Cornel West thinks Obama isn't doing "enough" to "focus on poor and working people."
The problem with the Professor West and with Obama is that they define "focus on the poor" as using the government to take money from one group of people, e.g. "the rich," in order to give it to the poor after it has been laundered through a series of interest groups who guarantee re-election for Democrats.. They do not mean "give people and equal opportunity to succeed. They do not mean giving D.C. school children school vouchers so that kids who want to learn don't have to sit in union-dominated failing schools. They emphatically do NOT mean real substantive reform that puts power in the hands of the middle class to determine their own future. No. "Focus on the poor" is community-organizer-speak for the politics of class envy and victimhood.
They mean to use government to give people money they haven't done anything to earn. And that will eventually become problematic, because it is inherently unfair.
The American people are by and large a fair-minded bunch and will tolerate a certain amount of this kind of race-and-class based spoils system. But they also know it's something of a luxury to be dispensed with when times are tough.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Spot the Difference
What's the difference between Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, HMOs, PPOs, and whatever else you call "health care" and this?
Answer: One is about true health care reform that respects the sanctity of the doctor patient relationship and treats both the patient AND the doctor as human beings the other has absolutely nothing to do with health care and everything to do with control.
Answer: One is about true health care reform that respects the sanctity of the doctor patient relationship and treats both the patient AND the doctor as human beings the other has absolutely nothing to do with health care and everything to do with control.
Luck
Luck is what you call it when your ideological blinders won't let you see the obvious, because to do so would be too damaging for your ego:
"[Here is a] living example of Heinlein in the WAPO story about the economy and Obama you linked to. The Post admits the economy is terrible and that is bad for Obama. But says that it is just bad luck.
“Behind the economic distress is a series of unexpected events, including the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the European debt crisis and rising gasoline prices. As a result of the unemployment rate turning back up and the housing market reaching new lows since the slump began in 2006, numerous economists have reduced their expectations for economic growth this year.”
I can’t help but think of the famous Heinlein quote.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.This is known as ‘bad luck.’.”
This entire economic mess was precipitated by having the government "exempt" itself from the inalterable rules of the market. America's success in the world - relative to other nations - is that we've lived our lives and conducted our affairs in closer concert with market realities than other nations.
It didn't take "luck" to predict the housing crash. It was the inevitable result of our arrogant belief that we could purposely disobey the market and get away with it. In this case, we allowed the government to force banks to loan money to people whom the market said were not good risks. And when that didn't work initially, we used the monopoly power of the government (through Fannie and Freddie) to inject trillions of dollars to float a market that was telling us it didn't want to exist in the first place. And that worked for a while to fuel the economy from 1996 to 2007-8, when the market corrected itself. Put it this way: If something is too good to be true, it isn't.
You simply cannot give untold trillions of dollars to people who can't repay it and expect to avoid disastrous consequences. You will eventually run out of other people's money. Either that, or responsible people will start to figure out there's something very wrong with paying $500K for a house that only 2 years ago was $200k, and they will pull back from that risk. LIkewise, you simply cannot print trillions of dollars out of thin air and expect that no one will notice your dollars are worth less today than they were before you printed trillions of new ones.
And avoiding the pain of the market correction with "stimulus" or "QE2" or "QE3" or whatever it's called this month is just more arrogance that we are (or can make ourselves) exempt from the market. We're not. The market is like gravity. You can avoid it for a while, you can even build tall buildings. But gravity, like the market, always wins.
"[Here is a] living example of Heinlein in the WAPO story about the economy and Obama you linked to. The Post admits the economy is terrible and that is bad for Obama. But says that it is just bad luck.
“Behind the economic distress is a series of unexpected events, including the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the European debt crisis and rising gasoline prices. As a result of the unemployment rate turning back up and the housing market reaching new lows since the slump began in 2006, numerous economists have reduced their expectations for economic growth this year.”
I can’t help but think of the famous Heinlein quote.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.This is known as ‘bad luck.’.”
This entire economic mess was precipitated by having the government "exempt" itself from the inalterable rules of the market. America's success in the world - relative to other nations - is that we've lived our lives and conducted our affairs in closer concert with market realities than other nations.
It didn't take "luck" to predict the housing crash. It was the inevitable result of our arrogant belief that we could purposely disobey the market and get away with it. In this case, we allowed the government to force banks to loan money to people whom the market said were not good risks. And when that didn't work initially, we used the monopoly power of the government (through Fannie and Freddie) to inject trillions of dollars to float a market that was telling us it didn't want to exist in the first place. And that worked for a while to fuel the economy from 1996 to 2007-8, when the market corrected itself. Put it this way: If something is too good to be true, it isn't.
You simply cannot give untold trillions of dollars to people who can't repay it and expect to avoid disastrous consequences. You will eventually run out of other people's money. Either that, or responsible people will start to figure out there's something very wrong with paying $500K for a house that only 2 years ago was $200k, and they will pull back from that risk. LIkewise, you simply cannot print trillions of dollars out of thin air and expect that no one will notice your dollars are worth less today than they were before you printed trillions of new ones.
And avoiding the pain of the market correction with "stimulus" or "QE2" or "QE3" or whatever it's called this month is just more arrogance that we are (or can make ourselves) exempt from the market. We're not. The market is like gravity. You can avoid it for a while, you can even build tall buildings. But gravity, like the market, always wins.
But Wait....
The President says he, "cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3" . . . "[b]ecause there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
But I thought all of the Social Security money was in a "lockbox" that could never be touched by the politicians. That's what Al Gore told us, remember?
Sheesh, the more I look at Social Security the harder it is to distinguish it from your garden-variety Ponzi scheme.
