Understanding "socialism"

Ambinder makes this amusing point, re McPalin's ridiculous new attack on "socialism":

Palin is going on about Obama and wealth redistribution.

Palin taxed oil company profits and cut $1200 checks for every Alaskans.

That's spreading the wealth. Redistributing some money.

The McCain campaign talks about Palin's executive experience.

So Obama might have socialistic inclinations... Palin's gotten it done.

Of course conservatives have never had a problem handing out public money by the fistful. It's only when you want to give significant amounts of it to poor people that they get upset.

Bill Kristol cannot write

Here is the opening of yesterday's Bill Kristol column:

Browsing through a used-book store Friday — in the Milwaukee airport, of all places — I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell’s essays. That’s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell’s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn’t be surprised that its argument would shed light— or so it seems to me — on contemporary American politics.

Oh my god just kill me right now.

Why do we care that you were in the Milwaukee airport, or that you found a book from 1981? Also, "perpetual ability to elucidate"? Elucidate what? And isn't it a given that "it seems to you" that this random thing you read is relevant to what you write about? Why else would you be writing about it? THIS PARAGRAPH TELLS US NOTHING! It feels like an overinflated second draft from Expos 20: Literature in Social Context or some such bullshit.

No sane person, after reading this paragraph, would proceed any further into Kristol's column. Naturally I did -- and I can tell you it's a predictably stupid argument, which basically goes "Democrats have not been in government lately, therefore, they are silly." Don't bother.

I just want to say: putting this worthless crap on an editorial page next to Paul Krugman really ought to be at least a misdemeanor.

The state of economic analysis on the right

Thomas Sowell:

Economists can give you all sorts of scenarios in which government intervention could make things better, whether when fighting off a recession, regulating domestic markets, or controlling international trade.

Some people even believe that whenever there is “market failure,” the government ought to step in.

Of course markets can fail. Everything human can fail. But if Alex Rodriguez strikes out, do the Yankees take him out of the game and send in a pinch hitter for him?

No one would dream of suggesting such a thing. We are far more rational when discussing sports than when discussing politics.

I... I just... there are no words.

"Wassup! Conservatism is inherent in the hizzouse!"

You really must see this. Here, from Michelle Malkin's outfit, is an instructional video for conservatives on how to win back the "youth vote" (that is, us). It entails:

1. All the insane bullshit they believe about Social Security, George Soros, and "individual responsibility," plus
2. The rockin' soundtrack and compelling presentational style with which Ashton Kutcher hosts Punk'd.

The result is just as hilarious as you expect:

I especially like how he thinks health care is a "remote topic" that doesn't "presently affect our lives," but what really gets our hackles raised is the government telling us what music we can buy. (For that matter: he thinks we buy music.) Ladies and gentlemen, the conservative leaders of tomorrow: in touch with YOUR needs!

(h/t TBogg)