The Flogging (Flood's Blog) -
New Page 1

The Flogging

Flood's Blog: Expostulations by Anthony Flood

At Last, a Concise, Economically Sound, and Catholic, Exposé of Coughlin-Fahey Money-Crankery

Certain Catholics will not be amused.

An excerpt from "Fr. Coughlin and Friends" by Thomas Woods

“. . . both men claimed, for whatever reason, that money should be issued on the basis of the nation’s productive capacity, as measured in estimated national wealth. The fatal flaw in this approach is that this estimate of the nation’s wealth is itself denominated in money. As soon as the money bureaucracy that these men want to establish issues money on the basis of this estimate, the result will be higher prices, and therefore a higher nominal value of the nation’s wealth. This higher figure will then be used to justify another infusion of money, and such theorists as these will be heard to complain of yet another “scarcity of money.” The process will repeat itself again and again, all the while debasing and destroying the currency. Unlike a 100-percent reserve system, in which banks cannot issue more in notes than they have specie in their vaults, there is no logical limit to the expansion of the unbacked paper money favored by Fathers Coughlin and Fahey. Paper, ink, and a printing press are all that is required.

“The inflationist approach of Frs. Coughlin and Fahey would have produced all the negative consequences of any inflationist scheme. All the injustice toward non-favored segments of the community (who get the new money last), all the confusion and chaos in business calculation, all the incentives to consume and spend rather than save and invest, all the impoverishment – these would remain. They did not object in principle to the counterfeiting and inflationism of the Federal Reserve; they simply wanted the government itself to engage in these practices directly rather than through what they considered the plutocratic intermediary of an institution like the Fed.”

For the surrounding, equally illuminating, paragraphs, go here.
How They Get Away With It

"It" being a lie-based war. Scott McConnell explains.

July 4, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

How They Get Away With It
Three reasons Washington’s empire-builders don’t have to worry about ’60s-style dissent—not including the volunteer Army
by Scott McConnell

It was surprising how many people seemed to take genuine pleasure in British MP George Galloway’s contentious appearance before the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations. He was, after all, only a former left-Labor Party backbencher, a bit pink in his associations. And notwithstanding the vigor of his denials, the nature of his financial relationship to Saddam’s Oil for Food program was not entirely cleared up.

But it wasn’t Galloway’s protestations of innocence or his political character that made his turn noteworthy. What was striking was the sight of a man inside the Senate chamber using the full force of the English language to denounce the pack of lies behind President Bush’s Iraq policy. Galloway didn’t submit to the Democratic Party script and pretend that the war was due to a “massive intelligence failure,” that President Bush was somehow misinformed about Saddam’s weapons (or lack of them). He went instead for the jugular of the whole enterprise, reiterating what he had said well before the war—that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no connection to 9/11, no ties to al-Qaeda—and on these crucial points he was right and Sen. Norm Coleman and the other Republicans hoping to milk his testimony for electoral gain were dead wrong. The fruit of their error, Galloway continued, was 100,000 dead, including 1,600 Americans, and another 15,000 U.S. soldiers wounded, many of them permanently maimed—not to mention that the United States now has the worst international image in its history or that the volunteer army can no longer meet its recruiting goals and may have its back broken by the burdens of an extended Iraq occupation.

One never hears words like this spoken in the Senate. A search for successors to William Fulbright or Wayne Morse or Eugene McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy yields only empty chairs. Big-name Democrats scramble for microphone time to denounce as “extremist” judges who are pro-life, but about the fomenters of a foreign policy that is manifestly extremist, they fall into timid silence. Howard Dean, the reputed mad dog of last year’s primaries, has turned toy poodle as head of Democratic National Committee, full of fighting barbs about Tom DeLay’s ethics but silent about a war that is hardly despised by his party’s big donors. It took a Brit to remind Americans turning on the evening news what it might be like to have an opposition party.

For the rest of this brilliant analysis, go here.
Lead by Example, Shrub! What Sacrifice Have YOU Made?

A reasonable person cuts his losses. A stupid, prideful oaf, however, having forgotten his original purpose, redoubles his effort, especially when the "sacrifice" falls so heavily on others. Whether his behavior is bad for his own health, or for that of millions of others, "he ain't no quitter."

Tragically, many of those others are apparently just as stupid and prideful. Maybe they need to look at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and explain to themselves how it is that the 55,000 remembered there died "defending freedom" given what we now know about the before, during, and after of that criminal enterprise. They should then ask in what morally relevant respect this current racket differs from that one.