UPDATE:
A couple of thoughts here:
Imagine what would happen if the CEO of a bank had threatened to withhold your paycheck because the bank had given away all your money and all that was left in your account was an IOU?! You'd instantly know that the bank was bankrupt. And that the bank CEO should be put in jail.
Please don't take this as anything more than a generic warning about giving money to bureaucracies in exchange for vague promises of later payment. It never works out, because there is NO accountability. At least with a corporation, if it goes bankrupt, or is caught defrauding you, the corporate executives can be put in jail. When was the last time - scratch that - when was the first time a Congressman or a President went to jail for running the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security and Medicare (and now Obamacare).
But I thought all of the Social Security money was in a "lockbox" that could never be touched by the politicians. That's what Al Gore told us, remember?
Sheesh, the more I look at Social Security the harder it is to distinguish it from your garden-variety Ponzi scheme.
UPDATE:
In trying to score political points against the GOP by warning that retirement checks were in jeopardy if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, President Obama exposed the fraud at the heart of Social Security. . . . Obama beat everyone, however, with his scaremongering claim that Social Security checks are at risk if he doesn’t get his way on the debt ceiling. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on Aug. 3 if we haven’t resolved this issue,” he told CBS News, “because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
Wait! What happened to Social Security’s “guarantee”? You know, the iron-clad assurance of Social Security benefits in exchange for paying into the program your whole working life? It’s something Democrats constantly talk about, particularly when attacking Republicans who propose privatizing the program.
A couple of thoughts here:
Imagine what would happen if the CEO of a bank had threatened to withhold your paycheck because the bank had given away all your money and all that was left in your account was an IOU?! You'd instantly know that the bank was bankrupt. And that the bank CEO should be put in jail.
And what about that Social Security "Trust Fund" the Democrats rhapsodize about? Isn't it supposed to guarantee benefit payments for another 30 or 40 years?
Truth is, the fund is nothing more than an accounting gimmick designed to make the program look healthier than it is. Obama exposed this scam as well by showing that retirees can't trust the "Trust Fund" for anything.
These are, by the way, all shortcomings that Social Security privatization advocates have tried to point out for years, only to be shouted down by Democrats.
Please don't take this as anything more than a generic warning about giving money to bureaucracies in exchange for vague promises of later payment. It never works out, because there is NO accountability. At least with a corporation, if it goes bankrupt, or is caught defrauding you, the corporate executives can be put in jail. When was the last time - scratch that - when was the first time a Congressman or a President went to jail for running the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security and Medicare (and now Obamacare).
Who Said This?
Which President-elect said these words:
And at a slightly later date, the following:
Give up yet? It was President Obama. He PROMISED to cut our deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. Instead - while taxes have remained steady - his budgets have more than quintupled the worst annual budget deficits of the Bush years and he has added $5 TRILLION to the overall deficit. When Bush left office the deficit was around $9 Trillion. Less than 3 years later Obama has made it $14 Trillion.
The Republicans are merely giving Barack Obama v.2011 a chance to agree with Barack Obama v.2009. And for daring to suggest that he should agree with Barack Obama v.2009, Barack Obama v.2011 storms out of the debt negotiations in a huff.
[The] President-elect pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare “bargain” with the American people, saying that the nation’s long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.
That discussion will begin next month, he said, when he convenes a “fiscal responsibility summit” before delivering his first budget to Congress. He said his administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market.
“What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further,” he said. “We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s.”
And at a slightly later date, the following:
We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end.
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation.
We are paying the price for these deficits right now. In 2008 alone, we paid $250 billion in interest on our debt: One in every 10 taxpayer dollars. That is more than three times what we spend on education that year; more than seven times what we spent on V.A. health care.
So if we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road. As our interest payments rise, our obligations come due, confidence in our economy erodes and our children and our grandchildren are unable to pursue their dreams because their saddled with our debts.
That’s why today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office. Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taken responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.
Give up yet? It was President Obama. He PROMISED to cut our deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. Instead - while taxes have remained steady - his budgets have more than quintupled the worst annual budget deficits of the Bush years and he has added $5 TRILLION to the overall deficit. When Bush left office the deficit was around $9 Trillion. Less than 3 years later Obama has made it $14 Trillion.
The Republicans are merely giving Barack Obama v.2011 a chance to agree with Barack Obama v.2009. And for daring to suggest that he should agree with Barack Obama v.2009, Barack Obama v.2011 storms out of the debt negotiations in a huff.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
How Many Jobs Will Obama's Tax Increases Create?
None. Because that's not the purpose of Obama's tax increases. The purpose is spite and revenge and politics. Because Obama doesn't understand America. He despises capitalism (it's unfair) and liberty (it's raaaaacist), in favor of serfdom, domination and forcing you to kiss his ass.
Go to 3:12 in this video and watch a man who is more Presidential than our current President will ever be. And then answer the question: Mr. President, how many jobs will government create by taxing private jet owners?
Go to 3:12 in this video and watch a man who is more Presidential than our current President will ever be. And then answer the question: Mr. President, how many jobs will government create by taxing private jet owners?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Civility? Now The Left Wants *US* To Be Civil?
Are you hearing the same thing I'm hearing? The calls from the Left to be "civil?" And the hushed tones of agreement from milquetoast Republicans about how we need to "tone it down" when discussing politics. Uhm, yeah. Because when I think of civil, respectful discourse, the Left is the FIRST thing that comes to mind.
You mean, civil, like this of course:
Or, no, wait, maybe they mean "civil" like this:
Or this:
Or maybe, this:
Oh, no, wait, this must be what they mean by civil:
Or could they mean, civil, like this:
Or, maybe, their definition of "civil" means burning the President of the United States in effigy?
Because, to me, nothing says "civil discourse" like burning your President in effigy.
Oh, and just in case you're a little lost at what the Left means by civil, here's their poster boy for renewed civility:
And his friend, Mr. Civility, Mr. Patriotic Civility, that is:
I don't know about you, but I am looking FORWARD to this new kind of civility!!
You mean, civil, like this of course:
Or, no, wait, maybe they mean "civil" like this:
Or this:
Or maybe, this:
Oh, no, wait, this must be what they mean by civil:
Or could they mean, civil, like this:
Or, maybe, their definition of "civil" means burning the President of the United States in effigy?
Because, to me, nothing says "civil discourse" like burning your President in effigy.
Oh, and just in case you're a little lost at what the Left means by civil, here's their poster boy for renewed civility:
And his friend, Mr. Civility, Mr. Patriotic Civility, that is:
I don't know about you, but I am looking FORWARD to this new kind of civility!!
Because, nothing says "treat your fellow citizens with civility, grace and respect" like calling for making war on them.
PHOTOS COURTESY OF ZOMBIETIME*
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Wrong.
It's because he's black. And because he fits their prejudices of the noble and benighted negro, who could be saved, if only he would give himself over to their complete control. Because they know what's best for everybody, including you and me, but especially blacks. And because they're hypocrites and nasty bigots.
Friday, May 14, 2010
You're Kidding, Right?
Tell me you're kidding? I mean, really, Mr. Attorney General Holder? Really? You've been whoring yourself around, mouthing off and trash-talking like some two-bit race-hustler Al Sharpton wannabe and you haven't even bothered to gather the most basic facts? You haven't even read the law?
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. . . not having read the law . . ."
Nope, I guess not. But seriously, why should I expect anything more? You're an Affirmative Action baby, just like your boss.
But, not. You're the man our President has chosen to lead the Justice Department. Really? You're the top law enforcement official in the Federal Government and you've been criticizing this law and impugning the motives of the people who passed and support this law and you can't be bothered to read a 10-page law?
Wow.
All snark aside, this little episode is very revealing about the character of Mr. Holder. First, he has told us he is a demagogue. He has no problem making uninformed snap judgments about important legal issues. He has no problem impugning the motives of his fellow citizens based on nothing more than his ignorant prejudices. That's important to know.
But more than that any of that, Mr. Holder has revealed a uniquely "entitled" mindset. He's told us that he has NO PROBLEM telling the entire country that he hasn't performed the most basic tasks required of his job. It's his JOB to inform himself about important legal issues. It's his JOB to enforce laws. It his JOB to be a role model for law enforcement officials around the country. It's his job to be a leader, to offer guidance, to exercise wisdom and discretion. And here he is, on Capitol Hill, telling the entire country that he hasn't done his job. That's entitlement.
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. . . not having read the law . . ."
Nope, I guess not. But seriously, why should I expect anything more? You're an Affirmative Action baby, just like your boss.
But, not. You're the man our President has chosen to lead the Justice Department. Really? You're the top law enforcement official in the Federal Government and you've been criticizing this law and impugning the motives of the people who passed and support this law and you can't be bothered to read a 10-page law?
Wow.
All snark aside, this little episode is very revealing about the character of Mr. Holder. First, he has told us he is a demagogue. He has no problem making uninformed snap judgments about important legal issues. He has no problem impugning the motives of his fellow citizens based on nothing more than his ignorant prejudices. That's important to know.
But more than that any of that, Mr. Holder has revealed a uniquely "entitled" mindset. He's told us that he has NO PROBLEM telling the entire country that he hasn't performed the most basic tasks required of his job. It's his JOB to inform himself about important legal issues. It's his JOB to enforce laws. It his JOB to be a role model for law enforcement officials around the country. It's his job to be a leader, to offer guidance, to exercise wisdom and discretion. And here he is, on Capitol Hill, telling the entire country that he hasn't done his job. That's entitlement.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
*This* Is A Presidential State of the Union
Compare and contrast this optimistic, confident, teleprompter-free, substantive, philosophically sound and just plain true-blue American performance with what you saw tonight.
Delivered at very similar times in each respective President's first term, in similar economic conditions, Reagan ALREADY had remarkable improvement. Our current occupant has growing unemployment, looming inflation, metastasizing federal government regulations and a public that is growing weary of his empty rhetoric.
Gosh, I wish we had a real president again.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
LIAR
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/05/obamas-c-span-problem/
The President made promises. Explicit promises. And yet, he never intended to keep his promises. He made those promises because he knew it would make people more likely to vote for him. And that once he was elected, the public wouldn't be able to make him perform on his promises. He wins.
Now, let me be perfectly clear. All politicians do this. They all say things that are a "stretch" of the truth. But for the LEFT in America to go on and on for YEARS about how Bush got it wrong about WMD in Iraq and then to ignore this, well, that demonstrates the oily hypocrisy of the LEFT like nothing else. Notice, that in all the LEFT's years of calling Bush a liar, they never addressed the KEY distinction that separates a lie from an error: knowing misrepresentation of a fact with intent to deceive. Everybody thought Iraq had WMD. The CIA, the NSA, Algore, Bill Clinton....even the French and the UN thought he had WMD.
Oh, and one last thing. I don't necessarily care if there are cameras in deliberation sessions. I can see a strong argument why they shouldn't be there. We do not live in a direct democracy, nor do I want to. I don't want politicians preening for the cameras more than they already do. So, I can see it both ways.
But the only conclusion one can draw about Obama's actions in this regard are that he's a liar and a hypocrite.
UPDATE: Seems I'm not alone in my assessment about our President's strained relations with veracity:
The President made promises. Explicit promises. And yet, he never intended to keep his promises. He made those promises because he knew it would make people more likely to vote for him. And that once he was elected, the public wouldn't be able to make him perform on his promises. He wins.
Now, let me be perfectly clear. All politicians do this. They all say things that are a "stretch" of the truth. But for the LEFT in America to go on and on for YEARS about how Bush got it wrong about WMD in Iraq and then to ignore this, well, that demonstrates the oily hypocrisy of the LEFT like nothing else. Notice, that in all the LEFT's years of calling Bush a liar, they never addressed the KEY distinction that separates a lie from an error: knowing misrepresentation of a fact with intent to deceive. Everybody thought Iraq had WMD. The CIA, the NSA, Algore, Bill Clinton....even the French and the UN thought he had WMD.
Oh, and one last thing. I don't necessarily care if there are cameras in deliberation sessions. I can see a strong argument why they shouldn't be there. We do not live in a direct democracy, nor do I want to. I don't want politicians preening for the cameras more than they already do. So, I can see it both ways.
But the only conclusion one can draw about Obama's actions in this regard are that he's a liar and a hypocrite.
UPDATE: Seems I'm not alone in my assessment about our President's strained relations with veracity:
Thursday, December 24, 2009
It's Very Simple, Really
California used to be the envy of the every other state in the Union. A vibrant economy, a melting pot of cultures, the bread basket (and salad bowl) of the world, a driver of tech-innovation, and movies and art. But, that California is long gone. And it's my bet that it won't be coming back any time soon.
I really don't feel like putting the time or the effort in to a long, detailed post explaining why I'm right. I'll just relate to you what I saw when I lived there (and what I see now that I don't).
At one time, not too long ago, California's infrastructure was the best in the world: The California Aqueduct, I-5, the 10, the 405, Long Beach Harbor, San Diego Bay, Oakland Harbor, LAX, the 101...all of these massive state projects were the foundation that California used to propel its economic growth. The massive Aqueduct system turned California's Central Valley from a barren wasteland into the most productive agricultural area in the entire world. Interstate 5 (I-5) allowed all that food to get to Oakland, and LA to be transported around the world (via the Long Beach and Oakland harbors) or by train or truck.
Yet, in the 30 years I lived in California I watched year after year as I-5 literally fell apart from lack of repair. Not only was I-5 never significantly improved, it was barely maintained. What was once a true "superhighway" of smooth, continguous concrete running from San Ysidro to Yreka, became potholed, abused, cracked, and in such a state of disrepair as to be a threat to average motorists. In fact, right before I left in 1999 the freeway was in such bad shape that several bridges collapsed during a routine night rainfall, killing several people as a result.
At the same time, Sacramento was doing - quite literally - everything in its power to raise taxes on its citizens. Property tax revenues went up, sales taxes increased, California introduced the Lottery (ostensibly to pay for schools (so, query what happened to the money that the Lottery money replaced?)), instituted and (raised annually) a gas tax (to pay for aging roads)...and yet with all that money, infrastructure deteriorated from lack of maintenance. Schools crumbled, yet cost more to run.....while test scores dropped and graduation rates plummeted.
To add to that misery, the legislature started passing out money to every politically connected interest group it could: workers' compensation benefits skyrocketed (especially for government workers); liability laws were changed to make it easier to sue and easier for plaintiff's lawyers to take huge paydays. In fact, in one particular area of the law (building codes for handicap access), the legislature passed a law that allowed businesses to be sued for the tiniest infractions of very intricate state laws regarding buliding codes. In most cases, the codes were ambiguous enough that most businesses had trouble complying even when they hired experts. And, yet the potential liability (triple damages and costs and fees) along with the cost of litigation (attorney's fees, etc.) caused most businesses to settle for 5-figure sums. As a member of the California Bar, I distinctly remember the Bar becoming so overwhelmed with attorney complaints (about this issue) that the discipline section became overwhelmed.
And yet, no matter how much taxes were raised, two things happened: 1. Infrastructure crumbled because the state rarely spent any money on maintenance, and 2. the government always ran out money.
The one common thread that runs through California is that the bicameral legislature has been dominated by the Democrat party CONTINUOUSLY since 1970. The State Senate has been Dem-dominated without interruption since 1970, while the Assembly (the lower house) was only Republican-run for two years (1995 and 1996).
To make a long story short: You want to know who has ruined California? Look at the Legislature: DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRATS.
I really don't feel like putting the time or the effort in to a long, detailed post explaining why I'm right. I'll just relate to you what I saw when I lived there (and what I see now that I don't).
At one time, not too long ago, California's infrastructure was the best in the world: The California Aqueduct, I-5, the 10, the 405, Long Beach Harbor, San Diego Bay, Oakland Harbor, LAX, the 101...all of these massive state projects were the foundation that California used to propel its economic growth. The massive Aqueduct system turned California's Central Valley from a barren wasteland into the most productive agricultural area in the entire world. Interstate 5 (I-5) allowed all that food to get to Oakland, and LA to be transported around the world (via the Long Beach and Oakland harbors) or by train or truck.
Yet, in the 30 years I lived in California I watched year after year as I-5 literally fell apart from lack of repair. Not only was I-5 never significantly improved, it was barely maintained. What was once a true "superhighway" of smooth, continguous concrete running from San Ysidro to Yreka, became potholed, abused, cracked, and in such a state of disrepair as to be a threat to average motorists. In fact, right before I left in 1999 the freeway was in such bad shape that several bridges collapsed during a routine night rainfall, killing several people as a result.
At the same time, Sacramento was doing - quite literally - everything in its power to raise taxes on its citizens. Property tax revenues went up, sales taxes increased, California introduced the Lottery (ostensibly to pay for schools (so, query what happened to the money that the Lottery money replaced?)), instituted and (raised annually) a gas tax (to pay for aging roads)...and yet with all that money, infrastructure deteriorated from lack of maintenance. Schools crumbled, yet cost more to run.....while test scores dropped and graduation rates plummeted.
To add to that misery, the legislature started passing out money to every politically connected interest group it could: workers' compensation benefits skyrocketed (especially for government workers); liability laws were changed to make it easier to sue and easier for plaintiff's lawyers to take huge paydays. In fact, in one particular area of the law (building codes for handicap access), the legislature passed a law that allowed businesses to be sued for the tiniest infractions of very intricate state laws regarding buliding codes. In most cases, the codes were ambiguous enough that most businesses had trouble complying even when they hired experts. And, yet the potential liability (triple damages and costs and fees) along with the cost of litigation (attorney's fees, etc.) caused most businesses to settle for 5-figure sums. As a member of the California Bar, I distinctly remember the Bar becoming so overwhelmed with attorney complaints (about this issue) that the discipline section became overwhelmed.
And yet, no matter how much taxes were raised, two things happened: 1. Infrastructure crumbled because the state rarely spent any money on maintenance, and 2. the government always ran out money.
The one common thread that runs through California is that the bicameral legislature has been dominated by the Democrat party CONTINUOUSLY since 1970. The State Senate has been Dem-dominated without interruption since 1970, while the Assembly (the lower house) was only Republican-run for two years (1995 and 1996).
To make a long story short: You want to know who has ruined California? Look at the Legislature: DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRATS.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Michael Totten on Diplomacy and Tyranny
"Understand the mind of a totalitarian. 'Probe with a bayonet,' Vladimir Lenin famously said. 'If you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push.'" (Michael Totten, quoting Lenin).
What I find so intriguing about Lenin is not that he was evil. It's not that he was a totalitarian thug, or a Marxist, or a psychopath. It's not that his political strategy was so ruthless, or so cunning. No, the most fascinating thing about Lenin is that so much of what we know about him so profoundly demonstrates that he was a naked coward.
Lenin knew his survival depended on intimidating anyone who might expose his cowardice. He knew he couldn't win an intellectual debate, so rather than engage in one, he intimidated and then murdered his opponents. He knew neither he, nor his political faction, could win a physical fight, so he avoided them at high cost.
Preferring, instead to fight battles against opponents who he knew would offer only mush as resistance. Rather than stand on principle, Lenin simply exploited the soft underbelly of the courtesies and social conventions of his time. People knew he was lying, but they were too constrained by their own conformity to do anything meaningful about it. All the while, Lenin admitted, as demonstrated by this quote (among many others) that he was a weakling.
And, in time, all it took was for enough people to recognize the essential nature of all totalitarian regimes and to act accordingly in order to present an unflinching resistance instead of mush and the perverted creation he birthed crumbled from within.
The world could stand to refresh itself on the lessons taught by history. All the people of Iran need is a little steel-backboned solidarity from the West and the grotesque regime that has so badly abused them would collapse.
What I find so intriguing about Lenin is not that he was evil. It's not that he was a totalitarian thug, or a Marxist, or a psychopath. It's not that his political strategy was so ruthless, or so cunning. No, the most fascinating thing about Lenin is that so much of what we know about him so profoundly demonstrates that he was a naked coward.
Lenin knew his survival depended on intimidating anyone who might expose his cowardice. He knew he couldn't win an intellectual debate, so rather than engage in one, he intimidated and then murdered his opponents. He knew neither he, nor his political faction, could win a physical fight, so he avoided them at high cost.
Preferring, instead to fight battles against opponents who he knew would offer only mush as resistance. Rather than stand on principle, Lenin simply exploited the soft underbelly of the courtesies and social conventions of his time. People knew he was lying, but they were too constrained by their own conformity to do anything meaningful about it. All the while, Lenin admitted, as demonstrated by this quote (among many others) that he was a weakling.
And, in time, all it took was for enough people to recognize the essential nature of all totalitarian regimes and to act accordingly in order to present an unflinching resistance instead of mush and the perverted creation he birthed crumbled from within.
The world could stand to refresh itself on the lessons taught by history. All the people of Iran need is a little steel-backboned solidarity from the West and the grotesque regime that has so badly abused them would collapse.
Not an Argument, Just a Query...
When the President says he wants America's health care system to be re-designed by "experts", would those be the same experts who run the US Postal Service? Or the same kind of experts who run Amtrak? Or the IRS?
Seriously, when was the last time you chose to use a Federally-provided service over a similar commercial service?
How often have you chosen the Postal Service instead of FedEx or UPS?
When was the last time you seriously considered taking Amtrak between L.A. and San Francisco? Or L.A. and, say Seattle?
Have you ever called the IRS to ask a question and received a competent answer, or been anything less than frustrated?
So, if you're not willing to use a federally-controlled monopoly system for something as simple as shipping a package, why would you even consider letting a federally-controlled bureaucracy get involved in life and death decisions about your medical care?
As far as I'm concerned I have yet to meet anybody more expert on my health care decisions than me and my doctor.
That's not to say I'm unwilling to consider doing something for people who aren't insured. Americans already pay for the medical treatment consumed by the uninsured. We pay for it in our current health care premiums. You don't think that hospitals really "eat" those costs? Of course not, those "unpaid" costs get moved into your bill. So, not only to do we directly pay for Medicare, MediCal, Medicaid, Social Security (with taxes) but we also pay for the "uninsured" through hidden costs.
But, telling me in order to provide coverage for everybody, I have to relinquish important legal and medical decision-making authority to a federal bureaucracy that is completely unaccountable to the democratic forces of the market...well, that doesn't have a good track record.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Absolutely Right
It's about time that SOMEONE, SOMWEHERE do something about the shameful state of post-graduate education in America. I'll just pick one example with which I have intimate experience, Law School.
The vast majority of Americans have no idea how insane Law Schools have become. Law school is no longer a place to simply learn the law. It's not a place to understand the legal and moral implications of notice pleading, or of the importance and historical foundations of hearsay and it's exceptions. Nor do students learn the importance of phrasing rights in the negative, or why anyone (much less our Founders) thought that was so important that the enumerated rights in Amendments 1,2,4,5,8,9, and 10 of the Constitution are phrased that way: "...shall not be infringed..." "Congress shall make no law""...shall not be violated...".
Oh, no. Law school and law professors now concern themselves with much weightier subjects.
Oh, no. Law school and law professors now concern themselves with much weightier subjects.
Or whether Family Law should be (somehow) forced to integrate "cultural cliteracy" into it's jurisprudence. Yes, you read that right. A female law professor actually wrote a "scholarly" law review article wherein she investigated whether failing to please your wife sexually should give a woman grounds for divorce.
Nevermind that this idea is totally insane, and would literally undo centuries of equal rights progress in the Western world, throwing our culture back to the days of spouses as chattel. Nevermind that, because instead of subjecting this lunatic idea to meaningful criticism, the legal academy politely claps and lets is pass, because to do otherwise would be "offensive" and "intolerant."
Nevermind all the high-minded reasons. The reason to get upset is that, the unfortunate taxpayers of the State of Wisconsin were actually forced to PAY THIS PROFESSOR'S SALARY while she played third grade made-up-word games and pretended to research and write a paper on this topic. Does the term "cultural cliteracy" not cause visions of Beavis and Butthead sniggering about "clit" to appear before your eyes?
"Beavis, she said, 'Clit', He-heh!""Shut up Butthead, you don't even know what that means."
So, now, one of these wacko law professors wants a prestigious job in the Obama adminstration and a Senator has the uncommon good sense to refuse to play the charade any longer. Good for Senator Chambliss (R, GA).
If you're a law professor and you've got nothing better to do with your time than writing a law review article for the sole purpose of seeing how ridiculous you can be, dare I suggest that you are a MONUMENTAL WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. If you've got so much time and energy, why don't you volunteer to help a young entrepreneur file a proper articles of incorporation? Why don't you offer your wisdom on tax and regulatory law to help a struggling young business fend off illegitimate, and unnecessarily burdensome licensing requirements (that require hot dog vendors in LA to pay a $600.00/year fee and buy a $25,000.00 food cart?).
In short, instead of wasting taxpayer's money, and instead of spending valuable class time inundating your student's young, impressionable minds with radical, useless (and fundamentally dangerous) propaganda, why don't you DO SOMETHING USEFUL.
Because they'd rather feed their own egos spewing propaganda at adoring ILs. That's why. Disgusting.
L.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Radical Environmentalism or Human Progress. Pick Only One
Why only one? Because the two are fundamentally inapposite. They are matter and anti-matter. Polar opposites. Black and white. False and True.
O.K., O.K., I realize that was too provocative without an explanation. Let me explain.
Environmentalists argue that using of energy is polluting the planet, causing toxins that cause immediate harm, and greenhouse gases that cause global warming. From there, their solution is to use less. Many go so far as to argue that humans must be forced to use less, even if it means lowering our standard of living. That's where the real problems begin. Because in the rush to reach for the simple-sounding solution that feel good, no one calculates the harm that using as much energy as humans do avoids. That's right, our "energy intensive" lifestyle saves more lives than it harms.
Want proof? Think of all the life-saving progress that the world has seen in the last 100 years.
Take Norman Borlaug. Borlaug revolutionized modern agriculture, in the process he saved somewhere around one billion lives, and counting. Couple Borlaug's agricultural revolution with fertilizers, machinery, and all manner of modern energy intensive conveniences and you're looking at savings billions of lives.
Sitting in our comfy chairs in front of our televisions, it's easy to agree with using less energy, so we pass some taxes on coal, or nuclear, or gas or oil. But in agreeing to make energy more expensive, we're not only making our lives less "comfortable" we're inadvertently making it harder for the Borlaug's of the world to buy the energy he needs to research his revolutionary wheat strains. We're making it harder to make inexpensive computers and to ship them, so that poor farmers in India can google a better way to learn about Borlaug's advances. And when we've made energy more expensive, and that computer doesn't get made and the farmer never learns about the advances, and hundreds or thousands of his countrymen die, because they don't have enough to eat, no one is going to blame a "green" tax.
Don't buy it. Humans have an incredible capacity to solve problems. If you set them free, rather than shackle them.
O.K., O.K., I realize that was too provocative without an explanation. Let me explain.
Environmentalists argue that using of energy is polluting the planet, causing toxins that cause immediate harm, and greenhouse gases that cause global warming. From there, their solution is to use less. Many go so far as to argue that humans must be forced to use less, even if it means lowering our standard of living. That's where the real problems begin. Because in the rush to reach for the simple-sounding solution that feel good, no one calculates the harm that using as much energy as humans do avoids. That's right, our "energy intensive" lifestyle saves more lives than it harms.
Want proof? Think of all the life-saving progress that the world has seen in the last 100 years.
Take Norman Borlaug. Borlaug revolutionized modern agriculture, in the process he saved somewhere around one billion lives, and counting. Couple Borlaug's agricultural revolution with fertilizers, machinery, and all manner of modern energy intensive conveniences and you're looking at savings billions of lives.
Sitting in our comfy chairs in front of our televisions, it's easy to agree with using less energy, so we pass some taxes on coal, or nuclear, or gas or oil. But in agreeing to make energy more expensive, we're not only making our lives less "comfortable" we're inadvertently making it harder for the Borlaug's of the world to buy the energy he needs to research his revolutionary wheat strains. We're making it harder to make inexpensive computers and to ship them, so that poor farmers in India can google a better way to learn about Borlaug's advances. And when we've made energy more expensive, and that computer doesn't get made and the farmer never learns about the advances, and hundreds or thousands of his countrymen die, because they don't have enough to eat, no one is going to blame a "green" tax.
Don't buy it. Humans have an incredible capacity to solve problems. If you set them free, rather than shackle them.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tea Parties
For classical liberals and legal conservatives, the very fact of the protest speaks to the degree of its seriousness.
Absolutely right. Your garden-variety Leftist has been raised to protest anything and everything. I remember endless protests at the University of Oregon, on subjects ranging from "Take Back the Night" to Graduate Teaching Assistants salaries, to Spotted Owls to starch levels in dorm food. The one thing I specifically remember is that there was NEVER a protest that could even be considered anything less than coming from some variant of the radical fringe left.
Conservatives just don't get out in the street and protest.
So, when they do, and they're respectful in the process, and they do so on short notice, with no central organization, you know it means something. What does it mean? It's too early to know, exactly. But the more the Drive-by-Media tries to ridicule the protestors ala CNN, or tries ad hominem smears ala Pelosi (who likened the protestors to Nazis) the more emboldened these folks it will get. Nobody thought Californians had the gumption to pass massive, landscape-changing property tax reform in the late 70's. But they did. And it changed the political landscape for the better for more than 20 years.
Absolutely right. Your garden-variety Leftist has been raised to protest anything and everything. I remember endless protests at the University of Oregon, on subjects ranging from "Take Back the Night" to Graduate Teaching Assistants salaries, to Spotted Owls to starch levels in dorm food. The one thing I specifically remember is that there was NEVER a protest that could even be considered anything less than coming from some variant of the radical fringe left.
Conservatives just don't get out in the street and protest.
So, when they do, and they're respectful in the process, and they do so on short notice, with no central organization, you know it means something. What does it mean? It's too early to know, exactly. But the more the Drive-by-Media tries to ridicule the protestors ala CNN, or tries ad hominem smears ala Pelosi (who likened the protestors to Nazis) the more emboldened these folks it will get. Nobody thought Californians had the gumption to pass massive, landscape-changing property tax reform in the late 70's. But they did. And it changed the political landscape for the better for more than 20 years.
For the Children...of course
The Oregon legislature has just decided to kill off one of the State's single most successful industries - microbreweries. Why? To "help" the children. By raising taxes on beer a whopping 1900%. Yep, you read that right. One thousand nine hundred percent. From around $2.50/barrel to over $50.00/barrel. Because, we all know, when times get tough, the best thing a politician can do is tax the be-jabbers out of one of your state's biggest and most prominent industries.
I don't even know what to say. Other than to invite all those fabulous Oregon microbrews to relocate to Virginia. We could use some good McMenamin's Terminator Stout fresh from the tap.
No, seriously. The lesson to take from this is that no one is safe from do-gooder politicians and their seriously deranged fantasies and life-long leeching off the public goodwill. No politician should ever be allowed to wield the power to kill businesses and industries, no matter what.
I don't even know what to say. Other than to invite all those fabulous Oregon microbrews to relocate to Virginia. We could use some good McMenamin's Terminator Stout fresh from the tap.
No, seriously. The lesson to take from this is that no one is safe from do-gooder politicians and their seriously deranged fantasies and life-long leeching off the public goodwill. No politician should ever be allowed to wield the power to kill businesses and industries, no matter what.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Two Simple Rules for Deciphering Democrats
Have you ever wondered why Americans keep voting for Democrats to “reform” something, or “change” something, and no matter how long Democrats are in office, the things they were supposed to “reform” never change for the better?
Whether it’s welfare, or taxes, or schools, whenever the Democrat party is running Congress, nothing ever actually changes. Take schools, for example. Everybody wants to “reform” America’s failing public schools. But, no matter what we tell the politicians, nothing ever seems to improve. Which is strange, because Americans know what good schools look like. There are plenty of excellent – private – schools around the country. Heck, even Democrat politicians know what good schools look like. Which is exactly why every Democrat politician (and every other Democrat who can afford it) sends their kids to private school. Private schools know what makes a good school: high expectations, accountability from students and parents, and student achievement as measured on standardized tests.
But when it comes to public schools, Democrats suddenly push for “reforms” that don’t have anything to do with expectations, or accountability, or quantifiable results. When it comes to Democrats and the schools other people’s kids attend, “reform” means full employment for unions that support Democrats. It means higher pay for the teachers' unions, regardless of results. It means more employment and higher pay for service unions, electrical unions, janitors unions and state employee unions. It means more money for the Federal workers union, the NEA, and all the union workers who tend to the Federal bureaucrats. “Reform” means hiring more union teachers, paying them more money, exempting them from accountability, and buying more Democrat votes and more Democrat job security. It’s simple. Democrats talk about “reform”, but what they mean is, “You keep me in office, and I’ll keep buying your votes.” It doesn’t matter that no Democrat “reform” has ever led to an actual improvement in education.
The reason is simple. Whether something has “improved” depends on the definition of “improvement.” And we can all thank President Clinton for making the following rules crystal clear for me. Just like it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Here goes. If you ask a Democrat whether education reforms have “improved” schools, the answer is yes. But we all know most public schools are worse than they were 20 years ago. So, what gives? Simple. We’re using the wrong definition of “improved.” BUT! If our definition is wrong, what definition are Democrats using? Puzzling, isn’t it?
To help everyone understand what Democrats are talking about, refer to Luke’s Two Simple Rules for Understanding Democrats:
Rule Number 1: If a Democrat favors a policy, it means the policy is designed to buy Democrat votes and make people dependent on Democrats, so they vote Democrat forever.
Rule Number 2: THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO RULE #1.
Luke’s Rules work for EVERY policy Democrats favor. Let’s take a look:
Have you ever wondered how Obama’s “tax cuts” are going to “cut taxes for 95% of Americans,” when roughly 50% of Americans don’t pay taxes? And 97% of all taxes are paid by the other 50% of the population?
SIMPLE. Apply Luke’s Rule Number 1, and work backwards to figure out the real answer.
Obama’s tax plan is going to take taxes from people who pay taxes and give money to people who don’t pay taxes. DUH. It’s welfare. And Democrats love welfare. But why do Democrats love welfare? Everyone knows welfare was a total failure until it was reformed by Republicans in 1996. Right?
SIMPLE. Apply Luke’s Rule Number 1, and work backwards to figure out the real answer.
Everybody knows the welfare system failed to get people out of poverty. But, despite the fact that Democrats held a majority in Congress for almost 40 years straight after welfare was made into law, Democrats never reformed it. Why? BECAUSE welfare wasn’t designed to get people out of poverty. It was designed to buy Democrat votes. Which it did spectacularly well.
So, the next time you hear a Democrat hold forth about how some new Democrat policy is great, or how some Republican policy is awful, refer to Luke’s Two Simple Rules and you’ll immediately understand what they’re talking about. It works every time, for every Democrat policy.
Thanks for reading.
L.
Whether it’s welfare, or taxes, or schools, whenever the Democrat party is running Congress, nothing ever actually changes. Take schools, for example. Everybody wants to “reform” America’s failing public schools. But, no matter what we tell the politicians, nothing ever seems to improve. Which is strange, because Americans know what good schools look like. There are plenty of excellent – private – schools around the country. Heck, even Democrat politicians know what good schools look like. Which is exactly why every Democrat politician (and every other Democrat who can afford it) sends their kids to private school. Private schools know what makes a good school: high expectations, accountability from students and parents, and student achievement as measured on standardized tests.
But when it comes to public schools, Democrats suddenly push for “reforms” that don’t have anything to do with expectations, or accountability, or quantifiable results. When it comes to Democrats and the schools other people’s kids attend, “reform” means full employment for unions that support Democrats. It means higher pay for the teachers' unions, regardless of results. It means more employment and higher pay for service unions, electrical unions, janitors unions and state employee unions. It means more money for the Federal workers union, the NEA, and all the union workers who tend to the Federal bureaucrats. “Reform” means hiring more union teachers, paying them more money, exempting them from accountability, and buying more Democrat votes and more Democrat job security. It’s simple. Democrats talk about “reform”, but what they mean is, “You keep me in office, and I’ll keep buying your votes.” It doesn’t matter that no Democrat “reform” has ever led to an actual improvement in education.
The reason is simple. Whether something has “improved” depends on the definition of “improvement.” And we can all thank President Clinton for making the following rules crystal clear for me. Just like it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Here goes. If you ask a Democrat whether education reforms have “improved” schools, the answer is yes. But we all know most public schools are worse than they were 20 years ago. So, what gives? Simple. We’re using the wrong definition of “improved.” BUT! If our definition is wrong, what definition are Democrats using? Puzzling, isn’t it?
To help everyone understand what Democrats are talking about, refer to Luke’s Two Simple Rules for Understanding Democrats:
Rule Number 1: If a Democrat favors a policy, it means the policy is designed to buy Democrat votes and make people dependent on Democrats, so they vote Democrat forever.
Rule Number 2: THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO RULE #1.
Luke’s Rules work for EVERY policy Democrats favor. Let’s take a look:
Have you ever wondered how Obama’s “tax cuts” are going to “cut taxes for 95% of Americans,” when roughly 50% of Americans don’t pay taxes? And 97% of all taxes are paid by the other 50% of the population?
SIMPLE. Apply Luke’s Rule Number 1, and work backwards to figure out the real answer.
Obama’s tax plan is going to take taxes from people who pay taxes and give money to people who don’t pay taxes. DUH. It’s welfare. And Democrats love welfare. But why do Democrats love welfare? Everyone knows welfare was a total failure until it was reformed by Republicans in 1996. Right?
SIMPLE. Apply Luke’s Rule Number 1, and work backwards to figure out the real answer.
Everybody knows the welfare system failed to get people out of poverty. But, despite the fact that Democrats held a majority in Congress for almost 40 years straight after welfare was made into law, Democrats never reformed it. Why? BECAUSE welfare wasn’t designed to get people out of poverty. It was designed to buy Democrat votes. Which it did spectacularly well.
So, the next time you hear a Democrat hold forth about how some new Democrat policy is great, or how some Republican policy is awful, refer to Luke’s Two Simple Rules and you’ll immediately understand what they’re talking about. It works every time, for every Democrat policy.
Thanks for reading.
L.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
What Used To Be
"There is a bastard kind of generosity, which, by being extended to all men, is as fatal to society, on one hand, as the want of true generosity is on the other. A lax manner of administering justice, falsely termed moderation, has a tendency both to dispirit public virtue, and promote the growth of public evils."
There used to be an appreciation for the kind of moral clarity that encouraged people to make the distinction between true generosity and the "bastard generosity" Thomas Paynedescribed in 1777. Query, whether "bastard generosity" is even properly definable as "generosity" and, if not, what purpose is being served by confusing it so? Who benefits by defining profligacy, waste, and moral decay as generosity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)