Somebody in Washington missed the memo.
It was sent sometime last November. It said that we wanted less government intrusion into our daily lives.
However, it seems that business as usual has resumed.
The recent events in Egypt should awaken us to the dangers of governmental control of the Internet. As in Iran last year, their government has shut down Internet access, including Twitter accounts, and even disrupted cell phone service in an effort to quell the popular uprisings there. It’s an attempt by what we see as corrupt leaders in a foreign land suppressing the rights of the people.
We think because we’re America that It. Can’t. Happen. Here.
Really?
What if I told you that President Obama has been seeking that very power since 2009? And that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has introduced SR 21 that currently contains vague language about national security, to be replaced with something more definitive later, that would give President Obama that power?
It gets better. Rep. James Sensenbrenner has introduced another bill that would require Internet Service Providers to retain information on your comings and goings for two years even though you’ve done nothing wrong. Naturally, FBI Director Robert Mueller is in favor of this bill, saying that it would be "tremendously helpful in giving us a historic basis to make a case" in investigations. I’m all for that, too, as long as you have a search warrant from a judge who has reviewed the evidence. But if you don’t have one, then you don’t have a legal basis to know what anyone is doing on the Internet.
The memo they missed also contained something about sticking to that thing called the Constitution. However, judging by this news, they have yet to even check their in-box. They’re still making up the rules as they go along, seemingly blissfully unaware that they have rules they have to follow. Old rules like the Fourth Amendment. Old rules that until recently were scrupulously adhered to in order to keep us free from government suppression.
Hopefully, we’re starting to wake up to the sad fact that we are reaching parity with other governments around the world, just as our President has wished. In the past, we could take refuge in the fact that America really was different from the rest of the world, that our freedoms could never be taken away or diminished.
Today, we see this is no longer the case. In fact, Washington seems hell-bent on a fundamental transformation that reduces our nation to nothing more than a banana republic, with a strong-armed leader rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.
We used to be better than this. We used to have representatives who were like our neighbors, who had the same values that we had, and would govern according what was best for the majority of Americans. Our country was designed to be owned and operated by the people, not by career politicians.
I miss the old days.
By not reading the clear message that was sent by us last November to get government out of our lives, we feel like we’ve been unfriended. Even worse, our former BFF’s don’t even want us to log on anymore.
If our representatives ever check their email again, they’ll find this somewhat shorter version of the original memo: We want representatives who will slay the Leviathan, not feed it.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday Bits of Tid, Challenger Edition
This is a somber Friday.
Do you remember where you were when the crew of Challenger slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God? Bing has a collection of videos from that fateful day in 1986 here. If your children weren't born yet, you could use them as a teaching tool, much as I would imagine Christa McAuliffe would have wanted.
If you do, tell them that we don't often witness noble death.
Carrying on...
Time capsule found.
They came for the Green Bay Packers neckties, and yet I did nothing.
Major in Walrus, minor in Eggmen. British school award degree in Beatles.
Is riding a horse while drunk legal in Montana? I'd prefer to ride a sober one.
Hey, did anyone lose a penguin?
A memorial for Paul, the Psychic Octopus. What, no calamari?
Duude, like, has anyone seen Paco? He was here just a minute ago...
And finally, who among us hasn't felt like doing this?
And on that note, have a good weekend, y'all.
Do you remember where you were when the crew of Challenger slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God? Bing has a collection of videos from that fateful day in 1986 here. If your children weren't born yet, you could use them as a teaching tool, much as I would imagine Christa McAuliffe would have wanted.
If you do, tell them that we don't often witness noble death.
Carrying on...
Time capsule found.
They came for the Green Bay Packers neckties, and yet I did nothing.
Major in Walrus, minor in Eggmen. British school award degree in Beatles.
Is riding a horse while drunk legal in Montana? I'd prefer to ride a sober one.
Hey, did anyone lose a penguin?
A memorial for Paul, the Psychic Octopus. What, no calamari?
Duude, like, has anyone seen Paco? He was here just a minute ago...
And finally, who among us hasn't felt like doing this?
And on that note, have a good weekend, y'all.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Rep. Dennis Kucinich Demonstrates Why We Need Tort Reform
Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich is suing an olive pit.
The horror of it all defies any rational explanation. How can we, the greatest country in the world, allow this travesty? Must we forever be victims of the obvious danger that olive pits pose to our nation? How much longer must we proud Americans cower in fear of our veggie wraps, quivering, afraid to take another bite? We must rise up and speak truth to pits whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself…
Hell, even I can’t keep that up for very long. My Snark Generator just died.
In case you haven’t heard, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich really is suing the Longworth House Office Building cafeteria over an olive pit. The pit in question was contained in a sandwich wrap he bought there on or about April 17, 2008.
He’s asking for $150,000 in damages from the cafeteria. Here’s the PDF of the complaint.
It’s difficult to find a place to start ridiculing this lawsuit. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I do, however, see myself as a victim of these sorts of suits for one simple reason: I am forced to pay for this in the form of higher prices, even though I had nothing to do with it. Lawsuits such as these are responsible for far more damage, though: more than one suit has forced a business to close, causing unecessary hardship for the innocent employees.
When you read the complaint, you’ll find just a few absurdities. Here’s one, “Said sandwich wrap was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption” for containing an olive pit.
Hmm.
If I’m not mistaken, the pit is an integral part of an olive. Haven't we been eating olives for a while, like a few thousand years? I can’t recall any instance of anyone swallowing an olive pit that resulted in more than surprise, at least among anyone I know. How about you?
So that claim of unwholesomeness seems to be contrived. In fact, a whole olive contains a pit, so wouldn't an olive with a pit be considered "wholesome" as it contains all of its parts? Sometimes I think I missed my calling...
Reading further in the complaint, we are informed that the olive pit in question is a “Dangerous Substance.”
Hmm, again. Maybe the opening snark wasn’t so far off the mark after all.
Let’s see if I have this right. An olive pit is a dangerous substance? How? If you eat one, do you die? That would certainly qualify as dangerous to most people.
As for suffering “serious and permanent injuries” as Kucinich claims to have suffered, what was the nature of these injuries? Were they so serious as to prevent him from going to work? Were they so serious as to prevent him from, oh say, running for President after the incident? No?
Hmmm once more.
In addition, doesn’t Mr. Kucinich have a pretty good medical and dental plan as a member of Congress? Better than you and I have access to?
Confronted with such outrageous claims about the dangers of an olive pit, one is left to wonder: have we gone batshit crazy?
In a sane world, a judge would throw out this case and have Kucinich arrested for contempt of court for wasting time and tax money on something that has happened many times to many others without harm. If this is what goes on in an American court of law, we are indeed well screwed.
This is an excellent example of the twisting of truth. There is nothing in this case that should be considered in court. It’s also a good reason for this Congress to pass a bill making these types of cases illegal. We can fix this mess. The question is how we got into it in the first place. I don’t remember telling my representative that I wanted this type of legal abuse going on in court.
The judge in this case has a unique opportunity to throw this case out and in doing so, restore a measure of sanity to our court system. The cafeteria’s defense lawyer also has a chance to poke some serious holes in this case. If it were my business that was the victim of this kind of frivolous lawsuit, I’d countersue.
Folks, this nonsense has to stop. It should stop here.
It’s a sad statement when we have a Representative in Washington who feels the need to sue someone because can’t chew his food properly.
The horror of it all defies any rational explanation. How can we, the greatest country in the world, allow this travesty? Must we forever be victims of the obvious danger that olive pits pose to our nation? How much longer must we proud Americans cower in fear of our veggie wraps, quivering, afraid to take another bite? We must rise up and speak truth to pits whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself…
Hell, even I can’t keep that up for very long. My Snark Generator just died.
In case you haven’t heard, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich really is suing the Longworth House Office Building cafeteria over an olive pit. The pit in question was contained in a sandwich wrap he bought there on or about April 17, 2008.
He’s asking for $150,000 in damages from the cafeteria. Here’s the PDF of the complaint.
It’s difficult to find a place to start ridiculing this lawsuit. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I do, however, see myself as a victim of these sorts of suits for one simple reason: I am forced to pay for this in the form of higher prices, even though I had nothing to do with it. Lawsuits such as these are responsible for far more damage, though: more than one suit has forced a business to close, causing unecessary hardship for the innocent employees.
When you read the complaint, you’ll find just a few absurdities. Here’s one, “Said sandwich wrap was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption” for containing an olive pit.
Hmm.
If I’m not mistaken, the pit is an integral part of an olive. Haven't we been eating olives for a while, like a few thousand years? I can’t recall any instance of anyone swallowing an olive pit that resulted in more than surprise, at least among anyone I know. How about you?
So that claim of unwholesomeness seems to be contrived. In fact, a whole olive contains a pit, so wouldn't an olive with a pit be considered "wholesome" as it contains all of its parts? Sometimes I think I missed my calling...
Reading further in the complaint, we are informed that the olive pit in question is a “Dangerous Substance.”
Hmm, again. Maybe the opening snark wasn’t so far off the mark after all.
Let’s see if I have this right. An olive pit is a dangerous substance? How? If you eat one, do you die? That would certainly qualify as dangerous to most people.
As for suffering “serious and permanent injuries” as Kucinich claims to have suffered, what was the nature of these injuries? Were they so serious as to prevent him from going to work? Were they so serious as to prevent him from, oh say, running for President after the incident? No?
Hmmm once more.
In addition, doesn’t Mr. Kucinich have a pretty good medical and dental plan as a member of Congress? Better than you and I have access to?
Confronted with such outrageous claims about the dangers of an olive pit, one is left to wonder: have we gone batshit crazy?
In a sane world, a judge would throw out this case and have Kucinich arrested for contempt of court for wasting time and tax money on something that has happened many times to many others without harm. If this is what goes on in an American court of law, we are indeed well screwed.
This is an excellent example of the twisting of truth. There is nothing in this case that should be considered in court. It’s also a good reason for this Congress to pass a bill making these types of cases illegal. We can fix this mess. The question is how we got into it in the first place. I don’t remember telling my representative that I wanted this type of legal abuse going on in court.
The judge in this case has a unique opportunity to throw this case out and in doing so, restore a measure of sanity to our court system. The cafeteria’s defense lawyer also has a chance to poke some serious holes in this case. If it were my business that was the victim of this kind of frivolous lawsuit, I’d countersue.
Folks, this nonsense has to stop. It should stop here.
It’s a sad statement when we have a Representative in Washington who feels the need to sue someone because can’t chew his food properly.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Conservative Candidate for 2012 - Mr. Issues, Part III
or, the final installment of The Post That Wouldn't Die. Continued from yesterday...
The next issue that needs to be addressed is our national energy policy.
Currently, it’s “NO!” No, we can’t drill for our own oil, despite years of politicians claiming to want to rid us of our dependence on foreign oil. No, we can’t build any new nuclear plants, when other countries such as France are relying increasingly on nuclear power. No, we can’t build new infrastructure to meet the needs of our growing population. No, we can’t grow our own food because we can’t water our crops due to some insignificant fish.
This must change. We must elect a president who will be willing to take a good, hard look at our energy policies with an eye towards repealing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. While we’re at it, we should also look at repealing the Endangered Species Act, too.
Before coffee comes out your nose from incredulity, understand that the goals of having clean air and water were accomplished years ago. Our water and air are much cleaner today than they were forty years ago. You will no doubt notice the absence of flaming rivers in the news. This responsibility can now be shifted onto the individual states, where they can be managed more efficiently.
Today’s environmental movement has become the home of radical leftist, anti-capitalists whose goal is the elimination of our free market system, to be replaced with some flavor of Marxism, Socialism, Communism, or perhaps a hybrid of these methods of failed societal control. It’s all been tried before; it has all failed in spectacular fashion before. It’s time for us to reexamine the role that these unelected groups have in preventing us from utilizing our rich natural resources and stop their efforts cold. It’s happening all over.
I’m sure all of you have heard local stories about this or that environmental group filing a lawsuit to prevent this or that project. A road, a bridge, an oil refinery, a nuclear power or coal plant, the specifics aren’t as important as the overall goal of stopping real, tangible progress. These groups have as their agenda the crippling of our ability to increase our energy supplies in every way possible. They were handed this ability with the passage of the aforementioned Acts.
We’ve been told a lie for so many years about our environment, that some people still believe that we’re poisoning the planet and that somehow, mankind has the ability to alter the very climate of an entire world. Even more preposterous is the idea that we can somehow “save the planet.” How can this be true, after forty years of more and more environmental laws, regulations, and departments? Have our efforts so far proved useless, that we need even more laws? Is nothing enough?
This is the stuff of fiction, folks. And it’s time someone told you so. Moreover, we need a president who understands this simple truth.
It’s a sad fact that many of our elected officials have blindly believed in this fairy tale, even going so far as to enact legislation built on its flimsy suppositions and wildly inaccurate predictions. When they should have been far more inquisitive before introducing these bills based on such dubious (and, as we know today, falsified) data, they forged ahead bravely, thinking they were at the forefront of Something Important, when in fact, they were being used by our domestic enemies.
Witness the witlessness of the effort to ban Di-hydrogen Monoxide. An equal amount of intellectual heavy lifting has gone into most environmental bills. And we’re paying an unnecessarily high price for allowing our elected officials to get away with enacting such laws. What they should be doing is getting out of their offices and getting some first-hand knowledge of the laws that they’re proposing, asking questions, and gathering information from those Americans with actual experience with an issue, not some special interest groups’ well-rehearsed spokespeople. The president could do this on his own as an example to the rest of those in Washington whom we send to act in our stead.
Onward to National Security.
Ronaldus Magnus (aka Ronald Reagan) had the right idea when he proposed his “Star Wars” defense shield. The years since have seen great technological advancements that can make this a reality. His idea for an impenetrable defense to shield us from attack should be made the highest priority. This should be combined with a policy of not being the police officer for the world.
Imagine the possibility of living without the threat of a nuclear missile destroying New York for a just a second. Since the majority of us have lived with this thought lurking in the back of our consciousness since childhood, we should grab this chance and hold it firmly in our national grasp. We should pursue a missile shield, so that we might live in true peace.
This would require a president who wants what Americans want. Our current president has embraced our sworn enemies, bowed to them and abandoned our stalwart friends. We don’t wish to impose our will upon anyone else, except perhaps to show them the benefits and blessings of freedom. In this effort, we should be willing, when asked, to help other nations craft a course that we have successfully navigated. Failing that invitation, we should mind our own national affairs. We have plenty here to keep us busy.
When they considered a national symbol for America, our Founders thought a rattlesnake would prove worthy. This creature lives a solitary life, hunting and eating rodents. It strikes in self-defense, only when provoked. “Don’t Tread on Me.”
We are entering a new era in the American Experiment. Quietly and stealthily, our enemies have amassed. Cloaked in respectability and importance, these enemies have taken positions of power within our very own institutions. However, they are today being exposed, for they can no longer disguise their true intentions. We have seen them operate, using deception and rhetoric before their constituents, then retreating to the halls of Congress to accomplish their nefarious agendas. Massive bills passed in the dead of night, without being openly considered and honestly debated, are the methods by which these enemies work their plans. Are you aware that there are proud Socialists in our own Congress? The mere fact that they define themselves as anything other than Americans should tell you there is something wrong in Washington, something very disturbing. Never doubt their seriousness and sincerity about their intentions. For too long, we have dismissed political rhetoric as mere posturing. We continue this at our peril. Our enemies are committed, as we must be in our vigilance and determination to root them out.
Those who describe themselves as “progressives” have in mind not progress, no, not the progress that our Founders envisioned of a nation of freemen, conducting their affairs in private, with honor, truthfulness, and a shared sense of community with their fellow citizens. Theirs is instead a world of control over the citizens of America, lording over each and every action of a people who should, by all rights, be free from their meddling, as our Founders intended. These “progressives” have no faith in their brothers nor in the concept of freedom, nor in the bedrock of our society as laid out in our Constitution. They seek to twist and distort the plain meaning of our supreme law, claiming that it somehow means something other than what it says. You will know them by their actions. Are these self-proclaimed progressives promoting freedom and liberty by removing barriers, or imposing more laws and regulations on us? The truth is plain to see, you need only know what to look for.
Indeed, the issues are what we should be focusing on. We need an articulate candidate who will craft his or her message around these issues.
The sooner, the better for America.
The next issue that needs to be addressed is our national energy policy.
Currently, it’s “NO!” No, we can’t drill for our own oil, despite years of politicians claiming to want to rid us of our dependence on foreign oil. No, we can’t build any new nuclear plants, when other countries such as France are relying increasingly on nuclear power. No, we can’t build new infrastructure to meet the needs of our growing population. No, we can’t grow our own food because we can’t water our crops due to some insignificant fish.
This must change. We must elect a president who will be willing to take a good, hard look at our energy policies with an eye towards repealing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. While we’re at it, we should also look at repealing the Endangered Species Act, too.
Before coffee comes out your nose from incredulity, understand that the goals of having clean air and water were accomplished years ago. Our water and air are much cleaner today than they were forty years ago. You will no doubt notice the absence of flaming rivers in the news. This responsibility can now be shifted onto the individual states, where they can be managed more efficiently.
Today’s environmental movement has become the home of radical leftist, anti-capitalists whose goal is the elimination of our free market system, to be replaced with some flavor of Marxism, Socialism, Communism, or perhaps a hybrid of these methods of failed societal control. It’s all been tried before; it has all failed in spectacular fashion before. It’s time for us to reexamine the role that these unelected groups have in preventing us from utilizing our rich natural resources and stop their efforts cold. It’s happening all over.
I’m sure all of you have heard local stories about this or that environmental group filing a lawsuit to prevent this or that project. A road, a bridge, an oil refinery, a nuclear power or coal plant, the specifics aren’t as important as the overall goal of stopping real, tangible progress. These groups have as their agenda the crippling of our ability to increase our energy supplies in every way possible. They were handed this ability with the passage of the aforementioned Acts.
We’ve been told a lie for so many years about our environment, that some people still believe that we’re poisoning the planet and that somehow, mankind has the ability to alter the very climate of an entire world. Even more preposterous is the idea that we can somehow “save the planet.” How can this be true, after forty years of more and more environmental laws, regulations, and departments? Have our efforts so far proved useless, that we need even more laws? Is nothing enough?
This is the stuff of fiction, folks. And it’s time someone told you so. Moreover, we need a president who understands this simple truth.
It’s a sad fact that many of our elected officials have blindly believed in this fairy tale, even going so far as to enact legislation built on its flimsy suppositions and wildly inaccurate predictions. When they should have been far more inquisitive before introducing these bills based on such dubious (and, as we know today, falsified) data, they forged ahead bravely, thinking they were at the forefront of Something Important, when in fact, they were being used by our domestic enemies.
Witness the witlessness of the effort to ban Di-hydrogen Monoxide. An equal amount of intellectual heavy lifting has gone into most environmental bills. And we’re paying an unnecessarily high price for allowing our elected officials to get away with enacting such laws. What they should be doing is getting out of their offices and getting some first-hand knowledge of the laws that they’re proposing, asking questions, and gathering information from those Americans with actual experience with an issue, not some special interest groups’ well-rehearsed spokespeople. The president could do this on his own as an example to the rest of those in Washington whom we send to act in our stead.
Onward to National Security.
Ronaldus Magnus (aka Ronald Reagan) had the right idea when he proposed his “Star Wars” defense shield. The years since have seen great technological advancements that can make this a reality. His idea for an impenetrable defense to shield us from attack should be made the highest priority. This should be combined with a policy of not being the police officer for the world.
Imagine the possibility of living without the threat of a nuclear missile destroying New York for a just a second. Since the majority of us have lived with this thought lurking in the back of our consciousness since childhood, we should grab this chance and hold it firmly in our national grasp. We should pursue a missile shield, so that we might live in true peace.
This would require a president who wants what Americans want. Our current president has embraced our sworn enemies, bowed to them and abandoned our stalwart friends. We don’t wish to impose our will upon anyone else, except perhaps to show them the benefits and blessings of freedom. In this effort, we should be willing, when asked, to help other nations craft a course that we have successfully navigated. Failing that invitation, we should mind our own national affairs. We have plenty here to keep us busy.
When they considered a national symbol for America, our Founders thought a rattlesnake would prove worthy. This creature lives a solitary life, hunting and eating rodents. It strikes in self-defense, only when provoked. “Don’t Tread on Me.”
We are entering a new era in the American Experiment. Quietly and stealthily, our enemies have amassed. Cloaked in respectability and importance, these enemies have taken positions of power within our very own institutions. However, they are today being exposed, for they can no longer disguise their true intentions. We have seen them operate, using deception and rhetoric before their constituents, then retreating to the halls of Congress to accomplish their nefarious agendas. Massive bills passed in the dead of night, without being openly considered and honestly debated, are the methods by which these enemies work their plans. Are you aware that there are proud Socialists in our own Congress? The mere fact that they define themselves as anything other than Americans should tell you there is something wrong in Washington, something very disturbing. Never doubt their seriousness and sincerity about their intentions. For too long, we have dismissed political rhetoric as mere posturing. We continue this at our peril. Our enemies are committed, as we must be in our vigilance and determination to root them out.
Those who describe themselves as “progressives” have in mind not progress, no, not the progress that our Founders envisioned of a nation of freemen, conducting their affairs in private, with honor, truthfulness, and a shared sense of community with their fellow citizens. Theirs is instead a world of control over the citizens of America, lording over each and every action of a people who should, by all rights, be free from their meddling, as our Founders intended. These “progressives” have no faith in their brothers nor in the concept of freedom, nor in the bedrock of our society as laid out in our Constitution. They seek to twist and distort the plain meaning of our supreme law, claiming that it somehow means something other than what it says. You will know them by their actions. Are these self-proclaimed progressives promoting freedom and liberty by removing barriers, or imposing more laws and regulations on us? The truth is plain to see, you need only know what to look for.
Indeed, the issues are what we should be focusing on. We need an articulate candidate who will craft his or her message around these issues.
The sooner, the better for America.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Conservative Candidate for 2012 - Mr. Issues, Part II
Continued from yesterday's post.
I’ll start with the economy.
Recent polls have shown that 1 of every 2 of us know someone who’s been out of work for a year or more. I personally know several friends who have been unemployed for much longer, have lost their homes and have been forced to move back in with relatives in mid-life. Clearly, we need to get our economy going again. However, despite the promises of a laser-like focus on jobs and the economy, this administration has concentrated instead on forcing unpopular programs on an unwilling country. But you knew that already.
The question is where to begin. Well, since we are a capitalist, center-right country, shouldn't we elect a capitalist, center-right president? Shirley, there must be someone willing to run that has some experience in the private sector, who understands how it operates, and how government has strangled it by imposing an unprecedented number of new rules and regulations upon it. The current administration has dismissed completely the role that the private sector plays in the economy. This gives me an opportunity to run my favorite cartoon by Michael Ramirez…
For example, in the disguise of healthcare reform came a requirement for businesses to file a 1099 form for all vendor transactions over $600. Think about that for a moment. Most businesses deal in tens of thousands of dollars or more monthly. This single provision adds an unnecessary burden on these businesses already scouring their profit and loss sheets for every penny. One should ask why this was considered necessary at all.
However, that wasn’t all the damage contained in the ObamaCare bill. We have (or once had) a private-sector method to administer health care insurance. The ObamaCare bill was designed to destroy it. Granted, there were some flaws in the system that needed to be addressed, but what was needed could have been done with common sense reforms designed to remedy those flaws, such as tort reform to eliminate the added costs of frivolous lawsuits and to allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, much like auto insurance companies. What was not needed was a complete takeover of the industry by Washington.
Even now, progressives in Congress are wildly claiming that repeal of this awful piece of legislation will result in the needless deaths of Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Political grandstanding such as this serves no purpose, other than to confuse voters so unscrupulous politicians can retain their power. Recall that throughout the too-short debate on the ObamaCare bill, health insurance companies and doctors were treated as some sort of out-of-control Frankenstein monster, terrorizing local villages, lopping off legs in some greedy rampage, when the truth is that those insurance companies operate at a five-per-cent profit margin and employ your neighbors and friends.
We need healthcare. We can administer it through the private sector, where Americans can perform a needed service to their fellow citizens, constantly on the lookout for better ways to do their jobs and make some money, or we can do it through government (and a union as an added bonus layer of lazy bureaucracy and inefficiency, strikes, etc.). Someone gets paid either way. The question then becomes which one is more efficient. If you’ve ever been to your local Department of Motor Vehicles, I think you know the answer. The last thing any of us want is that level of customer service when it comes to our medical needs. However, that's what progressives wanted, the destruction of the worlds best medical system, replaced with a socialized system that is well-known for needless deaths and long waits for essential procedures. Brilliant!
Having a capitalist president in the wheelhouse will enable us to use our free market economy in a way that benefits the public instead of draining it its resources. While there are things that only government can do, such as provide a standing military for national defense, there are plenty of opportunities for the private sector to step in to provide needed services at a reduced cost.
Mr. Issues will also begin to address the direction in which our economy can move to provide a richness of diversity in the job market.
It is indeed curious that considering how much the mantra of “diversity” has been bandied about in recent years, we’ve managed to reduce the number of job opportunities available to us. While there’s nothing wrong with a college degree, there are many Americans who draw a great deal of satisfaction in working with their hands. I count myself among them. Manufacturing provides good paying job opportunities for people of various skill levels, from fabrication, to machining, to quality control, to finishing, to shipping. Some of these positions require more education than others, but the point is that a college degree is not required for all of them. Apprenticeships are just as valuable, even moreso since the student gets paid to learn. What's not to like?
The passage of NAFTA was to herald a move towards a service economy. How has that worked out for us so far? Why was that move necessary to begin with? Somewhere along the way, we managed to move away from our manufacturing economy, where downturns were far less disruptive, to one based more upon disposable income, which is more volatile and prone to fluctuations. This is another area where a capitalist president could calm the waters, so to speak, not walk on them.
A president with real working experience would steer the country back towards a manufacturing based economy. We’ve seen the rapid rise of China’s economy, fueled by manufacturing. While there are some naysayers who complain that American workers command a too-high wage, we need look no further than Germany, who has maintained their level of worker pay while increasing their exports. They are currently leading Europe’s exit from the worldwide recession.
There is no reason why Americans shouldn’t be making American products. We have the world’s largest economy, we’re dumb not to take advantage of it. There was and is no excuse for other countries to flourish at our expense. Mr. Issues would also propose a national “right-to-work” law and allow the free market to do its stuff. In the Internet Age, it wouldn’t take long for folks to find out which company has the best compensation plans. Good companies would attract good employees as a matter of course. Bad companies would wither away, as they should, and have in the past, before It Was Decided that certain companies (populated with union workers) were Too Big To Fail.
To be continued tomorrow., same time, same place.
I’ll start with the economy.
Recent polls have shown that 1 of every 2 of us know someone who’s been out of work for a year or more. I personally know several friends who have been unemployed for much longer, have lost their homes and have been forced to move back in with relatives in mid-life. Clearly, we need to get our economy going again. However, despite the promises of a laser-like focus on jobs and the economy, this administration has concentrated instead on forcing unpopular programs on an unwilling country. But you knew that already.
The question is where to begin. Well, since we are a capitalist, center-right country, shouldn't we elect a capitalist, center-right president? Shirley, there must be someone willing to run that has some experience in the private sector, who understands how it operates, and how government has strangled it by imposing an unprecedented number of new rules and regulations upon it. The current administration has dismissed completely the role that the private sector plays in the economy. This gives me an opportunity to run my favorite cartoon by Michael Ramirez…
For example, in the disguise of healthcare reform came a requirement for businesses to file a 1099 form for all vendor transactions over $600. Think about that for a moment. Most businesses deal in tens of thousands of dollars or more monthly. This single provision adds an unnecessary burden on these businesses already scouring their profit and loss sheets for every penny. One should ask why this was considered necessary at all.
However, that wasn’t all the damage contained in the ObamaCare bill. We have (or once had) a private-sector method to administer health care insurance. The ObamaCare bill was designed to destroy it. Granted, there were some flaws in the system that needed to be addressed, but what was needed could have been done with common sense reforms designed to remedy those flaws, such as tort reform to eliminate the added costs of frivolous lawsuits and to allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, much like auto insurance companies. What was not needed was a complete takeover of the industry by Washington.
Even now, progressives in Congress are wildly claiming that repeal of this awful piece of legislation will result in the needless deaths of Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Political grandstanding such as this serves no purpose, other than to confuse voters so unscrupulous politicians can retain their power. Recall that throughout the too-short debate on the ObamaCare bill, health insurance companies and doctors were treated as some sort of out-of-control Frankenstein monster, terrorizing local villages, lopping off legs in some greedy rampage, when the truth is that those insurance companies operate at a five-per-cent profit margin and employ your neighbors and friends.
We need healthcare. We can administer it through the private sector, where Americans can perform a needed service to their fellow citizens, constantly on the lookout for better ways to do their jobs and make some money, or we can do it through government (and a union as an added bonus layer of lazy bureaucracy and inefficiency, strikes, etc.). Someone gets paid either way. The question then becomes which one is more efficient. If you’ve ever been to your local Department of Motor Vehicles, I think you know the answer. The last thing any of us want is that level of customer service when it comes to our medical needs. However, that's what progressives wanted, the destruction of the worlds best medical system, replaced with a socialized system that is well-known for needless deaths and long waits for essential procedures. Brilliant!
Having a capitalist president in the wheelhouse will enable us to use our free market economy in a way that benefits the public instead of draining it its resources. While there are things that only government can do, such as provide a standing military for national defense, there are plenty of opportunities for the private sector to step in to provide needed services at a reduced cost.
Mr. Issues will also begin to address the direction in which our economy can move to provide a richness of diversity in the job market.
It is indeed curious that considering how much the mantra of “diversity” has been bandied about in recent years, we’ve managed to reduce the number of job opportunities available to us. While there’s nothing wrong with a college degree, there are many Americans who draw a great deal of satisfaction in working with their hands. I count myself among them. Manufacturing provides good paying job opportunities for people of various skill levels, from fabrication, to machining, to quality control, to finishing, to shipping. Some of these positions require more education than others, but the point is that a college degree is not required for all of them. Apprenticeships are just as valuable, even moreso since the student gets paid to learn. What's not to like?
The passage of NAFTA was to herald a move towards a service economy. How has that worked out for us so far? Why was that move necessary to begin with? Somewhere along the way, we managed to move away from our manufacturing economy, where downturns were far less disruptive, to one based more upon disposable income, which is more volatile and prone to fluctuations. This is another area where a capitalist president could calm the waters, so to speak, not walk on them.
A president with real working experience would steer the country back towards a manufacturing based economy. We’ve seen the rapid rise of China’s economy, fueled by manufacturing. While there are some naysayers who complain that American workers command a too-high wage, we need look no further than Germany, who has maintained their level of worker pay while increasing their exports. They are currently leading Europe’s exit from the worldwide recession.
There is no reason why Americans shouldn’t be making American products. We have the world’s largest economy, we’re dumb not to take advantage of it. There was and is no excuse for other countries to flourish at our expense. Mr. Issues would also propose a national “right-to-work” law and allow the free market to do its stuff. In the Internet Age, it wouldn’t take long for folks to find out which company has the best compensation plans. Good companies would attract good employees as a matter of course. Bad companies would wither away, as they should, and have in the past, before It Was Decided that certain companies (populated with union workers) were Too Big To Fail.
To be continued tomorrow., same time, same place.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Conservative Candidate for 2012 – Mr. Issues
Warning, warning, Will Robinson! My sensors have detected a long post ahead!
Since President Obama has unofficially kicked off his reelection campaign for 2012, it’s time for us conservatives to begin to plan our strategy.
In our oblivious past, we’ve considered our presidential candidates based on superficial qualities, such as who has the better appearance, or speaking voice or the best suit-and-tie combination (or pantsuit). Much like the Queen of the Prom, we’ve chosen our president based on who we thought would look good standing next to us for the prom picture, rather than who would be best qualified to set our national agenda.
Much of this tendency had to do with our belief that whomever we elected would automatically do what was in our best national interests. However, the election of Barack Obama has shown us the error of this presumption, good and hard.
Hope and Change proved to be the ultimate in political superficiality.
Such gauzy platitudes only disguised a leftward lurch the likes of which we’ve never before experienced, at least in my lifetime. Most of us who weren’t paying attention, the 52% of the public that voted for Obama, have reached the grim realization that we’ve been had. Behind the classic columns and soaring rhetoric lurked a most decidedly anti-American dedication to Big Government. Takeovers of General Motors and Chrysler, the college loan system, Wall Street and health care caught the nation by surprise. Aided and encouraged by the worst leaders in congressional history, president Obama set a course toward European-style Socialism that has proven to be an unparalleled disaster for our country.
We are now suffering from record high unemployment, record numbers of Americans on food stamps, record numbers of Americans living in poverty, millions of homes in foreclosure and more on the way, the spectre of mass businesses foreclosures following suit and more, all as the result of the American ship of state listing hard to port.
By every measure, we’ve failed ourselves in spectacular fashion. It seemed like we had to have our generational fling with Socialism. Now, it’s the morning after, and all that’s left is a hastily scribbled note on the nightstand containing a promise to call, a fifty-dollar bill next to it, and a severe headache.
And some soreness...
But all is not lost. November’s mid-term elections showed that we’ve finally had enough of this nonsense. We voted for a course change back to our original destination.
We’re not fully back on course yet, which is why the 2012 presidential election is so important. The political winds have shifted, making our course correction a bit easier. Americans who stated their political affiliation are fleeing the Democrat Party in numbers not seen in recent history.
However, the lefts’ willing accomplice, the Mainstream Media Machine, is already on the job. Candidates are being propped up in front of the electorate in their attempt to get Republicans to nominate the weakest opponent possible for Obama, thus insuring a four-year delay in reaching our national port-of-call.
I’m going out on the yardarm here to suggest a different tack. Let’s look a bit deeper at what needs to be done and then pick a candidate that best understands the navigational charts and who can at least avoid the icebergs. Our current captain can’t even read the compass.
In other words, we need to establish what needs to be done, and then find the best person to do it. We need no longer pick the lesser of two evils. We have an opportunity that we haven’t had in recent election cycles to nominate a true conservative for president.
We already have a good idea, given that we’ve experienced two years of what not to do. Actually, if you count the takeover of Congress by progressive Democrats in 2007, we’ve had four years of misdirection and disaster. You could easily say, “Oh, well, just do the opposite of what’s been done the last four years and we’ll be on our way.” Um, that’s the old way of thinking. We need to not only undo the damage done by the worst congress in history, we need to state in no uncertain terms what needs to be done, then set about to find someone do it.
A checklist, if you will, for a potential candidate to fill out.
We need to say, "Here's what we want done. Will you do it?" If not, then on to the next one until we find a presidential candidate who has a clear vision of the future for America and will know what is expected of him or her.
No bullshit, no excuses, no vagarities, no confusion.
Just a straight-up, "yes or no" on a national agenda that puts Americans first.
To be continued tomorrow...
Friday, January 21, 2011
Friday Bits of Tid, Don Kirshner Edition
A giant of the American music industry passed away this week. Don Kirshner, known as "The Man with the Golden Ear" died on Tuesday.
Kirshner was instrumental (pardon the pun) in bringing new talent to an American market full of baby boomers. His first gig was co-writing a song with Bobby Darin. He would later create the Monkees and the Archies. In 1972 he would be hired as executive producer for the television series "In Concert", which would morph into "Don Kirshner's Rock Concert." This show was notable for its departure from the standard for televised music acts where artists lip-synched their performances to pre-recorded songs. For Rock Concert, a live performance was captured on tape in front of an audience.
You know such stars as Neil Diamond, Carol King, LaBelle, Kansas, Billy Joel, and The Police because of him.
He will be sorely missed.
I've put together a few videos for you that will give you a small sample of Kirshner's influence on American music. From bubble-gum, to ballads, from funk and soul to early death metal, his ear for new talent seemed endless. No genre was left untouched by his influence.
Here we go. Also bear in mind that television recording technology using tape was in its' infancy at that time, hence the lack of synchronization between the audio and the video in some of these clips. They're still fun to watch.
Starting at the beginning of the alphabet, here's ABBA
Here's a batless Ozzy with Black Sabbath
This is an anorexic Wizard and True Star, Todd Rundgren with the first incarnation of Utopia.
Steve Miller unplugged. By the way, Steve, what exactly is a "pompetus?"
Mark, Don, and Mel, AKA Grand Funk Railroad
Here's the man hisself introducing The Ramones
I'm not sure this hybrid of the James Gang and T-Rex was ever seen again after this performance
And lastly, success breeds imitation
Rest in Peace, Don.
Kirshner was instrumental (pardon the pun) in bringing new talent to an American market full of baby boomers. His first gig was co-writing a song with Bobby Darin. He would later create the Monkees and the Archies. In 1972 he would be hired as executive producer for the television series "In Concert", which would morph into "Don Kirshner's Rock Concert." This show was notable for its departure from the standard for televised music acts where artists lip-synched their performances to pre-recorded songs. For Rock Concert, a live performance was captured on tape in front of an audience.
You know such stars as Neil Diamond, Carol King, LaBelle, Kansas, Billy Joel, and The Police because of him.
He will be sorely missed.
I've put together a few videos for you that will give you a small sample of Kirshner's influence on American music. From bubble-gum, to ballads, from funk and soul to early death metal, his ear for new talent seemed endless. No genre was left untouched by his influence.
Here we go. Also bear in mind that television recording technology using tape was in its' infancy at that time, hence the lack of synchronization between the audio and the video in some of these clips. They're still fun to watch.
Starting at the beginning of the alphabet, here's ABBA
Here's a batless Ozzy with Black Sabbath
This is an anorexic Wizard and True Star, Todd Rundgren with the first incarnation of Utopia.
Steve Miller unplugged. By the way, Steve, what exactly is a "pompetus?"
Mark, Don, and Mel, AKA Grand Funk Railroad
Here's the man hisself introducing The Ramones
I'm not sure this hybrid of the James Gang and T-Rex was ever seen again after this performance
And lastly, success breeds imitation
Rest in Peace, Don.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Progs Want to Punish the Whole Class for One Student’s Behavior
There is a curious trait amongst the adherents of leftist political beliefs that I have yet to fully understand: it’s the overwhelming urge to punish everyone for the acts of a single individual.
Let’s hop in the Way Back Machine where we’ll be transported to a certain middle school in a certain state. The location isn’t important so much as the actions of a certain teacher who was universally reviled by her students. She was known as “The Bitch” instead of her given name. A certain Boy was soon to find out how she earned her name.
As you all know from experience, there are always students who like to be the center of the class’s attention for the wrong reasons. The Cut-Ups and the Class Clowns are a part of every school. They are normally sent to the Principal’s Office for discipline, calm is restored, and class eventually proceeds.
“The Bitch” was different.
This particular teacher was known to punish an entire class by keeping them all after school just because one student chose to disrupt her class. This wonderful lesson in the misuse and abuse of power led to near-universal condemnation of her among the students and silence from school administrators. And for good reason: there is absolutely no reason to punish someone for the actions of someone else.
Period.
That is just about the quickest way I can think of to instill hatred for authority in an impressionable youngster. Yet this fact seems to have been lost on the school administration that refused to scold this teacher for actions unbecoming.
And standing up to this kind of abuse of authority is the quickest way to earn a trip to the Principal’s office. *shuffles feet and whistles*
I suppose I should clarify my statement to say that there is no quicker way to instill hatred for authoritarianism, because that’s what it really is. There is a fine line separating the two, and a world of difference between the two philosophies.
Maybe it was dear old Mom who showed me the difference early on. Her favorite reason for me to do anything was, “Because I said so.” It made little difference what she ordered, nor how little sense it made, it was clear that I was to act as told because she was in charge.
She was also batshit crazy.
I was fortunate enough, though, to have also been exposed to the respectful type of authority through a military school where respect was commanded instead of demanded. This good kind of authority was instantly recognizable as good without any type of coercion. Respect was also mutual, without the denigration that comes with authoritarianism. As I mentioned, worlds apart.
Through the years, I’ve noticed that this tendency to punish everyone for the actions of a few (or one), comes from a deep desire to control people, a desire that isn’t normal. We’ve all known “control freaks:” if they can’t control you, they freak out. In case you haven’t noticed yet, the political left in America is composed primarily of such control freaks. This is evident in their knee-jerk reaction in the wake of the tragic Giffords shooting to introduce more laws restricting our constitutionally guaranteed right to possess firearms. This effort comes exclusively from progressives.
Those of us on the right side of the aisle recognize the necessity of maintaining the maximum freedom for the people and therefore reject the left’s assertion that we need to punish everyone in America for the actions of a lone disturbed gunman. We do not need any more laws restricting our right to keep and bear arms. What we need is swift and sure punishment for those who violate our laws.
Wasn’t that easy to understand? Then why is it that radical, leftist, progressives can’t get it?
As I said, I don’t get why they don’t get it, unless they really don’t want us to be free…
Let’s hop in the Way Back Machine where we’ll be transported to a certain middle school in a certain state. The location isn’t important so much as the actions of a certain teacher who was universally reviled by her students. She was known as “The Bitch” instead of her given name. A certain Boy was soon to find out how she earned her name.
As you all know from experience, there are always students who like to be the center of the class’s attention for the wrong reasons. The Cut-Ups and the Class Clowns are a part of every school. They are normally sent to the Principal’s Office for discipline, calm is restored, and class eventually proceeds.
“The Bitch” was different.
This particular teacher was known to punish an entire class by keeping them all after school just because one student chose to disrupt her class. This wonderful lesson in the misuse and abuse of power led to near-universal condemnation of her among the students and silence from school administrators. And for good reason: there is absolutely no reason to punish someone for the actions of someone else.
Period.
That is just about the quickest way I can think of to instill hatred for authority in an impressionable youngster. Yet this fact seems to have been lost on the school administration that refused to scold this teacher for actions unbecoming.
And standing up to this kind of abuse of authority is the quickest way to earn a trip to the Principal’s office. *shuffles feet and whistles*
I suppose I should clarify my statement to say that there is no quicker way to instill hatred for authoritarianism, because that’s what it really is. There is a fine line separating the two, and a world of difference between the two philosophies.
Maybe it was dear old Mom who showed me the difference early on. Her favorite reason for me to do anything was, “Because I said so.” It made little difference what she ordered, nor how little sense it made, it was clear that I was to act as told because she was in charge.
She was also batshit crazy.
I was fortunate enough, though, to have also been exposed to the respectful type of authority through a military school where respect was commanded instead of demanded. This good kind of authority was instantly recognizable as good without any type of coercion. Respect was also mutual, without the denigration that comes with authoritarianism. As I mentioned, worlds apart.
Through the years, I’ve noticed that this tendency to punish everyone for the actions of a few (or one), comes from a deep desire to control people, a desire that isn’t normal. We’ve all known “control freaks:” if they can’t control you, they freak out. In case you haven’t noticed yet, the political left in America is composed primarily of such control freaks. This is evident in their knee-jerk reaction in the wake of the tragic Giffords shooting to introduce more laws restricting our constitutionally guaranteed right to possess firearms. This effort comes exclusively from progressives.
Those of us on the right side of the aisle recognize the necessity of maintaining the maximum freedom for the people and therefore reject the left’s assertion that we need to punish everyone in America for the actions of a lone disturbed gunman. We do not need any more laws restricting our right to keep and bear arms. What we need is swift and sure punishment for those who violate our laws.
Wasn’t that easy to understand? Then why is it that radical, leftist, progressives can’t get it?
As I said, I don’t get why they don’t get it, unless they really don’t want us to be free…
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Starving the Federal Beast - Where and How to Begin
While perusing the Interwebs this morning, I ran across two articles I'd like to bring to your attention. The first post is from Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, the chairman and president of Freedomworks, What Congress Should Cut over at WSJ Online. The second post comes from Chris Gacek at Fox News.com entitled How Conservatives Can Limit the Scope and Size of Government.
There can be no doubt that the Federal government has grown out of control. For a long while, the costs of compliance incurred by private sector business was passed along to the consumer, meaning you and I. However, the market can only bear so much. Today's profit margins are so slim that we are in real danger of legislating ourselves out of the market altogether, as a growing bureaucracy threatens to suck the remaining life from our economy.
We are just now awakening to the negative effects of too much government intrusion into our economy. Last Novembers' elections were the first grumpy responses to the alarm clock. We've been hitting the snooze button for a generation. While we search for the coffee cup in our national quest to fully wake up, we need to start looking at what to do to get an increasingly nosey government out of our business.
Of course, we could start just about anywhere. Four years of prog control of Congress now has us facing the dim prospect of high unemployment and a stagnant economy for the next ten years or so. This need not happen. Common sense tells us that the best solution is to get the economy going again. Any effort to reduce the intrusion of government will reap rewards in the marketplace.
Armey and Kibbe give us a good place to start. Their first proposal is to immediately return to spending levels prior to the 2007 takeover of Congress by Nancy Pelosi and her Merry Band of Economy Killers. This move would save us $374B. Repealing the individual mandate of ObamaCare would result in an additional $252B. Just two simple moves to reverse the damage of Pelosi's Reign of Progressive Economic Terror saves us over half a trillion dollars.
A trillion here and a trillion there, soon we're talking real money.
Gacek takes a more legalistic look at what will be required to pare our oversized government back down to a manageable size. His premise (and I truly hope this Chris is a he-Chris, if not, my apologies in advance) is to cut the head of the snake by repealing the laws that power government agencies such as the Department of Education,
My personal favorites would be the repeal of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Now, before the radical environmentalists start screeching that I want us all to breathe dirty air and drink dirty water, I'll tell you that these are responsibilities best left to the individual states, not Washington. Common sense, folks, common sense.
I'm sure that you, gentle readers, can come up with a few agencies that you would like to see dismantled. In fact, this would be a fun game at your next cocktail party or family picnic. Try to find one tangible benefit that comes from a large government program. Naturally, you'll need to exclude any lawyers from that game due to the obvious conflict of interest.
I'll even help get you started. Why and in what way is the ban on incandescent light bulbs directly making your life better? Is it the higher cost of CFL bulbs? The eight pages of directions for safely disposing of a broken CFL bulb? How about the mercury vapor released when one breaks that requires the room be vacated for thirty minutes? What about all the American jobs that were eliminated and are now in China as a result of this ban?
See what fun you can have.
In the mean time, as they say in the blogs, read it all.
There can be no doubt that the Federal government has grown out of control. For a long while, the costs of compliance incurred by private sector business was passed along to the consumer, meaning you and I. However, the market can only bear so much. Today's profit margins are so slim that we are in real danger of legislating ourselves out of the market altogether, as a growing bureaucracy threatens to suck the remaining life from our economy.
We are just now awakening to the negative effects of too much government intrusion into our economy. Last Novembers' elections were the first grumpy responses to the alarm clock. We've been hitting the snooze button for a generation. While we search for the coffee cup in our national quest to fully wake up, we need to start looking at what to do to get an increasingly nosey government out of our business.
Of course, we could start just about anywhere. Four years of prog control of Congress now has us facing the dim prospect of high unemployment and a stagnant economy for the next ten years or so. This need not happen. Common sense tells us that the best solution is to get the economy going again. Any effort to reduce the intrusion of government will reap rewards in the marketplace.
Armey and Kibbe give us a good place to start. Their first proposal is to immediately return to spending levels prior to the 2007 takeover of Congress by Nancy Pelosi and her Merry Band of Economy Killers. This move would save us $374B. Repealing the individual mandate of ObamaCare would result in an additional $252B. Just two simple moves to reverse the damage of Pelosi's Reign of Progressive Economic Terror saves us over half a trillion dollars.
A trillion here and a trillion there, soon we're talking real money.
Gacek takes a more legalistic look at what will be required to pare our oversized government back down to a manageable size. His premise (and I truly hope this Chris is a he-Chris, if not, my apologies in advance) is to cut the head of the snake by repealing the laws that power government agencies such as the Department of Education,
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965); Higher Education Act of 1965; Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975); Equal Access Act (1984); No Child Left Behind Act (2001); the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004); and, Race to the Top (2009). Each one of these laws permits the lawyers amongst those 4,200 DoE employees to write regulations that have the force of law.
My personal favorites would be the repeal of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Now, before the radical environmentalists start screeching that I want us all to breathe dirty air and drink dirty water, I'll tell you that these are responsibilities best left to the individual states, not Washington. Common sense, folks, common sense.
I'm sure that you, gentle readers, can come up with a few agencies that you would like to see dismantled. In fact, this would be a fun game at your next cocktail party or family picnic. Try to find one tangible benefit that comes from a large government program. Naturally, you'll need to exclude any lawyers from that game due to the obvious conflict of interest.
I'll even help get you started. Why and in what way is the ban on incandescent light bulbs directly making your life better? Is it the higher cost of CFL bulbs? The eight pages of directions for safely disposing of a broken CFL bulb? How about the mercury vapor released when one breaks that requires the room be vacated for thirty minutes? What about all the American jobs that were eliminated and are now in China as a result of this ban?
See what fun you can have.
In the mean time, as they say in the blogs, read it all.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Rhetoric vs. Reality: Obama Promises Regulatory Review Just as EPA Shuts Down Mine
In the wake of last November’s shellacking, President Obama has promised a government-wide review of the regulations that are strangling the nations’ economic growth. After two years of unprecedented intrusion by Washington into the private sector, Obama would have us believe that he's had a change of heart and now wants what we conservatives have wanted for years, a realistic reassessment of the negative effects of government regulations upon American businesses.
This is bullshit.
I know it, you know it, and everyone who is currently out of a job knows it. What’s worse is, Obama himself knows it. He has no interest in reviving the private sector. In fact, he is anti-business, as we’ve heard in his speeches. His open hostility toward the private sector and anyone in it is unique in modern times. He has consistently and uniformly criticized the creation of wealth and it’s benefits. He is playing the counterculture drumbeat that began in the ‘60’s.
Obama clearly has no understanding of how our free-market economy works. He has never run a business, in fact, his role as a community organizer was expressly designed to damage businesses. Only 19% of his advisors have any experience in the private sector.
Even his childhood primed him to be hostile to business in any form. His mother was a political radical, as was his mentor, the communist Frank Marshall Davis. All radicals hate business in any form. It’s what makes them part of the counterculture in the first place. They uniformly believe that wealth is evil.
It’s a perversion of the Bible verse, “Love of money is the root of all evil.” Notice it doesn’t say that money itself is the root of evil, the love of it is. What those “revolutionaries” lack is perspective, among other things. In their misguide quest to perfect humanity, they think that if money was eliminated, all of the ills of society would be cured forever. Ask yourself if their previous efforts to solve this problem have produced anything other than untold death and destruction to the society that they claimed to “help.”
But, I digress.
I’m sure you remember the famous conversation between Obama and Joe the Plumber during the campaign. Obama said, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” The absurdity of his comment is evident in the fact that everyone who works receives a paycheck. These “evil corporations” that leftists regard as the devil incarnate do, in fact, spread the wealth around in the form of paychecks and stock. They also pay taxes. Remember that the next time you hear a Nancy Pelosi or a Barney Frank castigate business. This is another manifestation of what I call "progressive political psychosis" where a radical leftist politician demonizes an American institution that it depends on for its' very existence.
While progressive politicians love to point their bony fingers at business, we are somehow supposed to overlook their greed. “Corporate greed” has been supplanted with “government greed.” What is the one characteristic of liberal, “proud progressive” politicians that differentiates them from conservatives? Like knights on a modern-day Crusade, it is their holy quest to raise taxes, taking as much money as possible from business and consumers.
Who are the truly greedy ones again?
The timing of Obama’s claim just happens to coincide with the EPA’s cancellation of a four-year-old mining permit in West Virginia, shutting down a working coalmine, forcing hundreds of Americans out of work and reducing our supply of energy, in keeping with his campaign pledge to make everyone’s utility bills “necessarily skyrocket.” The mining company had dotted all the “i’s” and crossed all the “t’s” according to West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, when the EPA suddenly decided that the company must halt operations.
If President Obama were at all serious about reducing federal regulations, he would start with this incident. He has an opportunity to prove his intentions to the country by making sure that this mine is reopened as soon as possible.
Will his actions match his words? We shall see.
I’m not holding my breath while I wait.
This is bullshit.
I know it, you know it, and everyone who is currently out of a job knows it. What’s worse is, Obama himself knows it. He has no interest in reviving the private sector. In fact, he is anti-business, as we’ve heard in his speeches. His open hostility toward the private sector and anyone in it is unique in modern times. He has consistently and uniformly criticized the creation of wealth and it’s benefits. He is playing the counterculture drumbeat that began in the ‘60’s.
Obama clearly has no understanding of how our free-market economy works. He has never run a business, in fact, his role as a community organizer was expressly designed to damage businesses. Only 19% of his advisors have any experience in the private sector.
Even his childhood primed him to be hostile to business in any form. His mother was a political radical, as was his mentor, the communist Frank Marshall Davis. All radicals hate business in any form. It’s what makes them part of the counterculture in the first place. They uniformly believe that wealth is evil.
It’s a perversion of the Bible verse, “Love of money is the root of all evil.” Notice it doesn’t say that money itself is the root of evil, the love of it is. What those “revolutionaries” lack is perspective, among other things. In their misguide quest to perfect humanity, they think that if money was eliminated, all of the ills of society would be cured forever. Ask yourself if their previous efforts to solve this problem have produced anything other than untold death and destruction to the society that they claimed to “help.”
But, I digress.
I’m sure you remember the famous conversation between Obama and Joe the Plumber during the campaign. Obama said, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” The absurdity of his comment is evident in the fact that everyone who works receives a paycheck. These “evil corporations” that leftists regard as the devil incarnate do, in fact, spread the wealth around in the form of paychecks and stock. They also pay taxes. Remember that the next time you hear a Nancy Pelosi or a Barney Frank castigate business. This is another manifestation of what I call "progressive political psychosis" where a radical leftist politician demonizes an American institution that it depends on for its' very existence.
While progressive politicians love to point their bony fingers at business, we are somehow supposed to overlook their greed. “Corporate greed” has been supplanted with “government greed.” What is the one characteristic of liberal, “proud progressive” politicians that differentiates them from conservatives? Like knights on a modern-day Crusade, it is their holy quest to raise taxes, taking as much money as possible from business and consumers.
Who are the truly greedy ones again?
The timing of Obama’s claim just happens to coincide with the EPA’s cancellation of a four-year-old mining permit in West Virginia, shutting down a working coalmine, forcing hundreds of Americans out of work and reducing our supply of energy, in keeping with his campaign pledge to make everyone’s utility bills “necessarily skyrocket.” The mining company had dotted all the “i’s” and crossed all the “t’s” according to West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, when the EPA suddenly decided that the company must halt operations.
If President Obama were at all serious about reducing federal regulations, he would start with this incident. He has an opportunity to prove his intentions to the country by making sure that this mine is reopened as soon as possible.
Will his actions match his words? We shall see.
I’m not holding my breath while I wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)