Now that the recession is over, notably without stimulation, we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief. The worst is behind us and we have the Father, the Son and Barak Obama to thank. Unless of course you are obese or hungry or both - then brace yourself for the "good war" on obesity and hunger. And in this war truth is definitely the first casualty. Barak and Michelle Obama are determined to save you from yourself by insinuating themselves into how much and what you and your kids eat so that you won't be hungry or fat or both.
The family is an unwelcome intrusion in the war on hunger and obesity among the "it takes a village crowd". This is certainly true in Boulder where the food renegade Ann Cooper was drafted, from Berkley, CA no less!, to serve as a general in the good war to save Boulder's children from the bad and wrong food choices made by their parents. BVSD parents have been treated to letters from the food general begging us to have our children eat breakfast and lunch at school as a means of eliminating that old stubborn achievement gap. Her last missive cheered the fact that "more kids are eating at school". Children cannot achieve if they don't eat the food Ann Cooper and Michelle Obama think they should eat which includes, strangely, more fruits and vegetables and ice cold milk. Who knew? Haven't parents been imploring their children to eat fruits and vegetables for years, decades and centuries? Not all decades of course. In the Great Depression parents did not have to beg their kids to eat cooked carrots or lima beans because those kids were hungry and there were no Fritos in the cupboard. There was no nothing in the cupboard. Families and children living in the Dust Bowl, if they didn't die from particle pneumonia, ate pickled thistle. Pickled thistle.
According to the USDA "food insecurity" affects approximately 35 million people in America. Food insecurity is defined specifically as reduction in food selection and or total calories at some point during the year typically due to financial pressures. Food insecurity is usually episodic and recurring, as opposed to chronic, and is defined in numbers of days without eating. Most of the families experiencing "food insecurity"are defined as low income and qualify for the Food Stamps program which is part of the $980 billion in food, housing and health care transferred to the poor annually by the federal government. Seventy-five percent of all people on Food Stamps are obese including the children. A typical explanation for why poor people are fat is that they "eat too much of the wrong food because it is cheaper than nutritious food". Per the USDA this is empirically not true and insulting to anyone who thinks logically. Specifically, calories per dollar are 5 times higher in soda than milk, soda being devoid of nutrition.
"Snack foods such as potato chips and donuts cost two to five times more per calorie than healthier staples such as beans, rice, and pasta. Families truly seeking to maximize calories per dollar of food expenditure would focus not on junk and snack foods but on traditional low-cost staples such as beans, rice, flour, pasta, and milk. These foods are not only less expensive but actually have below-average energy density and therefore a lower potential to promote weight gain.[16]" Barbara Rolls "The Volumetric of Weight Controls", 2000.
Obama vowed to spend $10 billion to help feed the poor and the overweight, ostensibly not because they are hungry but because their parents are incompetent at parenting. So why do the food policies for low income people include remedies that arguably make the problem worse; giving the poor more free food? Because this administration would rather micro-manage your food choices and foster dependency than allow you to improve it yourself in a bigger more real way. Michelle reaffirmed support for the Childhood Nutrition Act, i.e. spend more government money, to help with childhood obesity. This program consists of school programs run by educators to end injustice,getting kids to move ...yada yada yada; the money pours out while the kids grow fatter.
"Healthy Schools Campaign’s approach to environmental health and wellness in schools includes a special focus on the role that school environments can play in combating health disparities and promoting environmental justice." Healthy Schools Campaigns
Obamacare has provisions that will mandate BMI, body mass index, calculations on children which will certainly help kids lay off the chips. Oh, and Obama spent $400 million on the Healthy Food Financing Initiative which includes forcing grocery stores into low income neighborhoods and mandates that convenience stores have more wall space for refrigeration units so they can offer apples that the low income patrons may or may not want to buy.
The mind boggling array of dollars spent to combat what should be called malnutrition, or bad nutrition, can only be described as depressing. Bad nutrition is a cultural problem and is not purely driven by economics but socio-economics. Many kids today, including mine and poor kids who are not starving, would rather eat Oreos and Frito's which explains why some kids today are big fat fatties, to quote Glen Beck. How does one fight a culture war? Should the federal government fight a culture war? What would I do if I were Queen Michelle? I would put to rest once and for all the lie that the poor in this country are starving and that their hunger is driving the achievement gap. Many things drive the achievement gap, including but not limited to bad parents who don't care about education as well as by bad schools run by very bad and highly protected teachers. If I were Queen Michelle I would lean hard on Barry to transfer funds out of the Childhood Nutrition Act into the Race to the Top program, provided the Race to the Top guru Arne Duncan did an about face and supported school choice. Giving poor parents access to public funds and school choice via vouchers is the only long term solution out of this mad mess of throwing billions of dollars at the wrong problem. Since this will not happen with Barry at the beck and call of the National Education Association the only thing left to do is serve pickled thistle at school lunches. Pickled thistle.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
I'll Keep My Guns, Religion and Money - Mr.President, Keep the Change
"So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Senator Barak Obama explaining why some in the middle class may not vote for him.
As offensive as candidate Barak Obama's comments regarding the fly-over zone voters was, his Rolling Stone interview where he chastises his base to "buck up" moves to first position. It's bad enough that a President conducting two wars is being interviewed in Rolling Stone, but to think that the voters and not he himself should be the ones to "buck up" is biblical, no pun intended. As this administration scolds the electorate, corporations, Republicans and the Department of Commerce for not behaving as he sees fit, the rage boils over and Obama's personal popularity continues to sink. The interesting fact is where his popularity is cratering; among the non-college educated, the "blue collar" base who did vote for him despite their bitterness. And Obama further provokes these voters who, despite lacking college degrees, are able to add and subtract, by making factually incorrect statements.
"When I walked in," Obama said, "wrapped in a nice bow was a $1.3 trillion deficit sitting right there on my doorstep." Per the CBO when Obama took office the expected 2009 deficit was $1.19 trillion, not $1.3 trillion, however and the actual deficit for 2009 came in at $1.41 trillion, meaning that the new president's administration added approximately $220 billion to the total. Early in 2010 Obama claimed the mathematically false "we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade." The CBO's projected 10-year deficit when Mr. Obama took office was actually $4.09 trillion. Now, after 20 months of his presidency, the expected deficit has almost doubled, to $7.68 trillion." Doubled. X2. Twice as much. Americans have done the math and they are spooked - this level of debt feels very, very wrong.
The current debate regarding the expiration of the Bush tax rates is empty headed on all sides, Republicans included. The fact that they all scampered home before resolving the corrosive uncertainty for American taxpayers is shameful. I won't even quote Krugman on this subject, he doesn't deserve it. "We can't afford the Bush tax cuts", intoned Donna Brazil on a Sunday Morning talk show, asserting that to allow the top 3% to keep an additional 4% off the top marginal rate is tantamount to a gift. From whom to whom one might ask. By logical extension, if the United States cannot afford the Bush tax rates due to the doubling of the debt created by Congress and Obama what on earth led them to believe they could afford the levels of spending they undertook? What could possibly justify such a fury of spending if we didn't have the money? The Keyensian multiplier affect? Further, why is the burden of shrinking the deficits the exclusive job of the top 3% income earners? The answer is revealing and constitutes a significant data point on the graph plotting Obama's agenda and its advancement in American society. Congress typically spends money in a porkish manner; dispensing favors in the form of money to an increasingly dependent electorate. Obama, however, seeks to advance the "dreams from his father". He announced his fondness for these dreams in countless motivational campaign speeches before the election, so .....I told you so.
Barak Obama's support for high progressive tax rates on the "rich" can be explained specifically by the "anti-colonialism" theories advocated in his father's economic thesis, which remain unscrutinized by the media and many of Barak junior's supporters. Obama senior's fundamental premise is that the pursuit of economic prosperity is a myth and the game being played is always zero sum. The only manner of remedy to the zero sum game is intervention by the state to transfer all wealth, at whatever rate and manner is necessary, because the gains are ill-gotten. If someone has a great deal, e.g. the colonialists, someone else, the colonized, must have an equal amount less. The fact that Steve Jobs created Apple computer,setting off an explosion of new technologies which every American enjoys in some meaningful way, means that some other would be entrepreneur has been frozen out. If this were true in fact and not just a sentiment expressed by those who feel truly awful that some in the world have less, why ever strive for growth in GDP or personal prosperity since these things only happen to the detriment of the have nots? Further, belief in the patent unfairness of commerce and business belittles the significance of the rule of law a belief Obama expresses almost constantly. An Obamian example of shoring up the imbalance in world economies is the bizarre loan to Petrobras, 2 billion American dollars no less, to develop Brazil's off-shore drilling. Setting aside the hypocrisy of subsidizing a foreign nation in a manner of commerce that is forbidden to American oil companies, the end game is transparent; advancing the dreams from his father.
What can be said of an American president who still thinks in terms of hegemony, imperialism, and oppression of the colonized? The nicest thing I could offer is that such thinking is dusty and old, not current for such a young president. The worst is that he is not suited tempermentally to serve as the captain of American commerce. His reactionary return of the bust of Churchill to England, America's best ally ever and once colonizer of Kenya, is a telling example. For the record, I certainly hope that the US is done with imperialism and colonialism - on that Obama and I can agree. We are substantially burdened by our own self-imposed governance problems. But more to the point - many of the so called colonized, Kenya and Brazil to name two, will have to progress or not independent of American aid and in accordance with the constraints of an aggressive global economy. And then there is the constant ingratitude. Daniel Hannan has said "External colonies and colonists are expensive and ungrateful,the founders knew that first hand". This is and always has been true, we ungratefully pitched out the British, and should be understood by those responsible for implementing American foreign policy. Pushing the economies of third world countries forward and holding imperialist rogue elephants back is a zero sum game because you will always, always run out of other people's money. We sure do miss you Maggie Thatcher.
As offensive as candidate Barak Obama's comments regarding the fly-over zone voters was, his Rolling Stone interview where he chastises his base to "buck up" moves to first position. It's bad enough that a President conducting two wars is being interviewed in Rolling Stone, but to think that the voters and not he himself should be the ones to "buck up" is biblical, no pun intended. As this administration scolds the electorate, corporations, Republicans and the Department of Commerce for not behaving as he sees fit, the rage boils over and Obama's personal popularity continues to sink. The interesting fact is where his popularity is cratering; among the non-college educated, the "blue collar" base who did vote for him despite their bitterness. And Obama further provokes these voters who, despite lacking college degrees, are able to add and subtract, by making factually incorrect statements.
"When I walked in," Obama said, "wrapped in a nice bow was a $1.3 trillion deficit sitting right there on my doorstep." Per the CBO when Obama took office the expected 2009 deficit was $1.19 trillion, not $1.3 trillion, however and the actual deficit for 2009 came in at $1.41 trillion, meaning that the new president's administration added approximately $220 billion to the total. Early in 2010 Obama claimed the mathematically false "we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade." The CBO's projected 10-year deficit when Mr. Obama took office was actually $4.09 trillion. Now, after 20 months of his presidency, the expected deficit has almost doubled, to $7.68 trillion." Doubled. X2. Twice as much. Americans have done the math and they are spooked - this level of debt feels very, very wrong.
The current debate regarding the expiration of the Bush tax rates is empty headed on all sides, Republicans included. The fact that they all scampered home before resolving the corrosive uncertainty for American taxpayers is shameful. I won't even quote Krugman on this subject, he doesn't deserve it. "We can't afford the Bush tax cuts", intoned Donna Brazil on a Sunday Morning talk show, asserting that to allow the top 3% to keep an additional 4% off the top marginal rate is tantamount to a gift. From whom to whom one might ask. By logical extension, if the United States cannot afford the Bush tax rates due to the doubling of the debt created by Congress and Obama what on earth led them to believe they could afford the levels of spending they undertook? What could possibly justify such a fury of spending if we didn't have the money? The Keyensian multiplier affect? Further, why is the burden of shrinking the deficits the exclusive job of the top 3% income earners? The answer is revealing and constitutes a significant data point on the graph plotting Obama's agenda and its advancement in American society. Congress typically spends money in a porkish manner; dispensing favors in the form of money to an increasingly dependent electorate. Obama, however, seeks to advance the "dreams from his father". He announced his fondness for these dreams in countless motivational campaign speeches before the election, so .....I told you so.
Barak Obama's support for high progressive tax rates on the "rich" can be explained specifically by the "anti-colonialism" theories advocated in his father's economic thesis, which remain unscrutinized by the media and many of Barak junior's supporters. Obama senior's fundamental premise is that the pursuit of economic prosperity is a myth and the game being played is always zero sum. The only manner of remedy to the zero sum game is intervention by the state to transfer all wealth, at whatever rate and manner is necessary, because the gains are ill-gotten. If someone has a great deal, e.g. the colonialists, someone else, the colonized, must have an equal amount less. The fact that Steve Jobs created Apple computer,setting off an explosion of new technologies which every American enjoys in some meaningful way, means that some other would be entrepreneur has been frozen out. If this were true in fact and not just a sentiment expressed by those who feel truly awful that some in the world have less, why ever strive for growth in GDP or personal prosperity since these things only happen to the detriment of the have nots? Further, belief in the patent unfairness of commerce and business belittles the significance of the rule of law a belief Obama expresses almost constantly. An Obamian example of shoring up the imbalance in world economies is the bizarre loan to Petrobras, 2 billion American dollars no less, to develop Brazil's off-shore drilling. Setting aside the hypocrisy of subsidizing a foreign nation in a manner of commerce that is forbidden to American oil companies, the end game is transparent; advancing the dreams from his father.
What can be said of an American president who still thinks in terms of hegemony, imperialism, and oppression of the colonized? The nicest thing I could offer is that such thinking is dusty and old, not current for such a young president. The worst is that he is not suited tempermentally to serve as the captain of American commerce. His reactionary return of the bust of Churchill to England, America's best ally ever and once colonizer of Kenya, is a telling example. For the record, I certainly hope that the US is done with imperialism and colonialism - on that Obama and I can agree. We are substantially burdened by our own self-imposed governance problems. But more to the point - many of the so called colonized, Kenya and Brazil to name two, will have to progress or not independent of American aid and in accordance with the constraints of an aggressive global economy. And then there is the constant ingratitude. Daniel Hannan has said "External colonies and colonists are expensive and ungrateful,the founders knew that first hand". This is and always has been true, we ungratefully pitched out the British, and should be understood by those responsible for implementing American foreign policy. Pushing the economies of third world countries forward and holding imperialist rogue elephants back is a zero sum game because you will always, always run out of other people's money. We sure do miss you Maggie Thatcher.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Calling All Conservatives!
My devotion to private property rights transcends all my other political concerns by an order of magnitude, at least. Which is why I believe the resolution of the Cordoba House controversy must be resolved with the utmost duty and care to private property rights more so than as a nod to the right to freedom of religion. In this respect the mosque and Muslim cultural center should be built. I am not happy about the Center and I sympathize with the New Yorkers in particular who are opposed and unhappy about the perceived “insensitivity” of the Imam and Daisy Khan to this point of view. However, community unhappiness, sensitivity and personal preferences to the contrary of a private property owner should not be the standard by which private property is developed. That said, the political manner in which the opposition movement is articulating arguments against the center is flawed and disingenuous. Appeals to “moderate Muslims” are embarrassing and fall on deaf ears since “moderate Muslims” are in short supply and are not the driving forces behind this project. Opposition should be as follows: the United States is at war with Islam, we were attacked by jihadists waging a religious war against our constitution and modernity, sharia law cannot be tolerated as a parallel form of government applying to both believers and infidels as the Koran asserts, there is a growing population of Islamismists and about all these things Americans should be deeply concerned. No Republican running for office can be this honest and say these things and he or she probably won’t so – enough about the mosque. Focus on the election and the real things that conservatives can and should do.
How can Republicans avoid losing the mid-term elections? What is the most effective shot they can take at the Democrats? Spending, spending, spending, spending. Spending must be halted abruptly, forcefully, quickly and permanently. This is the roundabout contention of Constitutional Conservatives and should be the clarion call of conservatives everywhere. Chris Chrisite has written the playbook for Republicans and it is not necessary to do anything clever – just parrot what he is saying and promise the private sector that public sector has its head on the chopping block. Promise the private sector that the public sector employees will be forced to make concessions that are in keeping with the types of cuts that private sector employees have borne to keep their jobs; no costs of living increases, possible furloughs, and the responsibility of contributing to their own retirement accounts. This means taking on all public sector employees, teachers, law enforcement and the charming people who work at the Drivers License office.
Obama’s raison ‘d’être health care legislation must be exposed abruptly, forcefully, quickly and permanently in the style of Paul Ryan R- Wisconsin. All Republican candidates must vow to defund this boondoggle which has already shot past the CBO’s initial cost estimate by many billions of dollars and will be funded on the backs of Medicare patients. Michelle Bachman R – Minnesota, has formed a Teaparty coalition with 40 Republicans in the House of Representative and defunding health care is a unifying cause for this group. Many private sector employees who have health care through their employers or who pay for their own health care are already seeing increases in premiums. These hikes are in anticipation of “guaranteed issue” for the very sick and uninsurable and “minimum coverage” standards being forced on all consumers of private health care. Remember Obama’s promise to disallow the insurance industry to “race to the bottom”? As insurers are forced to cover more people with more uniform types of coverage rates will rise, because costs will increase. Consequently two things happen- providers leave the industry, paving the way for a public option, and health care will be rationed. Note the recent ban by the FDA of Avastin, citing limited benefits relative to costs. Prepare for all decisions to regulate cutting edge medication to be assessed by the Department of Health and Human Services as needing to offer the greatest good to the most. In 2012 privately insured employees should prepare themselves to be booted out of the private insurance system as their employers opt for the 8% tax in lieu of paying employees health insurance premiums as a benefit. Obama’s promise that “if you like your health care you can keep it, “ pledge is just one more lie he will have to atone for, if he is in fact a Christian.
Finally, tax cuts must be reinstated abruptly, forcefully, quickly and permanently. The point must be made that the deficits, past, present and future are not attributable in general to tax cuts and are not attributable to the Bush tax cuts specifically. For specific data to support this point refer to Bill Riedel’s piece in the WSJ, 7/13/2010, which unpacks the deficit myths of the Bush tax cuts. The moral argument can and should be made that excessive taxation to pay for the misdeeds of incompetent public sector employees creates a moral hazard. Further, as we see more federal dollars sent to states with the most flagrant misuse of public money it amounts to taxation without representation. Exactly how does a resident in Dallas, Texas get rid of the California legislature, which must come up with the money to pay for a $550 million dollar school in LA with a graduation rate of 50%? Simply stated all weak, knock kneed Republicans should look to the stalwart Constitutional Conservatives to be reminded of the legitimate role of government as stated in the Constitution which does not include, to the best of my knowledge, the power to diminish individuality and private property in order to create a world more to the liking of the Democrats.
How can Republicans avoid losing the mid-term elections? What is the most effective shot they can take at the Democrats? Spending, spending, spending, spending. Spending must be halted abruptly, forcefully, quickly and permanently. This is the roundabout contention of Constitutional Conservatives and should be the clarion call of conservatives everywhere. Chris Chrisite has written the playbook for Republicans and it is not necessary to do anything clever – just parrot what he is saying and promise the private sector that public sector has its head on the chopping block. Promise the private sector that the public sector employees will be forced to make concessions that are in keeping with the types of cuts that private sector employees have borne to keep their jobs; no costs of living increases, possible furloughs, and the responsibility of contributing to their own retirement accounts. This means taking on all public sector employees, teachers, law enforcement and the charming people who work at the Drivers License office.
Obama’s raison ‘d’être health care legislation must be exposed abruptly, forcefully, quickly and permanently in the style of Paul Ryan R- Wisconsin. All Republican candidates must vow to defund this boondoggle which has already shot past the CBO’s initial cost estimate by many billions of dollars and will be funded on the backs of Medicare patients. Michelle Bachman R – Minnesota, has formed a Teaparty coalition with 40 Republicans in the House of Representative and defunding health care is a unifying cause for this group. Many private sector employees who have health care through their employers or who pay for their own health care are already seeing increases in premiums. These hikes are in anticipation of “guaranteed issue” for the very sick and uninsurable and “minimum coverage” standards being forced on all consumers of private health care. Remember Obama’s promise to disallow the insurance industry to “race to the bottom”? As insurers are forced to cover more people with more uniform types of coverage rates will rise, because costs will increase. Consequently two things happen- providers leave the industry, paving the way for a public option, and health care will be rationed. Note the recent ban by the FDA of Avastin, citing limited benefits relative to costs. Prepare for all decisions to regulate cutting edge medication to be assessed by the Department of Health and Human Services as needing to offer the greatest good to the most. In 2012 privately insured employees should prepare themselves to be booted out of the private insurance system as their employers opt for the 8% tax in lieu of paying employees health insurance premiums as a benefit. Obama’s promise that “if you like your health care you can keep it, “ pledge is just one more lie he will have to atone for, if he is in fact a Christian.
Finally, tax cuts must be reinstated abruptly, forcefully, quickly and permanently. The point must be made that the deficits, past, present and future are not attributable in general to tax cuts and are not attributable to the Bush tax cuts specifically. For specific data to support this point refer to Bill Riedel’s piece in the WSJ, 7/13/2010, which unpacks the deficit myths of the Bush tax cuts. The moral argument can and should be made that excessive taxation to pay for the misdeeds of incompetent public sector employees creates a moral hazard. Further, as we see more federal dollars sent to states with the most flagrant misuse of public money it amounts to taxation without representation. Exactly how does a resident in Dallas, Texas get rid of the California legislature, which must come up with the money to pay for a $550 million dollar school in LA with a graduation rate of 50%? Simply stated all weak, knock kneed Republicans should look to the stalwart Constitutional Conservatives to be reminded of the legitimate role of government as stated in the Constitution which does not include, to the best of my knowledge, the power to diminish individuality and private property in order to create a world more to the liking of the Democrats.
Friday, July 16, 2010
It is interesting that a GSE, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, put the breaks on a Boulder County government sponsored loan program, Climate Smart, putting a halt to a government driven agenda, green improvements to private property, in an era where the government is exerting its will over everything and everyone in the private sector. Apparently, various factions of the government, federal and local, will now have to fight it out over who gets to tell exactly whom what to do. Private property owners will have to sit tight for now.
Some have despaired over ClimateSmarts' premature death and wonder how the government is going to get people, homeowners specifically, to spend money on energy improvements that will help Boulder meet Kyoto and keep the planet from overheating. After all, some homeowners are not very bright and some arm of the government needs to show them the way. The fact that these loans were apparently issued to people regardless of any rigorous assessment of value added, an appraisal on the back end, seems to bother the advocates of these programs not at all. I suspect these same advocates were very unhappy with say, Citigroup’s, policies of encouraging over-leveraging. I imagine the reasoning in support of these loans is something along the lines of; costs be damned, any and all energy improvements are worth the price and increased market value will follow. And if it doesn’t, all costs on the path to greenhood are to be borne to save the planet even if the property is worth less than the total of all the liens against it.
Oh well. Maybe now Boulder County will have to wait for property owners to determine their own desires for energy savings and budgetary constraints, and generally speaking mind their own business and get out of the loan business. Perhaps they should concentrate their efforts in support of Obama’s energy initiatives which may, if the government continues with its skull cracking ham handedness, force energy upgrades on a seller before a home can be legally sold. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you; government mandated green jobs funded by marginalized taxpayers.
Some have despaired over ClimateSmarts' premature death and wonder how the government is going to get people, homeowners specifically, to spend money on energy improvements that will help Boulder meet Kyoto and keep the planet from overheating. After all, some homeowners are not very bright and some arm of the government needs to show them the way. The fact that these loans were apparently issued to people regardless of any rigorous assessment of value added, an appraisal on the back end, seems to bother the advocates of these programs not at all. I suspect these same advocates were very unhappy with say, Citigroup’s, policies of encouraging over-leveraging. I imagine the reasoning in support of these loans is something along the lines of; costs be damned, any and all energy improvements are worth the price and increased market value will follow. And if it doesn’t, all costs on the path to greenhood are to be borne to save the planet even if the property is worth less than the total of all the liens against it.
Oh well. Maybe now Boulder County will have to wait for property owners to determine their own desires for energy savings and budgetary constraints, and generally speaking mind their own business and get out of the loan business. Perhaps they should concentrate their efforts in support of Obama’s energy initiatives which may, if the government continues with its skull cracking ham handedness, force energy upgrades on a seller before a home can be legally sold. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you; government mandated green jobs funded by marginalized taxpayers.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Obama and King George
I am reading "The Real George Washington" by Jay Parry and Andrew Allison, and "The Last Founding Father - James Monroe and a Nation's Call to Greatness," by Harlow Giles Unger. The first was recommended by Glen Beck who interviewed the authors on his program, both modest, well informed historians. The book on Monroe, who fought at the battle of Trenton and helped shape the Constitution's balance, covers similar ground from a slightly different vantage point. Most importantly, both books solidified my strongest belief that central governments will ultimately abuse their powers if they can find a way to do so or if "the people" are sufficiently weak to allow their natural rights to be abused. This was the primary concern then and it is certainly of grave concern now. As I read through Washingtons writings about the British and the imposed yoke of slavery, it seemed so easy to substitute "federal government" for the "British". So I ask, in what ways are Obama and his ham handed administration similar to King George? Is this a ridiculous comparison? Actually, no it is not.
Consider the offenses by the Crown toward the colonists, a lengthy and sordid list. The Stamp Act, closing Boston harbor, restricting appointments for governor to the authority of the Crown, restricting town meetings to annual events, the Quartering Act, taxation without representation. In our own dusty constitutional language these offenses were all "takings" of a sort - intrusions on the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Despite these abuses many colonists tried to work things out with the Crown to no avail; King George was deaf to the concerns. Obama is similarly deaf to the electorates' concerns and similarly abusive of his authority. How many Czars has he appointed to date? Ray Mabus, oil Czar brings the total to thirty-eight. Mountains of new regulations, a completely unvetted expansion of the executive branch. What of Obama's closing of all deep water drilling by executive fiat, casting 20,000 people out of work, demanding BP pick up the tab for all the lost wages? Very King Georgesque. Judge Feldman has struck this down for lack of objective standards for the fiat and Obama responds by pulling one of his two levers; a legal threat back. (His other lever is printing money.)How about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? Arguably less King Georgesque since Congress voted on this and therefore technically not imposed by fiat. But it was signed into law despite opposition by the majority of Americans, as was Obamacare. King Georgesque deafness. Is the Constitution flawed by permitting these sorts of abuses or is the natural evolution of all central governments toward taking power permanently from localities and individuals?
What if instead of a majority vote to pass legistlation, obtained with the requisite bribery and threats by Pelosi, each state's delegates voted separately within the state and a majority of states voting "yea" would be required to pass legislation? This was the manner in which the original nine colonies ratified the overhaul to the Articles of Confederation. Congress today could not fathom this type of coordinated negotiation. Nothing would get done under such restrictions! Government would falter! People would suffer, children would go hungry! Maybe. Or maybe there would actually be true compromise, such as occurred in 1787. Admittedly, most were unhappy in some way with the Constitution, including George Washington and Patrick Henry, then Governor of Virginia. The compromise cobbled together a wide array of competing interests- merchants, farmers, slave holders, abolitionists, eastern states and western states. The end result, our Constitution, with the ensuing Bill of Rights was a compromise which has done several things over the history of our nation. On the one hand it has allowed for the greatest advancement of personal prosperity and liberty for individuals in the history of man. Strangely, on the other hand, it also gave birth to FDR's first 100 days, with its systematic destruction of wealth, Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare , modern versions of taxation without representation. Massive amounts of wealth transferred from the few to the many. Presidents Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Obama have used a hole in the Constitution through which to shove the Federal government permanently into each and every American family. Was this mushrooming of federal power inevitable?
Back then, having cast the British out after eight years of war, a sacrifice incomprehensible to Americans today, the states continued the struggle which began prior to the launch of the revolution. Namely, which entity will govern what? Federalists versus Republicans, of the Jefferson sort, not the Bush sort. States versus the Feds. As we all know, this argument rages on today and the Federal government is winning this battle. It is important now,however, to win this war for the Constitution, possibly amending it in such a way that this type of runaway central authority is contained once and for all. The Continental Congress assembled on the heels of the American victory over Britain was lazy, mean-spirited, narrow minded, regionally factional and abusive of the rights of the common man; just like today's Congress. But even they were able to accomplish great things. The thing that really, really worries me is where are the Madisons, the Adams, the Monroes and the Washingtons to move us forward as a nation but safeguard our rights as individuals? Is our culture so depleted that we now only cultivate King Georgesque Obamas? I sure hope not.
Consider the offenses by the Crown toward the colonists, a lengthy and sordid list. The Stamp Act, closing Boston harbor, restricting appointments for governor to the authority of the Crown, restricting town meetings to annual events, the Quartering Act, taxation without representation. In our own dusty constitutional language these offenses were all "takings" of a sort - intrusions on the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Despite these abuses many colonists tried to work things out with the Crown to no avail; King George was deaf to the concerns. Obama is similarly deaf to the electorates' concerns and similarly abusive of his authority. How many Czars has he appointed to date? Ray Mabus, oil Czar brings the total to thirty-eight. Mountains of new regulations, a completely unvetted expansion of the executive branch. What of Obama's closing of all deep water drilling by executive fiat, casting 20,000 people out of work, demanding BP pick up the tab for all the lost wages? Very King Georgesque. Judge Feldman has struck this down for lack of objective standards for the fiat and Obama responds by pulling one of his two levers; a legal threat back. (His other lever is printing money.)How about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? Arguably less King Georgesque since Congress voted on this and therefore technically not imposed by fiat. But it was signed into law despite opposition by the majority of Americans, as was Obamacare. King Georgesque deafness. Is the Constitution flawed by permitting these sorts of abuses or is the natural evolution of all central governments toward taking power permanently from localities and individuals?
What if instead of a majority vote to pass legistlation, obtained with the requisite bribery and threats by Pelosi, each state's delegates voted separately within the state and a majority of states voting "yea" would be required to pass legislation? This was the manner in which the original nine colonies ratified the overhaul to the Articles of Confederation. Congress today could not fathom this type of coordinated negotiation. Nothing would get done under such restrictions! Government would falter! People would suffer, children would go hungry! Maybe. Or maybe there would actually be true compromise, such as occurred in 1787. Admittedly, most were unhappy in some way with the Constitution, including George Washington and Patrick Henry, then Governor of Virginia. The compromise cobbled together a wide array of competing interests- merchants, farmers, slave holders, abolitionists, eastern states and western states. The end result, our Constitution, with the ensuing Bill of Rights was a compromise which has done several things over the history of our nation. On the one hand it has allowed for the greatest advancement of personal prosperity and liberty for individuals in the history of man. Strangely, on the other hand, it also gave birth to FDR's first 100 days, with its systematic destruction of wealth, Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare , modern versions of taxation without representation. Massive amounts of wealth transferred from the few to the many. Presidents Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Obama have used a hole in the Constitution through which to shove the Federal government permanently into each and every American family. Was this mushrooming of federal power inevitable?
Back then, having cast the British out after eight years of war, a sacrifice incomprehensible to Americans today, the states continued the struggle which began prior to the launch of the revolution. Namely, which entity will govern what? Federalists versus Republicans, of the Jefferson sort, not the Bush sort. States versus the Feds. As we all know, this argument rages on today and the Federal government is winning this battle. It is important now,however, to win this war for the Constitution, possibly amending it in such a way that this type of runaway central authority is contained once and for all. The Continental Congress assembled on the heels of the American victory over Britain was lazy, mean-spirited, narrow minded, regionally factional and abusive of the rights of the common man; just like today's Congress. But even they were able to accomplish great things. The thing that really, really worries me is where are the Madisons, the Adams, the Monroes and the Washingtons to move us forward as a nation but safeguard our rights as individuals? Is our culture so depleted that we now only cultivate King Georgesque Obamas? I sure hope not.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
When the Going Gets Tough, the President Gets Joe Biden
The White House,serving as the metaphorical symbol of the Obama administration is the most over-leveraged, tapped out piece of real estate in the country. In eighteen months Obama has spent every nickel of political equity he came to office holding. Now,equity spent,reviled by many his next move is exactly what? Call in the second string,the human shield named Joe Biden. Today I listened to what should be to everyone the impossible; Joe Biden cheerfully explaining that the economy is getting better. Obama was no where to be seen.
"Don't take my word for it, the economy is improving. You can see the ripple effects everywhere." Don't worry Joe, I would never take your word for it.
This was his summation, along with the litany of, "millions of jobs saved or added since the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act yada yada yada." It would be easy to hack away at Biden's mindless recitation of the rank and file's propaganda and unnecessary since most informed people are already familiar with the verbiage and have filed it under "B" for nonsense. What is interesting is the fact that the White House and its various men behind the curtain are starting to realize what many have known since day one; Barrack Obama is not a very likable fellow. Joe Biden, a grinning silly man, is more approachable, less abrasive. Maureen Dowd observed that the Obama hailed by the press as the charming, new JFK has not yet materialized. Hmm. She further notes that he is "thin skinned and controlling." As an elitist he really does not enjoy mixing with the rabble. Not surprisingly Dowd complains more about his relationship with and to the press than she does about his serious missteps in policy matters. That is why she writes for the New York Times.
Dorothy Rabinowitz and her piece,"The Alien in the White House",notes something more important about Obama at this stage of his brilliant career.
"A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large."
This is beautifully put and is the source of the primary friction between this president and the American people. Displeased with the rising level of hostility toward himself personally, Joe Biden is thrust forward as Obama collects his wits. And many, including the press corps, may prefer Joe Biden since, all deep political differences aside, he is simply more credible as he seems more like one of us. Obama, the citizen of the world is alien in the worst sort of way, the mean way that condescends to Americans as though we are stupid children. Obama, floundering for a toe hold as he tries to put a leadership spin on the BP saga, retreated yet again to ideological chest thumping for cap and trade in his address to the nation. He cannot help telling us what we need, even when the need is urgently and specifically different than he defines it. Americans listened in amazement, what about the oil? It continues to gush, the live web cam horrifically mesmerizing, and he is back on the campaign trail, making promises about what he will do, all the while doing absolutely nothing except fact find with his fellow Nobel Laureates as though he were writing a term paper on deep water drilling. The trouble with being in the executive branch is that execution is essential. The American people, the ones he is supposed to be serving feel betrayed not only by his primary failings as an executive, but by his inability to be, well, American. The adage,"when the going gets tough, the tough get going", so perfectly American, pinpoints exactly what is missing; this man is not tough and he is not particularly American.
"Don't take my word for it, the economy is improving. You can see the ripple effects everywhere." Don't worry Joe, I would never take your word for it.
This was his summation, along with the litany of, "millions of jobs saved or added since the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act yada yada yada." It would be easy to hack away at Biden's mindless recitation of the rank and file's propaganda and unnecessary since most informed people are already familiar with the verbiage and have filed it under "B" for nonsense. What is interesting is the fact that the White House and its various men behind the curtain are starting to realize what many have known since day one; Barrack Obama is not a very likable fellow. Joe Biden, a grinning silly man, is more approachable, less abrasive. Maureen Dowd observed that the Obama hailed by the press as the charming, new JFK has not yet materialized. Hmm. She further notes that he is "thin skinned and controlling." As an elitist he really does not enjoy mixing with the rabble. Not surprisingly Dowd complains more about his relationship with and to the press than she does about his serious missteps in policy matters. That is why she writes for the New York Times.
Dorothy Rabinowitz and her piece,"The Alien in the White House",notes something more important about Obama at this stage of his brilliant career.
"A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large."
This is beautifully put and is the source of the primary friction between this president and the American people. Displeased with the rising level of hostility toward himself personally, Joe Biden is thrust forward as Obama collects his wits. And many, including the press corps, may prefer Joe Biden since, all deep political differences aside, he is simply more credible as he seems more like one of us. Obama, the citizen of the world is alien in the worst sort of way, the mean way that condescends to Americans as though we are stupid children. Obama, floundering for a toe hold as he tries to put a leadership spin on the BP saga, retreated yet again to ideological chest thumping for cap and trade in his address to the nation. He cannot help telling us what we need, even when the need is urgently and specifically different than he defines it. Americans listened in amazement, what about the oil? It continues to gush, the live web cam horrifically mesmerizing, and he is back on the campaign trail, making promises about what he will do, all the while doing absolutely nothing except fact find with his fellow Nobel Laureates as though he were writing a term paper on deep water drilling. The trouble with being in the executive branch is that execution is essential. The American people, the ones he is supposed to be serving feel betrayed not only by his primary failings as an executive, but by his inability to be, well, American. The adage,"when the going gets tough, the tough get going", so perfectly American, pinpoints exactly what is missing; this man is not tough and he is not particularly American.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Obama the Junior President Zigzags
Voters were warned about Obama's unsuitability to serve as head of the executive branch. However, he ran a very good race and placed first in what can only be regarded as a very expensive popularity contest; the office of President. Eighteen months into this presidency Obama still struggles with changing gears from campaigning to leading, which really was the problem all along with his credentialing. The problem with winning the popularity contest for president is eventually one has to turn to the very unpopular job of being president. And here we all are, stuck with Junior for another three years or so. Fasten your seat belts, it's going to get rough.
Although there are many, many policy disagreements to debate and hopefully repeal should a conservative majority ever surface, the least well articulated is the constitutional battle between this administration and his strongest opponents the Tea Partiers. More accurately, Constitutional Conservatives. It is truly shocking that this president is as vocal a critic of the United States Constitution and as such is unchallenged by any other than Constitutional Conservatives. Obama is on record as an Illinois state senator claiming the Constitution is fundamentally flawed by serving as a series of "mostly negative rights." Simply stated, the Constitution is a prescription for what the government cannot do to you, and lacks any specific authority or power to do something for you. For Obama, this is a problem. For Constitutional Conservatives, these "negative rights" preserve individual natural rights to live free from government intrusion. Here lies the problem, the yawning divide.
It is very likely that when Obama made what can only be regarded as a radical Acornian statement he never in his wildest, most narcissistic dreams believed that he would some day be President. An even more wild fantasy came to pass; he is a President residing over a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate. As such he has been able to zigzag around pieces of the constitution that he as a radical finds lacking in terms of positive rights, to make things more equal and fair. This is a serious problem in a serious time and for this reason he is not qualified to be President. For example, as a state senator in Illinois he voted against any and all restrictions to a woman's right to abortion on demand, up to and including providing any medical treatment for babies surviving a late term abortion. His ardent defense of what can only be regarded as a barbaric and cruel policy was a woman's right to privacy as stated in the Constitution. This specific defense of Roe vs. Wade has been debated ad infinitum and is not the point here. The natural next question is however, where is the right to privacy for an American citizen declining to participate in the health insurance market? Is health care not by definition a most private type of choice? Does arguing that failure to be insured poses such a substantial burden on society that any type of unconstitutional legislation is justified? If Obama's vision of federal electronic record keeping comes to pass, will the Department of Health and Human Services have access to very private information about individual Americans' personal health histories, all in the name of stream lining and saving the government money? This is privacy? Weight, height, manner of birth control, high blood sugar? An infusion of positive rights, government guaranteed health care as a right. Zigzag.
It is no secret that Obama dislikes the second amendment; people who exercise their second amendment rights, "cling to their guns and religion." Note the connection between guns and religion; a broad swipe at both the first and the second amendment. The progressive jingle being sung against the second amendment is something like, "militias are a quaint artifact from colonial history when our liberties were not secure and the British were oppressive. As such, guns have no use in modern life as currently being lived by the average American." Setting aside the fact that Constitutional Conservatives believe we currently live under a tyrannical,expansionist Federal government and are constitutionally protected to bear arms to ward off tyranny, there is a constitutional method for repealing pieces of the Constitution that no longer apply; a two thirds majority vote in each house.
What if a very different type of president, Ronald Reagan plus George Bush to the tenth power, broadly interpreted the Commerce Clause and ordered Congress to write legislation requiring all Americans to purchase firearms? Would this be constitutional? If no, why not? At first blush this seems an imperfect analogy. Maybe. What is the difference between buying guns and health care in terms of regulating commerce? If there is a difference it is only by virtue of how the government has inserted itself into the commerce of health care, Medicare and Medicaid, and very little difference between the two as a mere commodity. In fact, the Constitution specifically addresses the right to bear arms, whereas there is obviously no mention made of health care, or a right to privacy. Interpreting the Commerce Clause so broadly renders it meaningless, even if the objective is to ensure Americans behave responsibly. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you; federal legislation mandating energy updates to private homes before transferring ownership. Commerce Clause?
