUS, CHOLERIC, GRUDGING, and UNGRACIOUS.

    8. Balmin Gilead said

      Here ya go, Vinny:


      tending to find fault or raise petty objections.

    9. Lavinia Mannon said

      Thank you, Balmin Gilead, for answering my question poted earlier ––– twice. I can't understand why anyone saw fit to delete it. I did say, of course, that FT uses too many big words, lacks the "common touch," and therefore makes himself unpopular, but so what? It was an honest opinion, and probably shared by many. FT is very smart, but should he be immune from criticism? I meant what I said kindly not as an insult.

    10. Lavinia, I don't mind what you said at all.

      You may be right, but I happen to have acquired a large vocabulary early on, was always encouraged to do so in school, and even praised for it, so naturally I have been loath to conform to the "Dumbed Down" standards the rotten educational system –– dominated for several decades now by the nefarious machinations of Cultural Marxists –– has imposed on us today.

      Let me tell you a little story: I used to publish two quarterly journals which were distrbuted in a tri-state area. Since i was well aware that my writing might seem too challenging for sme, I often included a GLOSSARY at the back of the publication to help foster better understanding.

      Believe it or not, Lavinia, the publications were generally well-received. Our office got telephone calls expressing thanks for what we were doug, and we even got FAN MAIL!

      Needless to say, our readership was a great deal more cordial and congenial than most who post in the blogosphere.

      So, Lavinia, anytime I say something you don't understand, just ASK for an EXPLANATION, and I'll be glad to respond.

    11. Lavinia,
      I deleted those comments because they weren't about the substance of certain comments but rather a swipe at another commenter's erudite vocabulary and tacit support for "dumbed down" vocabulary AND bordering on an ad hominem salvo.

      Please review the guides for commenting at this blog. Thank you.

  10. I met Harry Browne back when he was running for President on the LP ticket. Interesting guy.

  11. I firmly believe we could all be paying about 1% in taxes and be just fine with no debt. Or be paying 0% if we tax goods coming into the US and live off of that.

    1. Are you Smoot or Hawley.

      You might want to rethink that idea.

    2. Ducky,

      We're still waiting for your historical examples of "laissez-faire capitalism" evolving to monopoly.

    3. I'm not playing the game, silverfiddle.

      Go diddle in your libertarian sandbox with Cornelius Vanderbilt or Jay Gould or maybe Andrew Carnegie.
      Then tell the class why Teddy Roosevelt was called a trust buster.

    4. .... better yet, watch the medical insurance industry.

    5. The very fact that Teddy Roosevelt was "busting Trust's" PROVES that America never was nor has ever been "laissez-faire".

    6. HA HA HA! Loser Schmucky Ducky stands on Marxism, picks a fight, and gets his ass handed to him!

      History reveals GOVERNMENTS create monopolies, not free markets.

      Insurance Industry? Seriously? Seriously, you fool? The Insurance industry is severely regulated, as is healthcare. Thank you for providing us one more example of a government-created fiasco.

      It is sad to see someone your age stumbling into fights you can't win. Fiddler and Farmer kicked your head in. Best to save yourself further embarrassment, slink back to the old folks home and soak your fat head.

      HA HA HA!

      Don't mess with Libertartians. We actually use rational thought, unlike dogma-besotted lefties like you.

      Pull you head out of your rotted, discredited ideology and go here to educate yourself: mises.org

      HA HA HA!!!

    7. Government, irself, IS a monopoly –– the most ruthless, powerful monopoly whatever existed.

      Does no one ever realize this, as I have done for at least the past fifty years?

    8. I certainly realize it. But I'm not sure the Bernie Sanders of the world do. :(

    9. EFF that rancid element! I ain't got no time for COMMIES. PERIOD!

  12. Reverend Dave the Mexican AmbassadorApril 5, 2018 at 9:17:00 AM EDT

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. AOW, I FIRMLY BELIEVE IT. Also, I believe the local public unions are screwing us even harder.

  13. Personally I think that the Mexican govt. is an adversary. They're devouring the USA for profit. Anyone who calls them on it is declared racist. Personally, I hope Trump kicks their Mexican ass. Ack across the boarder.

  14. Message to the US government: the problem is spending, stupid. Of course, no bureaucrat in their right mind will agree to give up their piece of the pie. No one is that patriotic ... and no one is willing to give up a good thing once they get used to it. The thing is, we know how to deal with elected officials. We have no idea what to do with our inflated bureaucracies.

    1. Anton Kearney said

      A very astute observation, Mr. Huntington. You're right, but I would add that underneath the problem, as you ably defined it, is the even more serious problem of human selfishness, greed, and lack of concern for the needs and feelings of others. When we find the way to persuade the majority that selfishness is actually self-defeating, we might at last be able to improve things for real instead of just talking about it.

  15. Kamala Harris was Calling for the President to be killed as she joked on Ellen show today.
    I'm calling for a boycott of Ellen and her sponsors. This kind of hateful rhetoric is unacceptable.


    1. This is getting out of hand. These people have to be stopped. Both of those nit jobs need to taught a lesson

  16. The more things change, the more they stay the same. (English translation)

    Jean Batiste Alphonse Karr

    Or, the beat goes on as the foundation of the American republic trembles and further cracks.

  17. Ducky:

    @ "laissez-faire capitalism wouldn't evolve to monopoly? That doesn't make sense.

    It's morning here in Colorado, and you've utterly failed to substantiate your absurd blurt.

    Want some bacon and covfefe to go with that egg on your face?

  18. Lavinia Mannon said


    "Men will lie on their backs, talking about the fall of man, and never make an effort to get up."

    ~ Thoreau (1817-1862)

    Anyone care got expand on how that might apply to some of the discussions here?

    1. The fetishist's disavowal...

      What a cynic who "believes only his eyes" misses is the efficiency of the symbolic fiction, the way this fiction structures our experience of reality. The same gap is at work in our most intimate relationship to our neighbors: we behave AS IF we do not know that they also smell badly, secrete excrement, etc. - a minimum of idealization, of fetishizing disavowal, is the basis of our co-existence. And doesn't the same disavowal account for the sublime beauty of the idealizing gesture discernible from Anna Frank to American Communists who believed in the Soviet Union? Although we know that Stalinist Communism was an appalling thing, we nonetheless admire the victims of the McCarthy witch hunt who heroically persisted in their belief in Communism and support for the Soviet Union.

      The logic is here the same as that of Anne Frank who, in her diaries, expresses belief in the ultimate goodness of man in spite of the horrors accomplished by men against Jews in World War II: what renders such an assertion of belief (in the essential goodness of Man; in the truly human character of the Soviet regime) sublime, is the very gap between it and the overwhelming factual evidence against it, i.e. the active will to disavow the actual state of things. Perhaps therein resides the most elementary meta-physical gesture: in this refusal to accept the real in its idiocy, to disavow it and to search for Another World behind it. The big Other is thus the order of lie, of lying sincerely. And it is in this sense that "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity": even the best are no longer able to sustain their symbolic innocence, their full engagement in the symbolic ritual, while "the worst," the mob, engage in (racist, religious, sexist...) fanaticism? Is this opposition not a good description of today's split between tolerant but anemic liberals, and the fundamentalists full of "passionate intensity"?
      -Slavoj Zizek, "With or Without Passion: What's wrong with Fundamentalism?"

    2. btw - Say hi to you "Daddy" for me, Lavinia. :)

    3. Lavinia Mannon said

      You have me confused with someone else, I'm afraid. My father's name was Ezra. My mother killed him after he came back from the war, because she had gotten heavily involved with another man while father was away, and father's return got in the way of her plans.

      It has been said that my life was patterned after that of Elektra.

    4. Your prolix friend Slavoj Zizek wrote:

      "Although we know that Stalinist Communism was an appalling thing, we nonetheless admire the victims of the McCarthy witch hunt who heroically persisted in their belief in Communism and support for the Soviet Union."

      I have yet to meet ONE SINGLE AMERICAN worthy of the name –– a dwindling minority we must admit –– who would agree with that VILE assertion –– not ONE.

      If anything the UNITED STATES was the VICTIM of those God-damned Communist Bastards who infiltrated, polluted and utimately desecrated OUR unique American culture. McCarthy was maladroit, yes, but he did his best to try to SAVE us from the profound EVIL hat had invaded and corrupted our shores.

      Poor Anne Frank was long DEAD before McCarthy came on the scene, so this absurd assertion of Zizek's is absolute BUNK.

    5. ...and mine, after Antigone. Let's hope that neither of us suffer the fate of Oedipus! I've been to the sacred olive groves at Hippeious Colonus outside Athens. They're nothing to write home about!

    6. @FT- You're ignoring their "disavowal" (what they must ignore/ discount in order to perpetuate their 'fetish').

  19. If by McCarthy you mean the disgraced Joeseph McCarthy he got his deserved just deserts.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective