Friday, April 11, 2014

Not so secret

To my conservative friends out there who are in favor of campaign disclosure laws, Mozilla should be a warning.  The entire purpose of these laws is to intimidate opponents.  Make no mistake about it, the only reason that liberals want to name campaign donors is so they can harass and take revenge upon their political enemies.

Ask yourself why elections are held by secret ballot.  Because if they were held in public, each individual would be subject to enormous pressure by whoever happens to be the biggest bully.  Think about it from the perspective of the bully.  If you don't know who voted against you, you don't know who to take retribution on.

In essence, campaign finance disclosure laws take away the secret ballot.  If you know who I donated money to, you pretty much know who I'm going to vote for.  It paints a big target for every bully out there and it's wrong.

Don't be foolish and think any of this is about "transparency", it's about coercion, plain and simple.

Monday, November 11, 2013

Winning ideas

One day I'd like to either run for office, or be a consultant for a politician.  The other day I was listening to Steve Lonegan debate Corey Booker and he was asked about his pro-life position.  Mr. Booker attacked Mr. Lonegan by saying how he wanted to take away the rights of women and conduct a "war" on them.  Mr. Lonegan responded by asking Mr. Booker what situations would he be opposed to abortion.  This is your typical back and forth on the issue, and it is a losing strategy for pro-life Republicans.  Here's the answer Mr. Lonegan should give:

Sir, I believe that all life is sacred.  I believe that life begins at conception and further, I believe that I should do everything in my power to protect and honor life.  In a nutshell, I am pro-life.  I hope you are too.

Personally, I'm okay with abortion.  Being against abortion because you cherish life is not a position to run away from.  It's a noble position if you don't impose it on other people.  If you try to persuade with that position, then people will respect you.  The only time somebody can get in trouble for being pro-life is when it's imposed on others.  We are the party of liberty, we can also be the party that places life in the highest regard possible.  These are not antagonistic positions unless you make them.

Monday, September 30, 2013

The Better Half

The other day my wife and I were watching a Canadian TV news show.  Their target was unlicensed day care facilities.  Were these shops up to the task of taking care of your tot?  Do they know CPR in case little johnny chokes on a gummy bear?  I never heard the answer, but given the ominous tone of the program, I was sure that my future tots were not safe in these kiddie dungeons.  But, when all hope was lost and I was sure that I would be forced to take care of my own damn kid, my wife, in a moment of clarity, asked if all parents know CPR.  My jaw dropped.  Brilliant!  Since most parents don't know CPR, then it's just as unsafe to keep them at home.  Huzzah!  No overwhelming feeling of guilt pawning them off to unlicensed and CPR-less baby boarding houses.  Problem solved, unless...they (the man) decide that everyone must learn CPR to take care of children.  Thankfully, I don't have kids (ominous tone here) yet.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Remember

For those like me who are disillusioned, some truth to keep your spirits up.   Individuals, not the government, are responsible for their own success.  You have infinitely more ability to shape your life, and your success than the government does.  That was true before the election and it's true today.  This country has been so successful because it created an environment which aligned incentives with wealth creation.  Hard work, innovation, thrift, and drive were/are rewarded by the marketplace, and the marketplace was king.  Now that government will stifle the marketplace, those hurt most will be those whose behavior does not naturally conform to these principles.  Sadly, these are already the least fortunate among us.  But, you the individual, you must always realize that your success is dependent on those principles, no matter the society you live in.  Reality is conservative, and conservative values lead to prosperity.

In vain we have been trying to teach the other half of the country to cherish these values.  They didn't heed the lesson, and now they will bear the consequences.  You don't have to.  Remember that, live it, and teach it to anyone who will listen.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Demographics isn't the problem, Identity politics is

Welcome to the United States of Detroit.  We have officially become a country where people are elected not based on any tangible results, but simply because of who they are and who they are not.  This election the Democratic coalition voted in larger percentages for Obama than last time.  Blacks, Asians, and Latinos all voted for Obama at the same, or higher, rate than they did last time.  Folks, this is startling and scary.

I don't care what your political persuasion is, common sense dictates that with an economy this bad, you should think twice before voting for the guy in office.  Now, history tells another story.  History tells us that people are stupid, after all, they elected Roosevelt four times while he presided over the worst economic performance in this country's history.  Obama is the new Roosevelt.  He can't lead us to prosperity, or even to recovery, but we'll elect him again and again and again.

I actually thought Obama would lose simply based on the fact that he would get a lower percentage of each category this time around.  I thought that some people would look at the economic picture and say, "hey, let's give someone else a shot."  It didn't happen and that means that unless the world is literally coming to an end, and maybe even then (see Detroit), Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians will vote for the Democrat. 

It's sad to say, but people get the government they deserve.  This country, and it's poor will become poorer.  We can't save the country anymore, the country has made it's choice.  Save yourselves, and watch the stagnation happen.

Monday, September 17, 2012

The Simple Truth

I can never understand why conservatives don't simplify their message.  People cannot and do not care to understand how the economy works.  What people want to know is that someone is looking out for them and that their "plan" will help them.  It doesn't even matter if it's true, only that people believe it.

Inflation is such an interesting topic to me, both technically and politically.  What is inflation?  In a nutshell, it's caused by the government printing too many dollars thereby reducing the value of existing dollars.  When inflation happens, a dollar can no longer buy what it used to, meaning that if you buy an apple today for $1, tomorrow that same apple might cost you $2.

All of this is well and good, but not very easy to explain, and not very easy to sell.  But, if we take a step back and think about it, our message is very marketable.  Who loses when inflation happens?  99% of Americans.  Almost no one considers protecting themselves from inflation, no one hedges against inflation, they don't know how to and they can't afford to.  Who hires high priced accountants and attorneys to protect themselves from inflation?  The rich.

The rich aren't to blame, it's the politicians who promote inflation.  They know that inflation robs the 99%, they just don't care.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Those who don't

Here's a great example of media bias: The Buffett Rule's Billionaire Backers: Meet The Super-Rich Who Want To Pay More Taxes  You don't have to actually read the article, just look at the title.  They want to pay more...I'm going to gag.  Those poor old Billionaires want to do the right thing, but the big bad Republicans won't force them to pay higher taxes.  They won't enact tax laws that their highly paid accountants can't skirt.  It's a terrible shame what we are doing to these .1%.  The fact that this article was even written is an example of media bias.  No self respecting journalist would write this stuff.  And a self respecting journalist would at least change the title to something more truthful, something like, "The Buffet Rule's Billionaire Backers:  Meet The Super-Rich Who Want To Pay More Taxes, Can Pay More in Taxes, But Don't"

Thursday, April 5, 2012

They want to kill you

Reading Charles Murray's book, "Real Education" and it's basic premise is that people differ in abilities, notably academic ability, and as a result, we should tailor our educational system accordingly.  The more important point (and this is all me) is the average person is not remarkably bright, which leads to the conclusion.  You can't use rational arguments in politics.

People will never understand economics.  And unfortunately, there is no way to "prove" that one system works better than another.  But what about the collapse of the Soviet Empire?  What about the world freedom index?  What about...  It means nothing.  Europeans still take 6 weeks vacation every year and Canadians still say "eh?" Even if capitalism is objectively superior, a vast majority of the world subjectively judges socialism better.  People prefer the illusion of equality to the reality of prosperity. 

Nevertheless, I believe that my ideas are better for everyone and I want to promote those ideas the best way possible. 

If we want to win, we have to connect our ideas with the illusions people desire.  It doesn't matter if what we are saying is true, only that it isn't demonstrably false.  And we need to demagogue our opponents at every turn.  Why, because the illusion is not about 1% versus 2% GDP growth, but about a just and prosperous society.  We should never argue that we'll make you slightly richer than the other guy.  We have to argue that we'll make you richer, and they'll make you poorer.  That their policies will destroy your ideal society.  We should never let them in on the secret that an ideal society, their illusion, can never exist. 

Our opponents are merciless when it comes to how they describe us.  We are de facto racists, homophobes, and tools for the 1%.  None of our ideas have any merit, and they are actually meant to destroy the poor and middle classes.  It's useless to defend irrational arguments, so let's stop trying.  The truth is that we are for all that is good and right in the world.  We are the last bastion of hope for civilization.  Let's announce it, and make it known.  We are good, they are evil. 

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Disgraceful

Recently, I read the story of a Michigan woman who won the lottery and was still collecting food stamps.  And while I understand the outrage over her egregious behavior, I was dumbstruck by the unreported story within the story.

Supposedly the woman won $1,000,000.  Sounds good, but the reality is that she didn't receive $1,000,000 nor anything close to that.  First, she opted for a lump sum payment which reduced the award to $700,000.  Then the tax man came, and chopped that figure down to about $400,000. 

Holy crap!  $400,000 is a lot less than $1,000,000, and just to get the advertised prize she would have to win the lottery one and a half more times.  Where's the outrage that people playing the lottery are being shafted?  Seriously.  That's false advertising and someone should be held accountable.

Someone who wins money playing the lottery is usually not well off.  It's not as if every year they take home $700,000.  Why tax them as if they did?  It's one thing to ask Buffet to pay more, he makes $700,000 every hour.  In addition, government runs the lottery!.  Isn't it ironic that they sponsor the lottery, award you the money, and then demand that you pay them their "fair" share?  Not even the mob can do shit like that. 

The gap between $400,000 and $1,000,000 is ridiculous and as far as I'm concerned, she should keep the food stamps on principal.  One good screw deserves another.

 

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Fluke That!

Listening to Rush the other day and he's talking about this Georgetown law student and how she can't afford condoms because she's having too much sex.  He was being hyperbolic of course, but I had to check this girl out for myself.

She is a very smart liberal hack who is basically lying to promote an agenda.  Her first lie is to deliberately conflate non-reproductive medical issues with birth control.  If you listen to her opening statement, she would have you believe that 99% of women who go to the doctor for birth control medication do so for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.  Really?  I suspect that most women get birth control for it's primary use which is not a medical condition, but a lifestyle choice.Interestingly enough, according to Ms. Fluke Georgetown student medical insurance does allow birth control to be used for medical purposes. 

Her next lie is that you can have your cake and eat it too.  The woman's sense of entitlement is disturbing.  To those who suggest she go somewhere else for law school, she retorts that she should not have to "choose" between a prestigious law education and her health.  Really?  Is that the only law school?  The only prestigious one?  Who says that she or anyone else has to be a lawyer?  Is it a right?  No, going to school is a privilege, one that you pay for.  No one forces you to go to law school, no one forces you to go to a catholic law school, and no one forces you to have sex.  The irony must be lost on Ms. Fluke that she and her ilk insist on forcing others to subsidize a life she voluntary chose to have.

Birth control costs about $1,000 per year, Georgetown about $40,000 per year.  You do the math.


Friday, February 24, 2012

Break some eggs

Recently I read a Facebook post about global warming and it reminded me of the fundamental reason why I abhor Liberalism.  When all is said and done, liberals believe that the ends justify the means and that is the most dangerous belief one can have.

Liberals believe nothing is off limits when it comes to saving humanity.  Not even humanity itself.  We know what's best, and we will do whatever it takes to make that happen.  Nothing will block our way.  Not the people and not some old flawed document known as the constitution.

The extent with which the Left routinely lies about what they will do and what they believe is illuminating. 

The fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals is conservatives believe that there are certain lines that cannot be crossed for any reason whatsoever.  Not for your own good or harm.  That is a stance for freedom and liberty.  Anything else leads down the Road To Serfdom.  

Monday, February 13, 2012

Household slavery

My wife showed me a really interesting propaganda cartoon from Russia.  The cartoon which was for International Women's Day (March 8th) featured a housewife buried under a mountain of chores and a free woman, a communist, offering an outstretched hand trying to rescue the housewife from domestic slavery.

I am not one to comment on whether the choice to become a housewife is good or bad.  That's for her to decide.  But what's interesting is that the ad is not about "rescuing" the trapped woman from a life of drudgery.  The ad is about attacking that which threatens communism, and what threatens communism is to have its subjects value other things more than communism.

Whether it be G-d or the family, if a man or a woman places those first, if those are inviolable aspects to one's existence, then that creates a fracture in one's loyalty to the state and this is something the state cannot allow.

There shouldn't be any secret why religion was outlawed in communist Russia, religious conviction is a danger to the state.  The communist desire to "free" women from the bonds of domestication is no charitable act, it's an act of self preservation.  Like religion, the family is also a threat, and breaking the family bond makes the state stronger.

Throw off your old masters, so you can embrace your new ones.  That's "freedom" to the Left.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Random Deflections

Krugman is at it again.  Confusing lazy minds and wobbly hearts with his brilliance and derangement.  He claims that Nobody Understands Debt except for him. Let's hear what he has to say:
Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.
This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways.
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t...
Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.
Families don't have to pay back their debt either.  They, like the government, can pay interest payments until the end of time.  There is absolutely nothing sacred about government debt, other than the near religious belief that they will pay you back.

As to his second point, think about what can happen when you loan the government $100. 
1.  The government tells you to jump in the river and doesn't pay you back.
2.  The government taxes you $100 and gives you back your money. 

Either way, you're out $100.

Government debt is nothing more than delayed taxation.  The left sincerely believes that higher taxes and more government will help the economy.  That's nuts, and so is Mr. Krugman.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Something doesn't add up...

Here's a head-scratcher from the New York Times:
An Associated Press report this week on census data found that “a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.” The report said that the data “depict a middle class that’s shrinking.”
An October report from the Congressional Budget Office found that, from 1979 to 2007, the average real after-tax household income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest incomes rose 275 percent. For the rest of the top 20 percent of earners, it rose 65 percent. But it rose just 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
Here's a dumb question, how can the middle class shrink when their earnings have increased?  It can't.  That's right folks, if everyone's household income goes up in real terms, then everyone is better off, including the shrinking middle class.

Color me skeptical, but I don't see 150 million or so Americans barely getting by.  We are the richest nation that has ever existed, and apparently we are doing better than 1979.  Yet this author would have you believe that half the country is basically begging for food.  Ridiculous.

Oh, and why do you suppose the statistic starts in 1979 and ends in 2007?  I'm curious to know how 3 years of liberalism have helped the bottom 20 percent.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Keynes makes a little sense

I was thinking about it the other day and the rationale for Keynesian stimulus spending hit me.  I don't necessarily agree, but I understand the problem he was trying to solve.

The problem goes like this: say you have 3 people, 2 who are working, 1 who isn't.  Real wealth is what the total economy produces.  In our imaginary economy the actual wealth is the output of the 2 people, the third contributes nothing to the economy.  He is under utilized.  Say we could put this guy to work, whatever he produces is a net gain for the economy.  It doesn't matter what he produces because he wasn't producing anything before.

That's it.  Keynes saw a situation where the capacity of the economy wasn't being utilized and he attempted to create remedies for that situation.  Now I don't know enough to criticize all the remedies, but there is one obvious caveat.  This logic is only valid when one person is involuntarily out of work.  If he is not, then diverting his work to some other task, is a net loss for the economy.

Another thing to consider is that in our imaginary economy all we see is the symptom.  A person is out of work who could be producing something of value.  What we don't know is why.