Years ago when the abortion debate was active Sandra Day O'Connor warned that if it is deemed the purview of the government to protect a woman's right to an abortion, could it not some day become the government's purview to say a woman must have an abortion? If the Constitutional Conservatives prevail,and that is a very big if, questions such as this will be revisited through a rigorous constitutional filter. Which is not to say that abortion would disappear but that non-federal matters would be routed to the sovereign entities specifically charted by the Constitution to address such issues; the states. If true rigor were restored we could witness an array of state intrusion into areas previously dominated the Federal government;gay marriage, abortion, charter schools, integration of illegal immigrants. Until then those of us in the opposition movement must keep our boot heel on the neck of this administration and cry foul as they "zig" and "zag". If we don't our future is a bleak series of any and all manner of "comprehensive reforms" pole vaulted through by this most junior of presidents.
Although there are many, many policy disagreements to debate and hopefully repeal should a conservative majority ever surface, the least well articulated is the constitutional battle between this administration and his strongest opponents the Tea Partiers. More accurately, Constitutional Conservatives. It is truly shocking that this president is as vocal a critic of the United States Constitution and as such is unchallenged by any other than Constitutional Conservatives. Obama is on record as an Illinois state senator claiming the Constitution is fundamentally flawed by serving as a series of "mostly negative rights." Simply stated, the Constitution is a prescription for what the government cannot do to you, and lacks any specific authority or power to do something for you. For Obama, this is a problem. For Constitutional Conservatives, these "negative rights" preserve individual natural rights to live free from government intrusion. Here lies the problem, the yawning divide.
It is very likely that when Obama made what can only be regarded as a radical Acornian statement he never in his wildest, most narcissistic dreams believed that he would some day be President. An even more wild fantasy came to pass; he is a President residing over a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate. As such he has been able to zigzag around pieces of the constitution that he as a radical finds lacking in terms of positive rights, to make things more equal and fair. This is a serious problem in a serious time and for this reason he is not qualified to be President. For example, as a state senator in Illinois he voted against any and all restrictions to a woman's right to abortion on demand, up to and including providing any medical treatment for babies surviving a late term abortion. His ardent defense of what can only be regarded as a barbaric and cruel policy was a woman's right to privacy as stated in the Constitution. This specific defense of Roe vs. Wade has been debated ad infinitum and is not the point here. The natural next question is however, where is the right to privacy for an American citizen declining to participate in the health insurance market? Is health care not by definition a most private type of choice? Does arguing that failure to be insured poses such a substantial burden on society that any type of unconstitutional legislation is justified? If Obama's vision of federal electronic record keeping comes to pass, will the Department of Health and Human Services have access to very private information about individual Americans' personal health histories, all in the name of stream lining and saving the government money? This is privacy? Weight, height, manner of birth control, high blood sugar? An infusion of positive rights, government guaranteed health care as a right. Zigzag.
It is no secret that Obama dislikes the second amendment; people who exercise their second amendment rights, "cling to their guns and religion." Note the connection between guns and religion; a broad swipe at both the first and the second amendment. The progressive jingle being sung against the second amendment is something like, "militias are a quaint artifact from colonial history when our liberties were not secure and the British were oppressive. As such, guns have no use in modern life as currently being lived by the average American." Setting aside the fact that Constitutional Conservatives believe we currently live under a tyrannical,expansionist Federal government and are constitutionally protected to bear arms to ward off tyranny, there is a constitutional method for repealing pieces of the Constitution that no longer apply; a two thirds majority vote in each house.
What if a very different type of president, Ronald Reagan plus George Bush to the tenth power, broadly interpreted the Commerce Clause and ordered Congress to write legislation requiring all Americans to purchase firearms? Would this be constitutional? If no, why not? At first blush this seems an imperfect analogy. Maybe. What is the difference between buying guns and health care in terms of regulating commerce? If there is a difference it is only by virtue of how the government has inserted itself into the commerce of health care, Medicare and Medicaid, and very little difference between the two as a mere commodity. In fact, the Constitution specifically addresses the right to bear arms, whereas there is obviously no mention made of health care, or a right to privacy. Interpreting the Commerce Clause so broadly renders it meaningless, even if the objective is to ensure Americans behave responsibly. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you; federal legislation mandating energy updates to private homes before transferring ownership. Commerce Clause?
Years ago when the abortion debate was active Sandra Day O'Connor warned that if it is deemed the purview of the government to protect a woman's right to an abortion, could it not some day become the government's purview to say a woman must have an abortion? If the Constitutional Conservatives prevail,and that is a very big if, questions such as this will be revisited through a rigorous constitutional filter. Which is not to say that abortion would disappear but that non-federal matters would be routed to the sovereign entities specifically charted by the Constitution to address such issues; the states. If true rigor were restored we could witness an array of state intrusion into areas previously dominated the Federal government;gay marriage, abortion, charter schools, integration of illegal immigrants. Until then those of us in the opposition movement must keep our boot heel on the neck of this administration and cry foul as they "zig" and "zag". If we don't our future is a bleak series of any and all manner of "comprehensive reforms" pole vaulted through by this most junior of presidents.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Hayek Rapping with Keynes
This rap parody, courtesy of Mises.Org, is funny and prophetic. Funny because it is something perhaps only dedicated followers of economic debates would find interesting, limiting its popular appeal. Prophetic in light of what we are seeing now in Europe, specifically Greece, with Spain, Portugal and possibly Ireland soon to follow. Unrest in the streets as governments hit the bottom of the taxpayer well and state employees' benefits are necessarily snipped. If you get through the entire video, the highlights of the competing economic schools emerge. