Friday, October 31, 2008
Soooooooo-WEEEEEE!
I don't know what worried YOU the most about the bailout, but this was pretty high on my list... the pigs are headed for the trough!
A heartwarming Halloween story
11-year-old fights the power of the nanny-state, brings Halloween back after a 16-year absence.
This is one of those stories that really chaffes my... well you know. There's so much silly paranoia based on perceptions of risk that are totally out of whack with any reality, it's almost impossible to fathom.
Let's review some of the better quotes.
Here's a 15-year-old speaking... frankly, I'd expect a little mroe courage from an Amercian teen.
Fifteen-year-old Braden Craig said: "I have a gut-wrenching feeling something bad's going to happen."
Oh shut up dork... go lock yourself in your bedroom and play your XBox then. Sheesh!
Here's another good one from the Sheriff...
"If this all goes well, that's great, that's fantastic. I long for those days, too. But the world has changed," said Police Chief Robert Wenner, a father of five who was a patrolman when the murder occurred."
Really? It's changed? Wait I don't understand... the murder happened 16-years ago... no one has been murdered since. Is he pining for the days when children were murdered in the streets? I mean I guess he's right, in a way, the world HAS changed. Somehow I don't think he means it the way it sounds.
And then there's this mother, who might very well be insane. Certainly her daughter is likely to suffer major separation anxiety one day in the near future.
Shannon Goodman got a tether to make sure her 2-year-old daughter, who will dress as a witch, doesn't wander off while they go door to door. "It's going to be a lot of fun, but every parent who cares about their kid should have that fear," she said.
Every parent should have what fear? That if their children aren't literally tied to them after dark that someone will come and snatch them away right under their very noses? Sheesh, these people are paranoid!
And then finally, my favorite part. I always enjoy it when somebody falls for the urban legend that someone once put razor blades in Halloween candy. I've been hearing that line of bullcorn for 30 years.
The local radio station has been running a public service announcement by Wenner urging parents to accompany their children, examine any candy before it is eaten and make sure kids wear reflective material.
By the way, the murderers were caught right after the body was found. So unless the killers are undead and able to move through walls, or are set to escape on the 16-year anniversary of the killings only to go on a vengeful rampage through the town they terrified so many years ago... all of which are plots from cheesy horror movies, then I think things are going to be just fine.
Anyway, major props to Elizabeth Roess. You go girl! Don't take no shit off nobody!
This is one of those stories that really chaffes my... well you know. There's so much silly paranoia based on perceptions of risk that are totally out of whack with any reality, it's almost impossible to fathom.
Let's review some of the better quotes.
Here's a 15-year-old speaking... frankly, I'd expect a little mroe courage from an Amercian teen.
Fifteen-year-old Braden Craig said: "I have a gut-wrenching feeling something bad's going to happen."
Oh shut up dork... go lock yourself in your bedroom and play your XBox then. Sheesh!
Here's another good one from the Sheriff...
"If this all goes well, that's great, that's fantastic. I long for those days, too. But the world has changed," said Police Chief Robert Wenner, a father of five who was a patrolman when the murder occurred."
Really? It's changed? Wait I don't understand... the murder happened 16-years ago... no one has been murdered since. Is he pining for the days when children were murdered in the streets? I mean I guess he's right, in a way, the world HAS changed. Somehow I don't think he means it the way it sounds.
And then there's this mother, who might very well be insane. Certainly her daughter is likely to suffer major separation anxiety one day in the near future.
Shannon Goodman got a tether to make sure her 2-year-old daughter, who will dress as a witch, doesn't wander off while they go door to door. "It's going to be a lot of fun, but every parent who cares about their kid should have that fear," she said.
Every parent should have what fear? That if their children aren't literally tied to them after dark that someone will come and snatch them away right under their very noses? Sheesh, these people are paranoid!
And then finally, my favorite part. I always enjoy it when somebody falls for the urban legend that someone once put razor blades in Halloween candy. I've been hearing that line of bullcorn for 30 years.
The local radio station has been running a public service announcement by Wenner urging parents to accompany their children, examine any candy before it is eaten and make sure kids wear reflective material.
By the way, the murderers were caught right after the body was found. So unless the killers are undead and able to move through walls, or are set to escape on the 16-year anniversary of the killings only to go on a vengeful rampage through the town they terrified so many years ago... all of which are plots from cheesy horror movies, then I think things are going to be just fine.
Anyway, major props to Elizabeth Roess. You go girl! Don't take no shit off nobody!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tom Smith endorses Obama
This is really funny.
A tease...
"I do admit I am a little worried about Ahmedwhatshisname getting nukes and Putin rolling into Europe, with only Obama's charisma to stop them. I had never really thought of let's all play nicely together as a foreign policy since it doesn't even work with kids. But hey, is that really my problem? He has like a zillion brilliant foreign policy advisers and I'm sure they'll figure something clever out. I can no longer afford a trip to Israel anyway and I assume pictures of it will be archived on the internet."
A tease...
"I do admit I am a little worried about Ahmedwhatshisname getting nukes and Putin rolling into Europe, with only Obama's charisma to stop them. I had never really thought of let's all play nicely together as a foreign policy since it doesn't even work with kids. But hey, is that really my problem? He has like a zillion brilliant foreign policy advisers and I'm sure they'll figure something clever out. I can no longer afford a trip to Israel anyway and I assume pictures of it will be archived on the internet."
The Cool but Unaffordable Chevy Volt
I was watching the "Today" show yesterday and they had a segment on electric cars. The first car up was the Chevy Volt. It will be available in 2010. From the website:
Chevy Volt is designed to move more than 75 percent of America's daily commuters without a single drop of gas. That means for someone who drives less than 40 miles a day, Chevy Volt will use zero gasoline and produce zero emissions.
And they claim it will cost 2 cents a day to charge. Plus, it has a gasoline / ethanol engine that can extend the range beyond 40 miles. Hey, sounds great. Sign me up. Can we get these in the stores for Christmas?
Then they hit us with the price tag. $40,000 according to the "Today" show segment.
What?
The whole point of hybrids and electric cars is that they be available to the masses because they are the ones that are driving the old cars that pollute the most on the road. How is pricing the car at $40,000 going to accomplish that? Oh sure, it might get some jackhole actor to drive it so they can feel good about themselves, but how does that help the planet?
These kinds of cars should be sold like cell phones. Remember when cell phones first came out? I sort of do and they were expensive. It was the kind of toy that only the rich had. Now and days, if you don't have a cell phone, you're the exception rather than the rule.
These hybrid and electric cars need to be sold like cellphones. Whichever car manufacturer figures that out first will clean out the competition.
Chevy Volt is designed to move more than 75 percent of America's daily commuters without a single drop of gas. That means for someone who drives less than 40 miles a day, Chevy Volt will use zero gasoline and produce zero emissions.
And they claim it will cost 2 cents a day to charge. Plus, it has a gasoline / ethanol engine that can extend the range beyond 40 miles. Hey, sounds great. Sign me up. Can we get these in the stores for Christmas?
Then they hit us with the price tag. $40,000 according to the "Today" show segment.
What?
The whole point of hybrids and electric cars is that they be available to the masses because they are the ones that are driving the old cars that pollute the most on the road. How is pricing the car at $40,000 going to accomplish that? Oh sure, it might get some jackhole actor to drive it so they can feel good about themselves, but how does that help the planet?
These kinds of cars should be sold like cell phones. Remember when cell phones first came out? I sort of do and they were expensive. It was the kind of toy that only the rich had. Now and days, if you don't have a cell phone, you're the exception rather than the rule.
These hybrid and electric cars need to be sold like cellphones. Whichever car manufacturer figures that out first will clean out the competition.
Live In Obamavision
I actually watched a little bit of Obama's World Series-delaying infomercial last night, that took over a half-hour on the airwaves of three of the four major networks last night (plus Univision, I think).
It was very well done, set a moderate, respectful tone, and answered some of the criticisms of Obama in reasonable ways. (I have serious doubts over whether the actual policies of the administration will square with these responses, but that's another post).
Anyway, a big part of the spot was profiling middle class families struggling with various economic issues, from different parts of the country. People like you and me.
You know what? I felt sympathy for the issues that these people were going through, and a desire to see those problems alleviated.
You know what I didn't feel? The desire to look into their backgrounds to see if their "story" was presented with 100 percent accuracy, or if they had any nasty incidents in their past, like domestic violence episodes or unpaid parking tickets.
Guess I'm strange.
It was very well done, set a moderate, respectful tone, and answered some of the criticisms of Obama in reasonable ways. (I have serious doubts over whether the actual policies of the administration will square with these responses, but that's another post).
Anyway, a big part of the spot was profiling middle class families struggling with various economic issues, from different parts of the country. People like you and me.
You know what? I felt sympathy for the issues that these people were going through, and a desire to see those problems alleviated.
You know what I didn't feel? The desire to look into their backgrounds to see if their "story" was presented with 100 percent accuracy, or if they had any nasty incidents in their past, like domestic violence episodes or unpaid parking tickets.
Guess I'm strange.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Which side of the bucket are you swimming in?
Does it even matter?
This has been a long, painful campaign season, and a lot of horse shit has been shoveled over these long months, interspersed with brief pearl-like moments of lucidity. I think the smartest thing anyone has said in this entire campaign was one single paragraph from Fred Thompson's Republican Convention speech...
Fred said "Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they're not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline -- or unless you get a paycheck from a business, don't worry, it's not going to affect you! They say they're not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket!"
Which is about as lucid, and devastating an analysis of the Democratic approach towards economics as any sentence ever uttered in the annals of American political history.
Remember James Carville's famous quote from the 1992 campaign... "It's the economy, stupid"? I'm going to change it a little bit for the 2008 Democrats... my version is "The economy is a circle, stupid!"
Because what you do in this or that part of the economy affects every other part of our interdependent economy, not just in the United States but around the world. Listen to an Obama speech, any speech, just go to google and type in "Obama stump speech" and listen to the first one that pops up. You'll hear claim after claim and promise after promise that suggests that Obama, completely contrary to all historical evidence, believes that he can take action targeting specific parts of the economy without having any affect on any other part.
It just doesn't work that way.
And I'll give you an example using something dumb that a Republican did in this arena. Back in 2004 GW Bush was having some troubles in the rust belt. Specifically, Steel companies were facing stiff competition from abroad... foreign steelmakers were selling their goods in the U.S. at a discount in an effort to grab market share away from American companies. This severely threatened the profit margins of American steel manufacturers, as well as, perhaps more importantly, the salary levels of its union members. So ole George decided he would try to buy himself some votes by ordering price protection measures against foreign steel. Essentially what he did was artificially restrict the sale of foreign steel by insulating American steel manufacturers from competitive pricing. American steel manufacturers did not have to worry about shrinking profit margins, and American steel workers didn't have to worry about salary cuts.
What's not to love?
Well what Bush neglected to tell us was how keeping American steel prices artificially high would affect the rest of us. And it did... in ways to numerous to count.
But here's a few.
For one, everything made of steel remained artificially more expensive... so if market forces were trying to force car prices down, the fact that steel prices were pegged by our government at a certain, above-market level, kept them higher than they would otherwise be in a free market. So what's that mean? Maybe that fewer people bought cars because they were more expensive than they should have been... and if fewer people bought cars, then orders fell off at the manufacturers and auto workers had fewer shifts to fill and made less money, salesmen made less in commissions, and owners of car lots wound up carrying debt on their stocks of new cars longer than they had expected. In short, everyone besides the steels workers lost money. So in order to help one small sliver of the economy, Bush wound up hurting an even larger segment because he forgot (or ignored for convenience) the fact that all sectors of the economy are interdependent.
Or put more simply... The economy is a circle, stupid!
So when Obama tells you he's only going to raise taxes on rich people and rich corporations... ask youself if there's a chance that those tax increases might affect you, as a functioning member on an interdependent economy, in ways that perhaps even Obama himself doesn't mean for them too.
Even if you think corporations are inherently evil, indeed, especially if you believe that, then surely you don't think that those same corporations are going to sit still while the government tears into their profitability, do you? Do you think they're going to look at a 5 or 10% reduction in their profit margin and say "ah well, I guess we'll just have to eat it?"
Of course not. They're going to recover that loss by cutting costs.
Now maybe you'll get lucky and all it will mean is that your firm reduces its advertising budget... which of course, while it may not be a problem for you, might really suck for folks who make a living selling ad space on radio, TV, or print. But on the other hand, maybe they'll decide that you can get by with a slightly smaller benefits package next year.
Or maybe they'll decide they can do without you entirely.
Something to think about as your voting booth stylus hovers over "The Redistributor" next Tuesday.
This has been a long, painful campaign season, and a lot of horse shit has been shoveled over these long months, interspersed with brief pearl-like moments of lucidity. I think the smartest thing anyone has said in this entire campaign was one single paragraph from Fred Thompson's Republican Convention speech...
Fred said "Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they're not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline -- or unless you get a paycheck from a business, don't worry, it's not going to affect you! They say they're not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket!"
Which is about as lucid, and devastating an analysis of the Democratic approach towards economics as any sentence ever uttered in the annals of American political history.
Remember James Carville's famous quote from the 1992 campaign... "It's the economy, stupid"? I'm going to change it a little bit for the 2008 Democrats... my version is "The economy is a circle, stupid!"
Because what you do in this or that part of the economy affects every other part of our interdependent economy, not just in the United States but around the world. Listen to an Obama speech, any speech, just go to google and type in "Obama stump speech" and listen to the first one that pops up. You'll hear claim after claim and promise after promise that suggests that Obama, completely contrary to all historical evidence, believes that he can take action targeting specific parts of the economy without having any affect on any other part.
It just doesn't work that way.
And I'll give you an example using something dumb that a Republican did in this arena. Back in 2004 GW Bush was having some troubles in the rust belt. Specifically, Steel companies were facing stiff competition from abroad... foreign steelmakers were selling their goods in the U.S. at a discount in an effort to grab market share away from American companies. This severely threatened the profit margins of American steel manufacturers, as well as, perhaps more importantly, the salary levels of its union members. So ole George decided he would try to buy himself some votes by ordering price protection measures against foreign steel. Essentially what he did was artificially restrict the sale of foreign steel by insulating American steel manufacturers from competitive pricing. American steel manufacturers did not have to worry about shrinking profit margins, and American steel workers didn't have to worry about salary cuts.
What's not to love?
Well what Bush neglected to tell us was how keeping American steel prices artificially high would affect the rest of us. And it did... in ways to numerous to count.
But here's a few.
For one, everything made of steel remained artificially more expensive... so if market forces were trying to force car prices down, the fact that steel prices were pegged by our government at a certain, above-market level, kept them higher than they would otherwise be in a free market. So what's that mean? Maybe that fewer people bought cars because they were more expensive than they should have been... and if fewer people bought cars, then orders fell off at the manufacturers and auto workers had fewer shifts to fill and made less money, salesmen made less in commissions, and owners of car lots wound up carrying debt on their stocks of new cars longer than they had expected. In short, everyone besides the steels workers lost money. So in order to help one small sliver of the economy, Bush wound up hurting an even larger segment because he forgot (or ignored for convenience) the fact that all sectors of the economy are interdependent.
Or put more simply... The economy is a circle, stupid!
So when Obama tells you he's only going to raise taxes on rich people and rich corporations... ask youself if there's a chance that those tax increases might affect you, as a functioning member on an interdependent economy, in ways that perhaps even Obama himself doesn't mean for them too.
Even if you think corporations are inherently evil, indeed, especially if you believe that, then surely you don't think that those same corporations are going to sit still while the government tears into their profitability, do you? Do you think they're going to look at a 5 or 10% reduction in their profit margin and say "ah well, I guess we'll just have to eat it?"
Of course not. They're going to recover that loss by cutting costs.
Now maybe you'll get lucky and all it will mean is that your firm reduces its advertising budget... which of course, while it may not be a problem for you, might really suck for folks who make a living selling ad space on radio, TV, or print. But on the other hand, maybe they'll decide that you can get by with a slightly smaller benefits package next year.
Or maybe they'll decide they can do without you entirely.
Something to think about as your voting booth stylus hovers over "The Redistributor" next Tuesday.
Does the guy have any self-awareness at all?
Ask yourself this question, and be honest. If you were Barack Obama, and the very cornerstone of your campaign for going on two years was "I will end the war in Iraq" and then you found out that with a week to go in the campaign, the military vote was breaking 80% against you... wouldn't that cause you to have at least one second of self-doubt?
Yeah yeah, I know, self-doubt from a politician? What was I thinkin'....
And then of course there's this.
Yeah yeah, I know, self-doubt from a politician? What was I thinkin'....
And then of course there's this.
Senators Respond To My Bailout Emails
Back in September, I emailed both of my Senators - Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer - and urged them to vote "no" on the economic bailout bill that was being debated in the Senate. It's not that I didn't think economic help was needed, it's just that I had no confidence in the Senate to deliver it in the right form. I also thought that there were other solutions that could have been taken without putting $700 billion of taxpayer money at risk. But it passed both the House and the Senate with flying colors. Then the stock market continued to tank for the next 3 weeks. So much for school of thought that we needed to pass the bill in order to keep the stock market from falling further.
I heard back from Senator Boxer first. It was a form letter of course. What did you expect? She's a busy Senator after all. Here is some of it.
The fundamentals of our economy have been shaken, and Americans are deeply concerned. When Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke placed an urgent phone call a few weeks ago to Congress to say we needed emergency action to prevent a major financial meltdown, I expected they would come forward with a plan that was targeted and reasonable, with appropriate oversight and taxpayer protections.
Unfortunately, what they brought us was a $700 billion blank check, which they asked us to sign with no questions asked. This plan contained no oversight, no taxpayer equity, and no control over CEO pay. I strongly opposed this proposal - and thanks to your phone calls, e-mails, and letters, Congress stopped it in its tracks.
The Senate made major improvements designed to strengthen our economy and protect our taxpayers. Instead of a blank check, the Senate plan included significant Congressional oversight, equity for taxpayers, curbs on executive compensation, an increase in FDIC insurance protection for bank depositors, middle-class tax relief, and job-creating tax incentives for renewable energy. The bill passed the Senate by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 74-25 and the House by a vote of 263-171.
So let me get this straight. They brought you a blank check for $700 billion and ask you to sign it with no questions asked. You found that unacceptable. I'm with you so far.
But then you turn around and pass an $850 billion bill laden with pork projects and say that you made major improvements to a bad bill and it protects the American taxpayer. Sorry, you've lost me on that one. You're up for re-election in 2010. I will remember and vote accordingly.
As for Senator Feinstein, this is from her letter, which arrived just yesterday.
It has been said that Senators have six-year terms for a reason. And that reason is to be able to take tough votes because it's right for the nation, and take tough votes when at times they may be adverse to the beliefs of your constituency.
This today is indeed a tough vote.
I want to thank the Banking Committee, particularly its chairman, Chris Dodd, and members on both sides of the aisle for their work on this.
So let me quickly begin.
This bill is not the bill that was put forward by Secretary Paulson on September 20th. His bill was essentially a non-starter - startling in its unbridled allocation of power to one man: the Secretary of Treasury whom we know now, and to a Secretary of Treasury after January whom we do not know.
It placed this man above the law, above administrative oversight and above Congressional action and essentially gave him $700 billion to do with what he thought best. This bill didn't fly with virtually anyone who looked at it, particularly constituents, who have called in the tens of thousands all across this land.
My office has received over 91,000 calls and emails with over 86,000 opposed. The bill before us is not Paulson's three-page proposal. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort that adds oversight, accountability, assistance to homeowners, executive compensation limits and other measures to protect taxpayers.
Why she thanks Senator Chris Dodd, who helped get us into this mess and took more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other member of Congress, is beyond me. It couldn't be partisanship, could it? It couldn't be that they're both from the same political party, the Democratic party, could it? Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's some arcane Senate rule where you must praise the chairman of the committee that wrote the bill. At any rate, the bigger issue is that she received 91,00 calls and emails and 86,000 of them were opposed to the bailout (perhaps some were duplicates or called more than once but she doesn't say). That's 94%. I'll give her credit for owning her vote by ignoring what 94% of her constituents wanted her to do.
But it means that I'll be watching her even closer from now on. Senator Feinstein, you're up for re-election in 2012. I'm sure it will be a tough vote for me as well, but I'm confident I'll make the right decision for the nation.
I heard back from Senator Boxer first. It was a form letter of course. What did you expect? She's a busy Senator after all. Here is some of it.
The fundamentals of our economy have been shaken, and Americans are deeply concerned. When Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke placed an urgent phone call a few weeks ago to Congress to say we needed emergency action to prevent a major financial meltdown, I expected they would come forward with a plan that was targeted and reasonable, with appropriate oversight and taxpayer protections.
Unfortunately, what they brought us was a $700 billion blank check, which they asked us to sign with no questions asked. This plan contained no oversight, no taxpayer equity, and no control over CEO pay. I strongly opposed this proposal - and thanks to your phone calls, e-mails, and letters, Congress stopped it in its tracks.
The Senate made major improvements designed to strengthen our economy and protect our taxpayers. Instead of a blank check, the Senate plan included significant Congressional oversight, equity for taxpayers, curbs on executive compensation, an increase in FDIC insurance protection for bank depositors, middle-class tax relief, and job-creating tax incentives for renewable energy. The bill passed the Senate by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 74-25 and the House by a vote of 263-171.
So let me get this straight. They brought you a blank check for $700 billion and ask you to sign it with no questions asked. You found that unacceptable. I'm with you so far.
But then you turn around and pass an $850 billion bill laden with pork projects and say that you made major improvements to a bad bill and it protects the American taxpayer. Sorry, you've lost me on that one. You're up for re-election in 2010. I will remember and vote accordingly.
As for Senator Feinstein, this is from her letter, which arrived just yesterday.
It has been said that Senators have six-year terms for a reason. And that reason is to be able to take tough votes because it's right for the nation, and take tough votes when at times they may be adverse to the beliefs of your constituency.
This today is indeed a tough vote.
I want to thank the Banking Committee, particularly its chairman, Chris Dodd, and members on both sides of the aisle for their work on this.
So let me quickly begin.
This bill is not the bill that was put forward by Secretary Paulson on September 20th. His bill was essentially a non-starter - startling in its unbridled allocation of power to one man: the Secretary of Treasury whom we know now, and to a Secretary of Treasury after January whom we do not know.
It placed this man above the law, above administrative oversight and above Congressional action and essentially gave him $700 billion to do with what he thought best. This bill didn't fly with virtually anyone who looked at it, particularly constituents, who have called in the tens of thousands all across this land.
My office has received over 91,000 calls and emails with over 86,000 opposed. The bill before us is not Paulson's three-page proposal. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort that adds oversight, accountability, assistance to homeowners, executive compensation limits and other measures to protect taxpayers.
Why she thanks Senator Chris Dodd, who helped get us into this mess and took more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other member of Congress, is beyond me. It couldn't be partisanship, could it? It couldn't be that they're both from the same political party, the Democratic party, could it? Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's some arcane Senate rule where you must praise the chairman of the committee that wrote the bill. At any rate, the bigger issue is that she received 91,00 calls and emails and 86,000 of them were opposed to the bailout (perhaps some were duplicates or called more than once but she doesn't say). That's 94%. I'll give her credit for owning her vote by ignoring what 94% of her constituents wanted her to do.
But it means that I'll be watching her even closer from now on. Senator Feinstein, you're up for re-election in 2012. I'm sure it will be a tough vote for me as well, but I'm confident I'll make the right decision for the nation.
Anyone notice?
That a rash of stories in the press about whether or not Presidential Election polling is accurate or not seems to have coincided with a tightening of the race in favor of McCain.
Funny, that.
Funny, that.
Continental Congress beats Wall St. Journal
You may have noticed a few days ago that Tom Jefferson posted a few thoughts on the New York Times' endorsement of Obama and how that endorsement fits in with the Times' other Presidential endorsements over the years.
Well James Taranto's daily Wall Street Journal wrap-up of political commentary on the days events makes virtually the exact same point in today's paper.
Well done Tom!
Well James Taranto's daily Wall Street Journal wrap-up of political commentary on the days events makes virtually the exact same point in today's paper.
Well done Tom!
Lots of potential scandals out there....
LA Times keeping the lid on a tape of Obama at a pro-Palestinian conference that could destroy him in Florida... Joe Biden redefining "rich" down... to about 150K now for those of you keeping track, which could destroy him... well pretty much everywhere. And a website that doesn't seem to care if the same credit card is used over and over again to make dubious donations when we all know that folks like George Soros are plenty rich enough to be able to afford to pay some poor schlub to spend the entire day calling in 249 dollar donation after 249 dollar donations to the tune of many millions of dollars... Other percolating disasters as well.
I guess the question is... is it really a smart strategy to keep these potential scandals on the downlow just long enough for Obama to win, only to have them come out after the election? Because you KNOW they will... and when they do, the resulting noise could make governing impossible.
Is the media really helping a potential President Obama by behaving this way?
I'm not so sure it's a good idea. But then I'm voting for McCain, so make of that what you will.
I guess the question is... is it really a smart strategy to keep these potential scandals on the downlow just long enough for Obama to win, only to have them come out after the election? Because you KNOW they will... and when they do, the resulting noise could make governing impossible.
Is the media really helping a potential President Obama by behaving this way?
I'm not so sure it's a good idea. But then I'm voting for McCain, so make of that what you will.
You know who has huge stones?
Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Can you imagine going on that show every single day with those four screeching harpies and having to listen to the nonsense they spew for hours on end without going postal?
I can't.
I can't.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Sex Crime (1984)
Think "hate crime" laws make sense? Take a look the quotes in this article regarding whether the act of displaying a Sarah Palin effigy in a noose might not be a hate crime, while doing the same to an Obama effigy would.
I realize that the quoted law enforcement officer doesn't offer his opinion either way, but the criteria that is explained, and the analysis that is required to do so, is a bit ... murky.
I realize that the quoted law enforcement officer doesn't offer his opinion either way, but the criteria that is explained, and the analysis that is required to do so, is a bit ... murky.
Thoughts on the HBO miniseries JOHN ADAMS
I was watching episode 2 of the HBO miniseries JOHN ADAMS last night and a couple of things occurred to me. One, there was just as much bickering in Congress then as there is now, so it's good to know that it's been consistent through the ages. Two, the men who crafted the Declaration of Independence were very careful and deliberate with their choice of words. Three, it is clear that the founding fathers wanted a government that was limited in scope and that would let individuals make decisions for themselves. As subjects of King George, they had no say over what the government could and could not do to them. Sure, we're all familiar with the cry of "no taxation without representation" (and if you're not, then go look it up) but it was more than just that issue.
Lastly, I would like to point out something that Laura Linney said at the Emmy Awards this year after she won the Emmy for Best Actress in a miniseries for her role in JOHN ADAMS. She said "Our founding fathers were community organizers, and they were remarkable men." I agree with half of that quote. Yes, they were remarkable men. But they were not community organizers, Ms. Linney. They were revolutionaries. That is a big difference. Community organizers are not considered enemies of the state and threatened with hanging if they do not succeed in their endeavors. If the American Revolution had failed, those men would have been hanged.
If Barack Obama, a former community organizer (and who Ms. Linney was undoubtedly referring to when she made her statement), failed at getting a apartment complex renovated or a gazebo built, he simply moved on to other things. There was no threat of death hanging over him.
Let's show our founding fathers the respect they deserve and not trivialize their accomplishments by comparing them to a first term junior Senator. When Barack Obama authors a document as great as the U.S. Constitution, then maybe I'll add him to Mount Rushmore. Until then, he's a former community organizer who has yet to author any impressive legislation during his term in the Senate.
Lastly, I would like to point out something that Laura Linney said at the Emmy Awards this year after she won the Emmy for Best Actress in a miniseries for her role in JOHN ADAMS. She said "Our founding fathers were community organizers, and they were remarkable men." I agree with half of that quote. Yes, they were remarkable men. But they were not community organizers, Ms. Linney. They were revolutionaries. That is a big difference. Community organizers are not considered enemies of the state and threatened with hanging if they do not succeed in their endeavors. If the American Revolution had failed, those men would have been hanged.
If Barack Obama, a former community organizer (and who Ms. Linney was undoubtedly referring to when she made her statement), failed at getting a apartment complex renovated or a gazebo built, he simply moved on to other things. There was no threat of death hanging over him.
Let's show our founding fathers the respect they deserve and not trivialize their accomplishments by comparing them to a first term junior Senator. When Barack Obama authors a document as great as the U.S. Constitution, then maybe I'll add him to Mount Rushmore. Until then, he's a former community organizer who has yet to author any impressive legislation during his term in the Senate.
The coming Obama police state?
On the heels of this story that an Ohio state agency checked Joe the Plumber's driver license and tax records after he was mentioned repeatedly in the October 15th Presidential debate, we now have a follow up tale alleging that the director of a second agency in Ohio may have taken it upon heself to launch a totally not politically motivated, AT ALL, search through Joe's Child support records.
As that second article points out, Joe's various state records may have been, 100% fairly and not for political reasons of any kind, checked as many as four times in the days after the convention.
All the guy did was ask a question.
And people wonder why militia compounds seem to flourish during Demcoratic adminsitrations.
UPDATES: The Woman who runs the family agency that looked into Joe's child-support history contributed the maximum to Obama. Also, the Toledo Police Clerk who performed the previous "not at all politically motivated" search of Joe's records is being charged with a crime. And the Mayor ot Toledo is admitting that the clerk performed the search at the request of a member of the media.
I guess the upside is no one is going to get away with it, but sheesh!
UPDATE 2: Background checks on Joe more extensive than initially reported. I a shocked... SHOCKED!!!
As that second article points out, Joe's various state records may have been, 100% fairly and not for political reasons of any kind, checked as many as four times in the days after the convention.
All the guy did was ask a question.
And people wonder why militia compounds seem to flourish during Demcoratic adminsitrations.
UPDATES: The Woman who runs the family agency that looked into Joe's child-support history contributed the maximum to Obama. Also, the Toledo Police Clerk who performed the previous "not at all politically motivated" search of Joe's records is being charged with a crime. And the Mayor ot Toledo is admitting that the clerk performed the search at the request of a member of the media.
I guess the upside is no one is going to get away with it, but sheesh!
UPDATE 2: Background checks on Joe more extensive than initially reported. I a shocked... SHOCKED!!!
The Billion Dollar Presidency
Putting aside previously discussed concerns about how he got the money, I think it's worth thinking about Obama's fundraising from a macro perspective. And by that I mean: SIX HUNDRED MILLION EFFING DOLLARS.
That's how much it takes, apparently, to win the Presidency in 2008.
Can there be any doubt that in 2012, or possibly 2016, that a campaign will raise and spend a billion dollars?
There are so many things wrong about that, I can't even get started on the list.
That's how much it takes, apparently, to win the Presidency in 2008.
Can there be any doubt that in 2012, or possibly 2016, that a campaign will raise and spend a billion dollars?
There are so many things wrong about that, I can't even get started on the list.
Apocalypse Please
I was thinking recently about a conversation I had with an old friend of mine in San Francisco, in late 2004. He's a moderate guy, but was surrounded by, and worked almost exclusively with, committed liberals. The type of people who don't know a single person who voted for George Bush.
Given the contentious nature of the 2004 presidential campaign -- and the stunning bitterness and embarassing behavior (remember sorryeverybody.com?) from liberals in its wake -- I wondered how he thought his colleagues would deal with the reality of four years of a guy they despised in power, and what they hoped would come out of the election.
He thought about it, and responded, "I think they hope everything falls apart. I think they are hoping for so much disaster, that it scares everyone to their side. That's the best they hope for."
Well, they got it. And, let's face it, the Democrats have been operating as the "everything is awful" party since that time ... even after they took over Congress in the mid-term elections, when they were brought in to do something, and used that as a cue to continue throwing up their hands and bashing Bush.
Well, now it's going to be one party in charge again. The shoe will be on the other foot. As conservatives, what can we hope for? I oppose a lot of what I think Obama stands for (I'm still not sure to what extend his ideology stretches), and I think it may be a disaster if his policies are implemented, but I can't be like my friend's colleagues and hope for the worst.
And this isn't a "that's the difference between conservatives and liberals" post. I'd like to think most of us hope for good times and prosperity, no matter who is in charge. I just know where I stand, and it's not hoping for the apocalypse, that's for sure.
Given the contentious nature of the 2004 presidential campaign -- and the stunning bitterness and embarassing behavior (remember sorryeverybody.com?) from liberals in its wake -- I wondered how he thought his colleagues would deal with the reality of four years of a guy they despised in power, and what they hoped would come out of the election.
He thought about it, and responded, "I think they hope everything falls apart. I think they are hoping for so much disaster, that it scares everyone to their side. That's the best they hope for."
Well, they got it. And, let's face it, the Democrats have been operating as the "everything is awful" party since that time ... even after they took over Congress in the mid-term elections, when they were brought in to do something, and used that as a cue to continue throwing up their hands and bashing Bush.
Well, now it's going to be one party in charge again. The shoe will be on the other foot. As conservatives, what can we hope for? I oppose a lot of what I think Obama stands for (I'm still not sure to what extend his ideology stretches), and I think it may be a disaster if his policies are implemented, but I can't be like my friend's colleagues and hope for the worst.
And this isn't a "that's the difference between conservatives and liberals" post. I'd like to think most of us hope for good times and prosperity, no matter who is in charge. I just know where I stand, and it's not hoping for the apocalypse, that's for sure.
Monday, October 27, 2008
A point of clarification on what it means to be a "conservative"
The Fiscally Conservative argument for the role of government faces one major problem that is, unfortunately, easily exploited by the opposition. That problem is, Conservatism does not believe in big government solutions to social problems. That is, our instinct is to fight to prevent big government encroachment into the lives of everyday Americans... things like Socialized Health Care, for instance.
Democrats (Liberals, if you prefer) like to use that against us. They say that because Conservatives don't like the idea of a mandatory national health care system, that this must mean that we don't want a certain portion of the public to have any health care at all... which of course is not true.
I don't know a single Conservative who doesn't want to find at least some kind of solution to the problem of Americans who can't afford health care. If it has to be a government solution, well then so be it. But the point is, looking to Government for solutions to problems is, for any Conservative worth his salt, an instinctual last resort.
What Conservatives object to most strenuously, is the idea that Government should do for people what they can otherwise do for themselves. We believe that a country is most free, and its Democracy most robust, when the absolute minimum number of its citizens are dependent upon government for the necessities of their daily lives.
So what does that mean in practice? Well let's stick with health care for a minute. I have a good job with a good benefits package. Through that package I pay for a certain level of medical coverage. I'm happy with the coverage and its cost to me. But if I weren't I could opt out and go sign up for any of a million private HMO plans from Cigna to Blue Cross to Kaiser. Or I could go with no health care at all if I choose.
Under these conditions I have maximized my liberty by having the largest number number of health care choices available to me. That's good for me, sure, but it's also good for you as a taxpayer. Government is already stretched to the limit, and taxes are about as high as they can realistically get. Doesn't it make sense that we should be finding ways to REDUCE the number of people who are drawing some kind of benefit from government's coffers? If government does not have to look after my health care requirements, then that means government needs to take less of your money, which leaves you more free to pursue the choices that matter to YOU as an individual. If you have less money in your pocket because government is taking more of it, then you are less free.
That's a fact, any way you wanna look at it.
Barack Obama (and a lot of his colleagues) want to force me out of my high-choice health care environment and slam me into a single providor, mandatory government solution. I'm happy with the coverage I have. I pay for it with privately owned capital (owned by me) and I receive service from a private firm that neither asks for nor receives tax money with which to provide it. It simply makes no sense to eliminate that arrangement for the purposes of adding me to an already swollen roll of people who receive other people's money to pay for things they are happy and able to pay for themselves.
You're going to see a recurring theme on this blog if you stick with it long enough. You're going to see us come back to freedom, liberty, and the individual again and again. We're going to come after Democrats a lot because as we watch the speeches and the election year posturing, it's becoming clear that too many Democrats want us to be wards of the state... born in government hospitals, educated in government schools, working jobs that are covered by government-monitored unions, going to government doctors, which we'll drive to while listening to government approved content on the radio, finally at long last, to live out our retirment on some kind of a mandatory government pension system while staring zombie-like at TV programming that used to be interesting before some bureaucrat decided that what we were watching wasn't politically "fair" and needed some kind of government intervention.
I'm sorry but that's simply not freedom.. When it looks like it, and smells like it, and acts like it, you call it what it is... slavery.
Democrats (Liberals, if you prefer) like to use that against us. They say that because Conservatives don't like the idea of a mandatory national health care system, that this must mean that we don't want a certain portion of the public to have any health care at all... which of course is not true.
I don't know a single Conservative who doesn't want to find at least some kind of solution to the problem of Americans who can't afford health care. If it has to be a government solution, well then so be it. But the point is, looking to Government for solutions to problems is, for any Conservative worth his salt, an instinctual last resort.
What Conservatives object to most strenuously, is the idea that Government should do for people what they can otherwise do for themselves. We believe that a country is most free, and its Democracy most robust, when the absolute minimum number of its citizens are dependent upon government for the necessities of their daily lives.
So what does that mean in practice? Well let's stick with health care for a minute. I have a good job with a good benefits package. Through that package I pay for a certain level of medical coverage. I'm happy with the coverage and its cost to me. But if I weren't I could opt out and go sign up for any of a million private HMO plans from Cigna to Blue Cross to Kaiser. Or I could go with no health care at all if I choose.
Under these conditions I have maximized my liberty by having the largest number number of health care choices available to me. That's good for me, sure, but it's also good for you as a taxpayer. Government is already stretched to the limit, and taxes are about as high as they can realistically get. Doesn't it make sense that we should be finding ways to REDUCE the number of people who are drawing some kind of benefit from government's coffers? If government does not have to look after my health care requirements, then that means government needs to take less of your money, which leaves you more free to pursue the choices that matter to YOU as an individual. If you have less money in your pocket because government is taking more of it, then you are less free.
That's a fact, any way you wanna look at it.
Barack Obama (and a lot of his colleagues) want to force me out of my high-choice health care environment and slam me into a single providor, mandatory government solution. I'm happy with the coverage I have. I pay for it with privately owned capital (owned by me) and I receive service from a private firm that neither asks for nor receives tax money with which to provide it. It simply makes no sense to eliminate that arrangement for the purposes of adding me to an already swollen roll of people who receive other people's money to pay for things they are happy and able to pay for themselves.
You're going to see a recurring theme on this blog if you stick with it long enough. You're going to see us come back to freedom, liberty, and the individual again and again. We're going to come after Democrats a lot because as we watch the speeches and the election year posturing, it's becoming clear that too many Democrats want us to be wards of the state... born in government hospitals, educated in government schools, working jobs that are covered by government-monitored unions, going to government doctors, which we'll drive to while listening to government approved content on the radio, finally at long last, to live out our retirment on some kind of a mandatory government pension system while staring zombie-like at TV programming that used to be interesting before some bureaucrat decided that what we were watching wasn't politically "fair" and needed some kind of government intervention.
I'm sorry but that's simply not freedom.. When it looks like it, and smells like it, and acts like it, you call it what it is... slavery.
Voter education?
So I'm being bombarded by radio ads and banner ads across major city intersections reminding me that "my vote counts" and "remember to vote November 4th!"
I know these are primarily aimed at young people, who talk a big game, but can rarely be bothered to get off their asses and actually go out and vote. But my question is... we're a week out here... if you haven't decided whether or not you're voting at this point? I'd really rather you didn't.
So... not sure these ads are really worth the trouble.
I know these are primarily aimed at young people, who talk a big game, but can rarely be bothered to get off their asses and actually go out and vote. But my question is... we're a week out here... if you haven't decided whether or not you're voting at this point? I'd really rather you didn't.
So... not sure these ads are really worth the trouble.
Share the Wealth. . . Well, Sort Of
This is just too funny and felt I had to share it with the rest of the Congress. John Q. Citizen decided to conduct his own experiment with Barack Obama's "redistribute the wealth" plan.
http://robertbluey.com/blog/2008/10/25/redistribution-of-wealth-experiment-3/
Sufficient to say, it works out better in theory better than in practice.
http://robertbluey.com/blog/2008/10/25/redistribution-of-wealth-experiment-3/
Sufficient to say, it works out better in theory better than in practice.
A question of incentives
So, apparently Obama's donation site "invites fraud"...
Also, in related news, NRO did a quick analysis and found that McCain's site seems to be better at rejecting dubious donations, than Obama's.
So the question now becomes, with Obama's campaign donations nearing the three-quarters of a BILLION dollar mark, and absolutely no press scrutiny about who is donating all this money, despite tons of credible accounts of suspicious activity... what exactly is John McCain's incentive to keep on being scrupulous about the way he collects donations?
Oh right, because, unlike the Senator from Illinois, the New York Times is watching McCAIN like a hawk... often without much regard to whether that attention is justified or not.
Also, in related news, NRO did a quick analysis and found that McCain's site seems to be better at rejecting dubious donations, than Obama's.
So the question now becomes, with Obama's campaign donations nearing the three-quarters of a BILLION dollar mark, and absolutely no press scrutiny about who is donating all this money, despite tons of credible accounts of suspicious activity... what exactly is John McCain's incentive to keep on being scrupulous about the way he collects donations?
Oh right, because, unlike the Senator from Illinois, the New York Times is watching McCAIN like a hawk... often without much regard to whether that attention is justified or not.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Poor Ole Joe
I'm still waitintg for one concrete example of how my civil rights have been violated by the Patriot Act.
Meanwhile... there's poor ole Joe the Plumber. Gee, I'm sure lookin' forward to more of this!
UPDATE: Checks on Joe's records more extensive that initially reported.
Meanwhile... there's poor ole Joe the Plumber. Gee, I'm sure lookin' forward to more of this!
UPDATE: Checks on Joe's records more extensive that initially reported.
A shout out to HBO
For taking time out from making polemics like RECOUNT and GENERATION KILL to show the original unaltered version of E.T.
Happened to catch the last 15 minutes this morning, which by the way is maybe the best 15 minutes of motion picture ever captured on film... certainly top 5. And as the army of government agents converged on the empty van in the park at the end, I felt excitement suddenly replaced by annoyance and my attetion was drawn away from the story as I looked at the hands of the agents, expecting to see flashlights and radios being held, for some unexplainable reason, the way one might hold a gun.
I can't tell you how annoyed I was when I heard Spielberg was going back into the film to change all the guns to flashlights and radios. You want to grab him by the lapels and ask him who, exactly, he thinks he's protecting. Because when I was 14 and I fantasized about being a hero on some mission or another, the bad guys chasing me always had guns. That's part of what made them the bad guys, fer crissakes!
Without danger, there is no adventure. Why are we so anxious to take the drama and excitement out of people's lives these days?
Repeat after me Steven... it's only a movie. Let us be scared a little. Really, it'll be OK.
Happened to catch the last 15 minutes this morning, which by the way is maybe the best 15 minutes of motion picture ever captured on film... certainly top 5. And as the army of government agents converged on the empty van in the park at the end, I felt excitement suddenly replaced by annoyance and my attetion was drawn away from the story as I looked at the hands of the agents, expecting to see flashlights and radios being held, for some unexplainable reason, the way one might hold a gun.
I can't tell you how annoyed I was when I heard Spielberg was going back into the film to change all the guns to flashlights and radios. You want to grab him by the lapels and ask him who, exactly, he thinks he's protecting. Because when I was 14 and I fantasized about being a hero on some mission or another, the bad guys chasing me always had guns. That's part of what made them the bad guys, fer crissakes!
Without danger, there is no adventure. Why are we so anxious to take the drama and excitement out of people's lives these days?
Repeat after me Steven... it's only a movie. Let us be scared a little. Really, it'll be OK.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Yeah somebody might want to follow-up on that...
The big explanation most left-leaning reporters (is there another kind?) offer by way of dismissing our fears about ACORN's attempts to commit fraud in this general election usually goes as follows. "This is just ACORN workers, who get paid by the name, boosting their numbers to increase their salary... so really it's ACORN that's being defrauded in the end... move along, nothing to see here."
But they never ask the follow-up question. Surely a big organization like ACORN must know, on some level, that they are being exposed to this kind of fraud. Given that this must be true, why does the problem continue to be so widespread in that organization? Could there be some nefarious purpose behind what ACORN seems to be allowing to happen?
An enterprising, unbiased reporter might ask that question, but unfortunately those kinds of reporters seem to be in short supply these days, so I'll offer two possible answers... and if there's a journalist out there actually interested in doing his or her job... well you can thank me later.
1) ACORN knows all about these fake registrations. The reason they don't care, indeed the reason why they encourage them, is so that they can round up people on election day who have not yet registered, and drag them to the polls with fake documentation to vote as one of those fake people they've been registering all this time.
Or... perhaps even more simply, and less nefarious...
2) ACORN knows that polling services like GALLUP and RASSMUSSEN skew their polling samples according to things like voter registration stats. So if Democrat registrations are outnumbering Republicans by 2 to 1, then the polling services will weight their samples 2 to 1 in favor of Democrat respondents... which of course provides us with the predictable result that Obama is killing McCain in the polls.
I think this could all be part of the plan to convince potential voters that Obama is running away with this, and that if they're planning to vote for McCain, they might as well just stay home.
But then what the hell do I know?
But they never ask the follow-up question. Surely a big organization like ACORN must know, on some level, that they are being exposed to this kind of fraud. Given that this must be true, why does the problem continue to be so widespread in that organization? Could there be some nefarious purpose behind what ACORN seems to be allowing to happen?
An enterprising, unbiased reporter might ask that question, but unfortunately those kinds of reporters seem to be in short supply these days, so I'll offer two possible answers... and if there's a journalist out there actually interested in doing his or her job... well you can thank me later.
1) ACORN knows all about these fake registrations. The reason they don't care, indeed the reason why they encourage them, is so that they can round up people on election day who have not yet registered, and drag them to the polls with fake documentation to vote as one of those fake people they've been registering all this time.
Or... perhaps even more simply, and less nefarious...
2) ACORN knows that polling services like GALLUP and RASSMUSSEN skew their polling samples according to things like voter registration stats. So if Democrat registrations are outnumbering Republicans by 2 to 1, then the polling services will weight their samples 2 to 1 in favor of Democrat respondents... which of course provides us with the predictable result that Obama is killing McCain in the polls.
I think this could all be part of the plan to convince potential voters that Obama is running away with this, and that if they're planning to vote for McCain, they might as well just stay home.
But then what the hell do I know?
Windfall profits?
Now that the price of oil is down to less than half what it was just a few months ago, I have to say I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that none of those Senators and Congresspersons who were once threatening to hit the oil companies with windfall profit taxes are offering to cut their taxes now that, presumably, their profits are on the decline.
Tax Policy: The Missing Argument
I'm going to let you in on a dirty little secret our government doesn't want you to know. Most of you don't live in DC, but if you did, the closer you got to the US Capitol Building, the more you'd be able to hear a strange cackling sound coming from within.
That's the sound of your Congresspersons and Senators howling with laughter. See they think it's absolutely hilarious that we're screaming at each other over who among us should bear the burden of an increasingly oppressive tax burden. They think that's just as hilarious as can be.
Because the more we argue about who should bear that burden, the more we concede the argument that someone should.
I'm not going to argue that no one should pay income tax... that's just silly. But in all the screaming about taxes and middle class burdens, and the rich not paying their fair share... you know the one question no one is asking?
No one is asking if maybe it's time that governments, federal state, and local, should be forced to make do with less. We've conceded that government is entitled to whatever amount of our hard-earned money they see fit, because none of us have stepped back from fighting with each other long enough to ask "what exactly is all the money paying for?" and "isn't it possible that some of the things that it's paying for are cockamamie bullcorn?"
And our elected representatives just LOVE that. Because nothing scares them more, nothing threatens a spreading stain across the front of an immaculately tailored pair of dress pants, more than a taxpayer revolt... and as long as we're fighting with each other, we're not coming after them.
So Instead of screaming about how much this or that person is paying, what we need to do is join together and demand that Governments stop spending so much so that they can stop sticking their fat entitled fingers into our wallets looking to siphon out more and more of the money we're supposed to be earning for ourselves and our familes.
And we could do it too... there's a little more than 500 of them. We can take 'em.
That's the sound of your Congresspersons and Senators howling with laughter. See they think it's absolutely hilarious that we're screaming at each other over who among us should bear the burden of an increasingly oppressive tax burden. They think that's just as hilarious as can be.
Because the more we argue about who should bear that burden, the more we concede the argument that someone should.
I'm not going to argue that no one should pay income tax... that's just silly. But in all the screaming about taxes and middle class burdens, and the rich not paying their fair share... you know the one question no one is asking?
No one is asking if maybe it's time that governments, federal state, and local, should be forced to make do with less. We've conceded that government is entitled to whatever amount of our hard-earned money they see fit, because none of us have stepped back from fighting with each other long enough to ask "what exactly is all the money paying for?" and "isn't it possible that some of the things that it's paying for are cockamamie bullcorn?"
And our elected representatives just LOVE that. Because nothing scares them more, nothing threatens a spreading stain across the front of an immaculately tailored pair of dress pants, more than a taxpayer revolt... and as long as we're fighting with each other, we're not coming after them.
So Instead of screaming about how much this or that person is paying, what we need to do is join together and demand that Governments stop spending so much so that they can stop sticking their fat entitled fingers into our wallets looking to siphon out more and more of the money we're supposed to be earning for ourselves and our familes.
And we could do it too... there's a little more than 500 of them. We can take 'em.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
What Liberal Bias?
Predictably, the New York Times endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President. I provide the link for entertainment purposes because the editorial begins with "Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation’s future truly hangs in the balance."
And you can guess where it goes from there.
However, what was truly entertaining was the link over to the side with Abraham Lincoln's picture and the caption "New York Times Endorsements Through the Ages."
After I shook my head and chuckled at the antics of editors of the Times for trying to tie the image of President Lincoln to Barack Obama, my curiosity got the better of me and I clicked on the link.
Since 1960, the editors of the New York Times have endorsed every Democratic candidate for president. The last Republican nominee to receive their endorsement was Dwight Eisenhower.
To quote Captain Renault from CASABLANCA "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
Before all of you retort, "Oh yeah, when was the last time the National Review endorsed a Democrat for President" let me point out that the National Review wears their conservatism on their sleeve and are unapologetic about it.
The New York Times on the other hand, protests that it is neutral and non-partisan.
Me thinks they doth protest too much.
And you can guess where it goes from there.
However, what was truly entertaining was the link over to the side with Abraham Lincoln's picture and the caption "New York Times Endorsements Through the Ages."
After I shook my head and chuckled at the antics of editors of the Times for trying to tie the image of President Lincoln to Barack Obama, my curiosity got the better of me and I clicked on the link.
Since 1960, the editors of the New York Times have endorsed every Democratic candidate for president. The last Republican nominee to receive their endorsement was Dwight Eisenhower.
To quote Captain Renault from CASABLANCA "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
Before all of you retort, "Oh yeah, when was the last time the National Review endorsed a Democrat for President" let me point out that the National Review wears their conservatism on their sleeve and are unapologetic about it.
The New York Times on the other hand, protests that it is neutral and non-partisan.
Me thinks they doth protest too much.
After another bit of quasi-Christ-like self-analysis
From Obama, who "feels a righteous wind blowing at his back" (imagine if George Bush or Sarah Palin had said that), I think he needs a new campaign song.
I nominate.
"It's blowin' peace and freeee-dom, it's blowin' you and me!"
I nominate.
"It's blowin' peace and freeee-dom, it's blowin' you and me!"
The Right to NOT Vote
In the last few weeks I've joked around with friends while talking about the upcoming presidential election. When asked whom I'm voting for I simply answer, "Oh, I'm not voting." Although I am more informed than the majority of my peers, I am given a horrifying look of disapproval whenever I use that answer. At first I was simply making a joke, but time and time again the result of this joke ends in my friends being appalled that I could possibly choose to stay home and sit on my ass instead of going to the polls. This, of course, only makes me actually consider not voting.
I consider myself a moderate Republican who leans to the right when it comes to money and the war on terror and leans to the left on social issues. I am not a big fan of McCain or Obama. So I often ask myself, when picking the lesser of two evils, what is the meaning of my vote? Is voting for a candidate I don't actually believe in better than not voting? What good is my vote in a non-swing state? Is voting now a requirement by law? Did P. Diddy and MTV amend that part of the constitution?
Millions of uninformed voters will turn out at the polls this year because of major campaigns featuring major celebrities convincing people to vote. Just imagine if our society put as much emphasis on our other rights as they do voting. There'd be public service announcements on television urging viewers to stay away from Craig's List and hold onto their old furniture because it's "your right to private property." Or we'd see a commercial showing a mother-to-be registering for her baby shower and having a semi-automatic pistol on her list of baby gifts with a tag line, "Protect her from birth to the future. Use your right to bear arms." It won't happen because we have the right to NOT protect our private property and NOT bear arms. Whatever happened to the right to NOT vote?
Regardless of how I feel about this election, I am going to vote. I have taken the time to learn about the issues and I am stepping up as an informed voter to make up for all of the uninformed voters out there (please click on that link--the video is rather amusing). I don't know why, but it is quite liberating to live in a country where even the stupidest of stupid can do his/her part to change the world.
How Do You Like Them ACORNs?
George's post below (and the link contained therein) on voter fraud got me thinking about ACORN's recent malfesance. Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that the registration fraud they are engaging in is so obvious (duplicates, phony names, etc.), to the extent that the group wants election commissions and the media to take notice?
If that's the case, the only reason I can think that ACORN would do that is to take attention away from something else it is engaging in. Any thoughts on what that might be? I get concerned even speculating.
If that's the case, the only reason I can think that ACORN would do that is to take attention away from something else it is engaging in. Any thoughts on what that might be? I get concerned even speculating.
Creating jobs?
I'd rather this didn't become just another site that links to other sites, and I AM working on a post about how Government does not create jobs... but dammitt if this guy didn't just kick my butt in the job-creation posting department. I feel confident linking to this piece without comment because, going back to my own standard for writing new laws (which is based in the Constituion), I believe any comment I add should leave the argument "more perfect." And I'm just not sure I can do that in this case.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Top 1%
I'd like to expand on George's post about the 95% fallacy with respect to Obama's tax plan. Currently, the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of the taxes in this country. The top 50% in this country pay 97% of the taxes.
Yet that's not enough for Senator Obama and the Democrats who want to make the rich pay their fair share. (I'm not even going to get into the concept of "fair share" in this post or I'll be at it for hours.)
But when taxes grow so onerous, what will the rich do? And we're talking about the super rich, the 1% of the 1%, not the working rich making $250,000 a year. And $250,000 a year, depending on where you live isn't rich. If you live in California or New York, you're not rich on $250,000 a year. The state taxes are at 9.3% for California (10% if you're a millionaire) while state and local taxes for New York are 11.7%.
Factor those two figures into the new Obama bracket (or old President Clinton bracket) of 39.6% and you've paid half of your income to the state and federal government.
So what do you do if you're the super rich?
The super rich can move someplace else where taxes are lower. Hopefully, they'll just move to a state that has no state income tax. Ever wonder why athletes live in Florida? No state income tax. But they could also move themselves, and/or their business to a more tax friendly country.
But the working rich can't move. What happens to them? They get stuck with the bill.
If you shrink the tax base, no matter how high you make the top tax bracket, you will eventually see declining revenue. But if you encourage the growth of wealth, you expand the tax base and everybody moves up a bracket and pays more in income taxes. It seems to me that the problem with Senator Obama's tax plan is that it assumes wealth is static and the pie is finite. But that's not the case. Wealth can be created. Just ask Bill Gates.
The majority of millionaires did not inherit their wealth. They created it. And I can think of no better way to discourage growth than to impose onerous taxes on individuals. (I'll save my corporation tax talk for another post.) Yes, the rich should pay more than poor people in taxes, but they shouldn't be punished for being successful.
Yet that's not enough for Senator Obama and the Democrats who want to make the rich pay their fair share. (I'm not even going to get into the concept of "fair share" in this post or I'll be at it for hours.)
But when taxes grow so onerous, what will the rich do? And we're talking about the super rich, the 1% of the 1%, not the working rich making $250,000 a year. And $250,000 a year, depending on where you live isn't rich. If you live in California or New York, you're not rich on $250,000 a year. The state taxes are at 9.3% for California (10% if you're a millionaire) while state and local taxes for New York are 11.7%.
Factor those two figures into the new Obama bracket (or old President Clinton bracket) of 39.6% and you've paid half of your income to the state and federal government.
So what do you do if you're the super rich?
The super rich can move someplace else where taxes are lower. Hopefully, they'll just move to a state that has no state income tax. Ever wonder why athletes live in Florida? No state income tax. But they could also move themselves, and/or their business to a more tax friendly country.
But the working rich can't move. What happens to them? They get stuck with the bill.
If you shrink the tax base, no matter how high you make the top tax bracket, you will eventually see declining revenue. But if you encourage the growth of wealth, you expand the tax base and everybody moves up a bracket and pays more in income taxes. It seems to me that the problem with Senator Obama's tax plan is that it assumes wealth is static and the pie is finite. But that's not the case. Wealth can be created. Just ask Bill Gates.
The majority of millionaires did not inherit their wealth. They created it. And I can think of no better way to discourage growth than to impose onerous taxes on individuals. (I'll save my corporation tax talk for another post.) Yes, the rich should pay more than poor people in taxes, but they shouldn't be punished for being successful.
The 95% fallacy
Colin Cowherd, one of my favorite sports-talk hosts on ESPN radio, likes to say that if you want to know if something makes sense, say it out loud. Stripping naked and running out on to the field during game 7 of the World Series seems like a great idea when it's trapped, unspoken, inside your head... but say it out loud, and... yeah, not such a hot idea afterall.
So I always think of Colin when I hear Obama (or one of his spokesholes) say that he wants to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans.
Say that out loud. "95% of Amercians."
Just doesn't make any goddamned sense does it? Why not? Well because I know, and you probably do too, that a large percentage of Amercians pay no Federal income tax at all. Zero. I think it's in the neighborhood of 40%. And if you didn't know that already...
A large percentage of Americans pay no Federal income tax, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%.
So how can you give a bunch of people who don't pay taxes, a tax cut?
The answer is you can't. Obama isn't exactly lying to you, but he's stretching the truth further than Pam Anderson stretches a bra strap. What he's planning to do is put a bunch of tax credits in place that are fully refundable. What this means is that, unlike a normal tax credit, which stops being applicable once your individual tax burden reaches zero... under the Obama plan, you would conitnue to accrue tax credits as a bonus even after your tax burden has been reduced to nothing.
Which means that under Obama's plan, a bunch of people are going to get checks for a shitload of money they didn't earn, but that someone else did.
Calling this a "tax cut" is about as dishonest as it gets. I don't care if you want to vote for straight-up Robin Hood wealth redistribution... literally taking money from some Americans and handing it over to other Americans who did nothing to earn it... but don't insult me by trying to pass it off as some kind of middle class tax cut. No one's tax rate is being reduced... no one! And you goddamned well know it too!
But here's the really nasty part.
Obama's plan is going to take another huge chunk of Americans and remove them from the taxpayer rolls, continuing a disturbing trend of the last three decades. Recall that I pointed out we're somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% now. That is to say 40% of Americans don't contribute to the Federal income tax burden, but are set to receive nice bonus checks as if they do, under a President Obama. This will create a situation where those people are incentivized to vote for even more tax increases because it means they will get larger checks!
How freakin' perverse is that!?
And that's at the current 40% level... and so now a question has to be asked.
What happens when that number goes from 40% to 51%? What if President Obama creates a situation where MORE Americans are incentivized to vote for tax increases than are incentivized to vote against them?
I don't know about you, but that's a terrifying question to consider.
Unfortunately, we might find out the answers sometime in the next four years.
So I always think of Colin when I hear Obama (or one of his spokesholes) say that he wants to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans.
Say that out loud. "95% of Amercians."
Just doesn't make any goddamned sense does it? Why not? Well because I know, and you probably do too, that a large percentage of Amercians pay no Federal income tax at all. Zero. I think it's in the neighborhood of 40%. And if you didn't know that already...
A large percentage of Americans pay no Federal income tax, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%.
So how can you give a bunch of people who don't pay taxes, a tax cut?
The answer is you can't. Obama isn't exactly lying to you, but he's stretching the truth further than Pam Anderson stretches a bra strap. What he's planning to do is put a bunch of tax credits in place that are fully refundable. What this means is that, unlike a normal tax credit, which stops being applicable once your individual tax burden reaches zero... under the Obama plan, you would conitnue to accrue tax credits as a bonus even after your tax burden has been reduced to nothing.
Which means that under Obama's plan, a bunch of people are going to get checks for a shitload of money they didn't earn, but that someone else did.
Calling this a "tax cut" is about as dishonest as it gets. I don't care if you want to vote for straight-up Robin Hood wealth redistribution... literally taking money from some Americans and handing it over to other Americans who did nothing to earn it... but don't insult me by trying to pass it off as some kind of middle class tax cut. No one's tax rate is being reduced... no one! And you goddamned well know it too!
But here's the really nasty part.
Obama's plan is going to take another huge chunk of Americans and remove them from the taxpayer rolls, continuing a disturbing trend of the last three decades. Recall that I pointed out we're somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% now. That is to say 40% of Americans don't contribute to the Federal income tax burden, but are set to receive nice bonus checks as if they do, under a President Obama. This will create a situation where those people are incentivized to vote for even more tax increases because it means they will get larger checks!
How freakin' perverse is that!?
And that's at the current 40% level... and so now a question has to be asked.
What happens when that number goes from 40% to 51%? What if President Obama creates a situation where MORE Americans are incentivized to vote for tax increases than are incentivized to vote against them?
I don't know about you, but that's a terrifying question to consider.
Unfortunately, we might find out the answers sometime in the next four years.
Move along... nothing to see here.
Glenn Reynolds describes this panicked Slate spin on ACORN's voter fraud attempts as "Old spin: Fraud is a myth! New spin: What's wrong with fraud?"
But I think he's missing a step...
Old OLD spin (circa 2000 and 2004): "The evil Rethuglicans are trying to steal this election!!!"
Funny how that works.
But I think he's missing a step...
Old OLD spin (circa 2000 and 2004): "The evil Rethuglicans are trying to steal this election!!!"
Funny how that works.
Sometimes, All You Can Do Is Cringe.
Reuters math: "scattered" equals "deep" and "segments".
Obama is polling at over 50 percent, less than two weeks from the election. Can we please get over this stuff? I can't believe victimhood is being read into (almost certain) victory.
Obama is polling at over 50 percent, less than two weeks from the election. Can we please get over this stuff? I can't believe victimhood is being read into (almost certain) victory.
Bang and Blame
I'm already seeing references out there to Bush as Hoover, and Obama as FDR ... the subtext being, Bush created the problems that Obama will inherit, and Obama can't be blamed for whatever negative condition is out there, particularly regarding the economy.
How long will that fly? The first hundred days? The first year? The first term?
I predict that, if things continue to go sour, you can count on hearings and/or prosecutions of Bush administration members for various "crimes."
How long will that fly? The first hundred days? The first year? The first term?
I predict that, if things continue to go sour, you can count on hearings and/or prosecutions of Bush administration members for various "crimes."
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sometimes all you can do is laugh...
Apparently, "socialist" is an old code word for "black."
Now raise your hand if that EVER occurred to you. This is what it's going to be like for the next four years people. "I don't like the idea of a national health care system... seems kinda socialist to me."
"RACIST!!!!"
Congrats to Lewis Diuguid who gets the Douchebag of the Day Award for finding a place to throw the race card where no one else had ever thought to throw it before. Well done, Sir!
Now raise your hand if that EVER occurred to you. This is what it's going to be like for the next four years people. "I don't like the idea of a national health care system... seems kinda socialist to me."
"RACIST!!!!"
Congrats to Lewis Diuguid who gets the Douchebag of the Day Award for finding a place to throw the race card where no one else had ever thought to throw it before. Well done, Sir!
Ask What Your Country Can Do For You
I was having a conversation with a friend today about this article about Barack Obama. The article, written by two conservatives, lays out the case against voting for Barack Obama, using his own words. My friend, who was already voting for McCain before reading this article, was even more irked after reading the article. She wondered what has happened to standards in this country if people are actually thinking about voting for Obama, given what he stands for. And if you don't know what he stand for, I urge you to go read the article.
Obama has been compared to JFK for his charisma and ability to give a great speech but upon further examination, really comes up short in my opinion. Clearly, the most famous line in JFK's inaugural address was "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." That seems to be a great way to sum up the spirit of the country at that time.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case today.
Instead, it seems to be "Demand that your country do for you what you once did for yourself. And then complain when it doesn't do more or happen fast enough."
I'm pretty sure that's not the spirit in which this country was founded on.
Obama has been compared to JFK for his charisma and ability to give a great speech but upon further examination, really comes up short in my opinion. Clearly, the most famous line in JFK's inaugural address was "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." That seems to be a great way to sum up the spirit of the country at that time.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case today.
Instead, it seems to be "Demand that your country do for you what you once did for yourself. And then complain when it doesn't do more or happen fast enough."
I'm pretty sure that's not the spirit in which this country was founded on.
He May Be A War Criminal, But He's Our War Criminal
Calls on the left to prosecute various members of the Bush administration for war crimes are pretty common. So common, in fact, that Barack Obama has repeated his pattern of placating radical elements of his party by insinuating that a now almost inevitable Obama Justice Department would be instructed to look into such crimes.
All of which makes the reaction to Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama over the weekend pretty interesting.
The way folks have been talking, the endorsement was tantamount to Elvis sending a telegram to the Ed Sullivan Show praising the Beatles. Or John the Baptist passing the conch to J.C.
But wait just a sec here. Isn't this the same Colin Powell who was G.W.B's Secretary of State in the lead-up to the Iraq war, who was the point man for the administration at the U.N. Security council meeting where the case was made for the war? Who was instantly ridiculed for giving a presentation I remember one blogger describing as "something out of Waiting for Godot?"
Look, I don't begrudge Powell's right to endorse whoever he wants to endorse; he has to do what he thinks is right, and his rationale, while not quite as stunning and impactful as some might have you believe, was at least decently reasoned.
But how can Obama supporters -- who were initially energized by Obama's anti-war stance, and pointed to his early opposition to the war as a sign of his judgement on foreign policy -- crow about the endorsement of a guy, who at the very least, helped pave the way for the war?
Does Powell get a "get out of war crimes free" card for the endorsement?
Monday, October 20, 2008
"Promote"
I want to expand on something my colleague Tom just posted on the preamble to the Constitution.
The Constitutional framers were nothing if not deliberate in the wording of that document. By all accounts they labored over each and every word, confident that this brash audacious document written by a group of misfit colonists half a world away would be pored over and dissected by every despot from Wales to Timbuktu, and one can assume they were serious about getting it right the first time. And so it is with absolute certainty that I assert that each and every word in that preamble is there for a reason.
Which means that if we take a step back and dissect the essense of those words, we can learn quite a bit about what the framers of our Consitution thought about the responsibilities and limits of governmental power. Because, as I fear we would learn under an Obama Presidency, just because Government CAN do something, doesn't mean it SHOULD do that thing.
So what exactly are they saying in that opening paragraph. Well for one thing, they were smart enough to know they were fallible, and that we down through the ages would be similary fallible, and so they left us with a reasonable standard for creating the laws by which we would live and be goverened.
They required only that we seek to create a union "more perfect"... which is to say not perfect at all. If we're going to write a law, or task Government with doing this or that thing, then we are foresworn by the preamble to our Consitution that the law or task must leave our union "more perfect" than it was before.
Our forefathers also left us a short list of five issues that they thought should be within the purview of this new Government they were creating for us. And they sort of ranked them for us too... no they did not list them in order of importance... rather they accompanied each task with a qualifying verb.
And what are those verbs? They are, in order, "Establish", "Provide", "Insure", "Promote", and "Secure."
Remember that regular feature they used to do on the old Sesame Street show... "One of these things is not like the other"? I'm reminded of that gag whenever I read the preamble to the Consitution. Words like "Establish", "Provide", "Insure", and "Secure" leave no doubt that the issues which accompany them MUST be done at all costs.
You have either "Established Justice" or you have not. You have either "Provided for the Common Defense" or you have not. It is impossible to sorta, kinda secure the blessings of Liberty. They are either Secure or they are not Secure. Pretty simple.
So... why's that wishy-washy word "promote" thrown in there? What's THAT all about. "Promote" the general welfare!? That's prety lame. Why not something like "Guarantee the general welfare" or "Certify the general welfare"? Why, in a document full of guarantees do we suddenly run up against this kind of limp-wristed, if we get around to it, verbiage?
I believe it's not an accident. I believe that the framers of the Constitution were making a crucial point... that certain things MUST be secured by Government in order for freedom and liberty to flourish. That without a guarantee from Government that certain things will be the responsibility of Government... things like the protection of property rights, the right to be safe in one's home from crime, the right to be defended against invasions by foreign enemies.... the whole damned experiment would fall apart.
Government can and SHOULD do those things in order that we, as individual Americans can continue to go out and pursue the one thing that we, and we alone, are responsible for... our own individual welfare. Government can promote it, but it cannot guarantee it. That's up to you, and me, and everyone else... INDIVIDUALLY. For if not, aren't we just wards of the state? Aren't we just unchained slaves?
I seriously doubt that those courageous men sailed thousands of miles across hostile oceans towards unknown futures, leaving relatively comfortable lives behind, only to embrace a slightly different kind of oppression than the one they were fleeing in the first place.
Don't you?
The Constitutional framers were nothing if not deliberate in the wording of that document. By all accounts they labored over each and every word, confident that this brash audacious document written by a group of misfit colonists half a world away would be pored over and dissected by every despot from Wales to Timbuktu, and one can assume they were serious about getting it right the first time. And so it is with absolute certainty that I assert that each and every word in that preamble is there for a reason.
Which means that if we take a step back and dissect the essense of those words, we can learn quite a bit about what the framers of our Consitution thought about the responsibilities and limits of governmental power. Because, as I fear we would learn under an Obama Presidency, just because Government CAN do something, doesn't mean it SHOULD do that thing.
So what exactly are they saying in that opening paragraph. Well for one thing, they were smart enough to know they were fallible, and that we down through the ages would be similary fallible, and so they left us with a reasonable standard for creating the laws by which we would live and be goverened.
They required only that we seek to create a union "more perfect"... which is to say not perfect at all. If we're going to write a law, or task Government with doing this or that thing, then we are foresworn by the preamble to our Consitution that the law or task must leave our union "more perfect" than it was before.
Our forefathers also left us a short list of five issues that they thought should be within the purview of this new Government they were creating for us. And they sort of ranked them for us too... no they did not list them in order of importance... rather they accompanied each task with a qualifying verb.
And what are those verbs? They are, in order, "Establish", "Provide", "Insure", "Promote", and "Secure."
Remember that regular feature they used to do on the old Sesame Street show... "One of these things is not like the other"? I'm reminded of that gag whenever I read the preamble to the Consitution. Words like "Establish", "Provide", "Insure", and "Secure" leave no doubt that the issues which accompany them MUST be done at all costs.
You have either "Established Justice" or you have not. You have either "Provided for the Common Defense" or you have not. It is impossible to sorta, kinda secure the blessings of Liberty. They are either Secure or they are not Secure. Pretty simple.
So... why's that wishy-washy word "promote" thrown in there? What's THAT all about. "Promote" the general welfare!? That's prety lame. Why not something like "Guarantee the general welfare" or "Certify the general welfare"? Why, in a document full of guarantees do we suddenly run up against this kind of limp-wristed, if we get around to it, verbiage?
I believe it's not an accident. I believe that the framers of the Constitution were making a crucial point... that certain things MUST be secured by Government in order for freedom and liberty to flourish. That without a guarantee from Government that certain things will be the responsibility of Government... things like the protection of property rights, the right to be safe in one's home from crime, the right to be defended against invasions by foreign enemies.... the whole damned experiment would fall apart.
Government can and SHOULD do those things in order that we, as individual Americans can continue to go out and pursue the one thing that we, and we alone, are responsible for... our own individual welfare. Government can promote it, but it cannot guarantee it. That's up to you, and me, and everyone else... INDIVIDUALLY. For if not, aren't we just wards of the state? Aren't we just unchained slaves?
I seriously doubt that those courageous men sailed thousands of miles across hostile oceans towards unknown futures, leaving relatively comfortable lives behind, only to embrace a slightly different kind of oppression than the one they were fleeing in the first place.
Don't you?
We the People
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That, for those of you who don’t know, is the opening to the United States Constitution.
I think it is time for the People to start participating in this country, because clearly the parties in Congress are too busy ignoring us except for election years, where they tell us what we want to hear, and then they go back to Washington and do whatever it is that they damn well please.
Well, I have news for the folks in Washington. The People run this country. We always have and we always will. A lot of politicians have forgotten that and along with the media, they’ve made a lot of the People forget that as well.
But we the People run this country. And it’s high time that we take it back from the politicians.
That, for those of you who don’t know, is the opening to the United States Constitution.
I think it is time for the People to start participating in this country, because clearly the parties in Congress are too busy ignoring us except for election years, where they tell us what we want to hear, and then they go back to Washington and do whatever it is that they damn well please.
Well, I have news for the folks in Washington. The People run this country. We always have and we always will. A lot of politicians have forgotten that and along with the media, they’ve made a lot of the People forget that as well.
But we the People run this country. And it’s high time that we take it back from the politicians.
Hollywood and our Dystopian (near-term?) future
So I really like watching apocalyptic (28 DAYS LATER; DAY AFTER TOMORROW; THE CORE), post-apocalyptic (THE POSTMAN; WATERWORLD), and Dystopian future (THE MATRIX; JOHNNY MNEMONIC; CHILDREN OF MEN) movies, even when they're bad.I can watch them over and over and over... probably has something to do with my fascination with history and politics... there's always some fun little detail to pick out that reflects a fear or belief specific to the politics or history of the time in which the movie was made (note the detail in DAY AFTER TOMORROW where a female newsie gleefully points out that Americans are now illegally crossing the border into Mexico, rather than the other way around).
But in the end they rarely move me in a deep and meaningful way because they always seem overwrought. I mean if global warming turns out to be manmade and real, then the Earth is going to very VERY slowly warm up and winters will slowly disappear, farmable land will VERY slowly wither away, and populations will EXTREMELY gradually migrate elsewhere, they will not pack up all their things and become instant refugees, literally overnight. And we're not going to wake up one morning to an ice age that deposits 500 feet of glacial ice on New York City in a single afternoon.
Likewise, I don't see us becoming slaves to a race of machines, or spending the majority of our lives jacked into computer terminals interacting in a made-up world, or living in burned out cities where rich people inhabit gleaming apartments a thousand feet above the slums that have been left at ground level for "everyone else." I just don't think it's going to be as dramatic as the movies need their stories and visuals to be in order to get butts into theatre seats.
That said, I was shocked last night to find that a movie I have consistently made fun of over the years (even though it occupies a special place in my heart because of it's fun goofiness), showed me what I find to be the most plausible dystopian future you'll see in any modern movie.
I watched DEMOLITION MAN (DM) last night.
Most dystopian future worlds you see in the movies are immediately terrifying. If someone dropped you into the world of THE TERMINATOR or THE MATRIX or THE CORE, you would instantly shit your pants. Not so in San Angeles (the city where Sly finds himself in DM circa 2032).
If you woke up in San Angeles tomorrow, your first impression might be "hey, this is kinda nice." The streets are clean, the cars are electric and make almost no noise, the buildings are beautifully designed and built, there are plenty of trees and grass and there are no fast food joints, liquor stores, or billboards. Everyone is polite and nice, no one curses or fights, clothing is relaxed and attractive, as are the people. It looks like a utopian dream.
But San Angeles 2032 is ruled by a government made up of officials that I might call "benign fascists." At some point, it was decided by (presumably rich, well-educated progressives) that the behaviour of average Americans must be legally restricted "for their own good." Sandra Bullock explains the world pretty succintly when she points out to Sly that anything considered "bad" has been outlawed... everything from gas, smoking, guns, and salt, to cursing.
But I say these are "benign" Fascists because there is no secret police force that whisks "criminals" off to the gulag. This fascist government is much smarter than that. Physical threats, jails, and executions breed revolutionaries. If the only thing that happens when you curse or eat salt, is that a machine tells you that you've been "fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statute"... well that's no so bad, is it? We can live with that... right?
Maybe, but the world in DM is not static, it's still evolving... and maybe today it's a fine of one credit, but governments that seek control MUST maintain that control at any cost. What happenes when one credit is not enough to dissaude cursing... it becomes two credits, then one hundred, and if people are still ignoring the statute, maybe THAT'S where the gulags and the executions come in... remember, when we join the story in DM, the leader of this utopian world has just re-awakened a dangerous criminal whom he hopes will assassinate the leader of an underground movement seeking to restore basic freedoms that have been given up or lost, and he doesn't seem to care how many people die as a result, as long as his goal is achieved. That's a pretty aggressive escalation.
And so, here in 2008 I look around me and I see helmet laws, cigarette laws, CAFE standards, and campus speech codes, and I hear politicians pushing laws to tell you what kind of lightbulbs you can buy (I buy Compact Flourescents but I don't think you should be forced to if you don't want them), or wether or not we should start taxing candy bars and soda... or I read an article like this one, where one side of a political debate on Affirmative Action points out that the only way to win is to keep the issue off of ballots because even though they'd lose in the court of public opinion, they're right and that's all that matters... or note how with each new election cycle, politicians manage to convince us of one more thing the government should have control over in our lives (now it's health care and mortgages... tomorrow it may be whether or not you can have a child and raise it on your own) and I start to wonder if, of all the dystopian future movies ever made, DEMOLITION MAN might be the most prescient, the most plausible, and ultimately, the scariest such movie ever made.
If Americans ever lose our freedoms, it will not be overnight, to force of arms... we will give them away, voluntarily and perhaps happily, over the course of many years, to people who consider themselves "our betters", and we will do so with the best of intentions... and while some things might seem nicer, or safer in the aftermath, we will have made ourselves slaves... make no mistake about that.
In response to which, I can do no better than to quote Denis Leary from DM...
"You see, according to Cocteau's plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener". "
But in the end they rarely move me in a deep and meaningful way because they always seem overwrought. I mean if global warming turns out to be manmade and real, then the Earth is going to very VERY slowly warm up and winters will slowly disappear, farmable land will VERY slowly wither away, and populations will EXTREMELY gradually migrate elsewhere, they will not pack up all their things and become instant refugees, literally overnight. And we're not going to wake up one morning to an ice age that deposits 500 feet of glacial ice on New York City in a single afternoon.
Likewise, I don't see us becoming slaves to a race of machines, or spending the majority of our lives jacked into computer terminals interacting in a made-up world, or living in burned out cities where rich people inhabit gleaming apartments a thousand feet above the slums that have been left at ground level for "everyone else." I just don't think it's going to be as dramatic as the movies need their stories and visuals to be in order to get butts into theatre seats.
That said, I was shocked last night to find that a movie I have consistently made fun of over the years (even though it occupies a special place in my heart because of it's fun goofiness), showed me what I find to be the most plausible dystopian future you'll see in any modern movie.
I watched DEMOLITION MAN (DM) last night.
Most dystopian future worlds you see in the movies are immediately terrifying. If someone dropped you into the world of THE TERMINATOR or THE MATRIX or THE CORE, you would instantly shit your pants. Not so in San Angeles (the city where Sly finds himself in DM circa 2032).
If you woke up in San Angeles tomorrow, your first impression might be "hey, this is kinda nice." The streets are clean, the cars are electric and make almost no noise, the buildings are beautifully designed and built, there are plenty of trees and grass and there are no fast food joints, liquor stores, or billboards. Everyone is polite and nice, no one curses or fights, clothing is relaxed and attractive, as are the people. It looks like a utopian dream.
But San Angeles 2032 is ruled by a government made up of officials that I might call "benign fascists." At some point, it was decided by (presumably rich, well-educated progressives) that the behaviour of average Americans must be legally restricted "for their own good." Sandra Bullock explains the world pretty succintly when she points out to Sly that anything considered "bad" has been outlawed... everything from gas, smoking, guns, and salt, to cursing.
But I say these are "benign" Fascists because there is no secret police force that whisks "criminals" off to the gulag. This fascist government is much smarter than that. Physical threats, jails, and executions breed revolutionaries. If the only thing that happens when you curse or eat salt, is that a machine tells you that you've been "fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statute"... well that's no so bad, is it? We can live with that... right?
Maybe, but the world in DM is not static, it's still evolving... and maybe today it's a fine of one credit, but governments that seek control MUST maintain that control at any cost. What happenes when one credit is not enough to dissaude cursing... it becomes two credits, then one hundred, and if people are still ignoring the statute, maybe THAT'S where the gulags and the executions come in... remember, when we join the story in DM, the leader of this utopian world has just re-awakened a dangerous criminal whom he hopes will assassinate the leader of an underground movement seeking to restore basic freedoms that have been given up or lost, and he doesn't seem to care how many people die as a result, as long as his goal is achieved. That's a pretty aggressive escalation.
And so, here in 2008 I look around me and I see helmet laws, cigarette laws, CAFE standards, and campus speech codes, and I hear politicians pushing laws to tell you what kind of lightbulbs you can buy (I buy Compact Flourescents but I don't think you should be forced to if you don't want them), or wether or not we should start taxing candy bars and soda... or I read an article like this one, where one side of a political debate on Affirmative Action points out that the only way to win is to keep the issue off of ballots because even though they'd lose in the court of public opinion, they're right and that's all that matters... or note how with each new election cycle, politicians manage to convince us of one more thing the government should have control over in our lives (now it's health care and mortgages... tomorrow it may be whether or not you can have a child and raise it on your own) and I start to wonder if, of all the dystopian future movies ever made, DEMOLITION MAN might be the most prescient, the most plausible, and ultimately, the scariest such movie ever made.
If Americans ever lose our freedoms, it will not be overnight, to force of arms... we will give them away, voluntarily and perhaps happily, over the course of many years, to people who consider themselves "our betters", and we will do so with the best of intentions... and while some things might seem nicer, or safer in the aftermath, we will have made ourselves slaves... make no mistake about that.
In response to which, I can do no better than to quote Denis Leary from DM...
"You see, according to Cocteau's plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener". "
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Or Give Me Death
Welcome to George M.F. Washington's beat-down facility. Expecting to have some input from other members of the Continental Congress here soon. We'll all be running with the middle initials "M.F." because, like Jules said, we are all Bad Mutha.... well you get the idea. You can expect to hear from Thomas M.F. Jefferson and Alexander M.F. Hamilton for sure... and if I can dig up a Benjamin M.F. Franklin as well... well so much the better.
Stay tuned... the struggle begins anew!
Stay tuned... the struggle begins anew!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)