The Americans being blown to bits in Mesopotamia, whose birthyears lie in the late '70s and early '80s, those "captains of the football team who married their childhood sweethearts, etc.," those young mothers who will never see their babies or have that wonderful career that awaited their return, lost their minds long before they lost their promise-filled lives.


Contrarian Kinsella on Kelo: “Right Decision, Wrong Reasons”


“. . . the alleged purpose of the public use requirement is to prevent taking of property to benefit private parties. However, as any libertarian knows, this is just what government is about – seizing private property for its private pals – taxing you for Lockheed, for example. Even takings of property for public use invariably benefit certain people, often the cronies of state officials. The Court in Kelo even acknowledges this.”

For the rest of N. Stephan Kinsella's comprehensive, brilliant analysis, go here.
Graham Crackers

For two weeks leading up to Billy Graham’s last hurrah in New York, we heard variations on the following apolitical credo from his lips:

“I'm trying to stay out of politics. And I have been queried quite a bit lately, why I don't take stands on certain issues. I just feel that my issue is the Gospel of Christ, that God loves you and that God is willing to forgive you. Put your trust in him. And I think that's my message. And if I get off on these other things it divides the audience.”

It was therefore mind-boggling to behold this on the boob tube last Saturday:

“If you are proud of this, what kind of person are you?”
Asks Paul Craig Roberts:

“It would be interesting to have a comparison of the hourly Uzbek and Egyptian torture rates. US taxpayers have a right to know how many of their hard-earned tax dollars, given up on pain of prison sentences, are flowing to offshore torture centers.”

For the whole story, go here.
The Radicalization of Paul Craig Roberts
Dr. Roberts is an ideal media subject. His resume is impressive and impeccably "respectable." Any news magazine worth a damn would be all over him the way the tabloids are all over Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. After all, he's a Republican intellectual turning on a Republican President. But, no, they treat Roberts as a non-person. Why? Because he declares that we are living under a regime of liars who are getting Americans killed for their lies, an admission that would bring the apparatus of power that they wish to influence, not destroy, crashing down. They cannot dismiss the man's arguments, so they dismiss the man. They deploy their one weapon: the means to plant in the minds of millions of Americans, through repetition or utter blackout, the idea that Something is Very Important or that Someone is Deranged. In Roberts' case, it is the latter. After all, if there really were "something" to what he was saying, surely someone like Mike Wallace would investigate, no?

So what's up with Roberts? This:

Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan Doubts Official 9/11 Story; Claims Neo Con Agenda Is As 'Insane As Hitler And Nazi Party When They Invaded Russia In Dead Of Winter'

A former high-ranking Republican official, also a well-respected author, tells the American people to stop listening to Bush administration lies about Iraqi war and claims the mainstream media will not publish anything he writes against Bush or his policies.

June 22, 2005

By Greg Szymanski

A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan stepped back into the political spotlight this week, expressing doubt about the official 9/11 story and claiming "if they lied to us about Ruby Ridge, Waco and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why should we believe them now."


For the rest of the story, go here:
But "Eminent Domain" is Bullshit, Too!

Individuals may have common but cannot have "public" interests. It is therefore no more unjust to take a man's home and evict him therefrom to build a mall than a road.

Conservatives and even "respectable" libertarians have long ago made their peace with the Constitution's "takings" clause which, along with the one about "regulating interstate commerce," only further illustrates the implausibility of "limited government."

Pending the expedient "emergency" that the private interests at the helm of State can easily provide, all now lies in readiness for a legal transition to a franker communism or fascism. All for the "common good," of course.
Adding Injury to Insult

While the U.S. taxpayers pay in blood and treasure to destroy Israel's regional enemies, Israel cooks up a deal to sell military technology — also ultimately financed by American cattle — to Communist China, perhaps for use against Taiwan. Israel's apology: "So sorry!"

China, in case anyone hasn't noticed, is the one military and economic power that can one day conceivably check American expansionism. The checking will not take the form of a polite request, but a demand reinforced by American-inspired and -financed technology.

And now, which member of Congress is threatening to cut Israel off at the knees over this? None, of course, for he or she knows whose political career would get knee-capped.

Apart from specialists, who will be talking about this next week?
Bush's 9/11 Reichstag Fire: The Gift That Just Keeps On Giving

The virtual blank check that ugly Americans have given Bush is now underwriting the war in Iran. No, that was not a typo. Just as the war in Iraq was being prosecuted in earnest by summer 2002, so Iran is already being splayed and dissected in the war rooms in advance of the first boots on the ground. The U.S. now flies over Iran with impunity. Expect this to be spun as "payback" for the hostage crisis of 1979, and for Joe and Joan Sixpack to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Here's is Scott Ritter recent analysis:

The US war with Iran has already begun

by Scott Ritter
Sunday 19 June 2005 12:06 PM GMT

Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.

On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.

Did You Know That Freedom Could Be a "Blow"?

Their health system is killing Canadians, but their "character" had required them to pay for "free" medical services through taxes and bureaucracy and criminalizing those who would provide those services at a higher quality for lower cost. Some still feel dismantling the socialist mess would violate their — get this — "Rights and Freedoms" Charter!

"Freedom only as a last resort!" sums up the Euro-Canadian mental disease, which has always been uninsurable.

In Blow to Canada's Health System, Quebec Law Is Voided
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
New York Times, June 10, 2005

TORONTO, June 9 - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance in a decision that represents an acute blow to the publicly financed national health care system.

Democracy: The Bullshit for Which Americans Kill and Are Being Killed

The thoughtless comeback usually hurled at any critic of democracy is that we owe to it the very liberty to criticize it. This is a case of saying what one has been conditioned to say without knowing what one is talking about, otherwise known as bullshit.

In a nondemocratic libertarian order there would be maximal freedom to criticize any political order, including the libertarian. In a democratic order, however, there may or may not be the freedom to criticize democracy, depending on what the leaders of the demos think is good for them and on how deeply a love of liberty has taken root in a given people.

For if your words offend the sensibilities of a certain segment of the demos, you may find yourself, not praised for "exercising the democratic right of free speech," but instead excoriated for "hate speech, which has no place in our democracy" and consequently find oneself heavily fined or in jail, or worse, while human rights watchdogs who fancy themselves Voltairean "civil libertarians" snooze.

You see, the one genuinely in need of someone to advocate for his natural right to publish words (by means, of course, of his own property) may now be classified as a "terrorist" or "a known associate of terrorists" or, what is more likely, "someone whose writings known associates of terrorists like to read." Now, why should a "human rights" watchcur jeopardize his hard-won reputation for probity on such an ambiguously defensible individual?

So there is no "performative contradiction" in my linking to Professor Butler Shaffer's eloquent mockery of the democratic faith in today's LewRockwell.com. The convinced democrat is no friend of his and my (so far) unmolested liberty to write and publish, but rather a superficially "libertarian" Dr. Jekyll whose tyrannical Mr. Hyde is never far from the surface.

In case the reader is not inclined to take the link to Professor Shaffer's column, which is also an expert diagnosis of the obscurantism regnant in academia, I would not want him or her to miss its prefatory aphorism by Mencken:

"Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses."

But, please, do yourself a favor and read what follows.
Can Anyone Say “Controlled Demolition”?

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
by Morgan Reynolds


To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12–18) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go back to watching the NBA finals or whatever, but I find this theory just about as satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" caused 9/11. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival – controlled demolition. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day.

For the rest of Professor Reynold's analysis, go here.

To watch video of Professor David Ray Griffin's controlled demolition of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, go here.

Communism's Constitutional Loophole

The Court, Federalism, and the Free Market
by D.T. Armentano*


"The commerce clause was never meant to prohibit sick individuals from consuming plants grown on their own property. Yet to acknowledge that fact, the Supreme Court majority would have had to rethink the core principles of individual liberty and the entire legal foundations of our regulatory society. And that they chose not to do."

For the rest of Professor Armentano's analysis, go here:

* Professor Emeritus, University of Hartford; adjunct scholar, Mises Institute; member, editorial board, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; and author, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure and Antitrust: The Case for Repeal.

Who's Bullshitting Whom? My Run-in with Harry G. Frankfurt

Princeton philosophy professor Harry G. Frankfurt was recently featured on CBS News’ 60 Minutes to discuss an essay that was once more modestly anthologized in his The Importance of What We Care About (Cambridge University Press, 1988), but now has been bound between two boards as a 67-page "book." This media event reminded me of an email Professor Frankfurt sent me this past Paddy’s day:

Dear Sir:

It has come to my attention that you have placed a copy of my essay "On Bullshit" on your website. I appreciate the compliment. As you may know, however, the essay has recently been published as a book by the Princeton University Press. The management of the Press and I are concerned that your use of my essay may interfere with sales of the book. In any case, it constitutes a clear infringement of my copyright. I must ask you, therefore, to remove the essay from your website as soon as possible.

To which I replied that day: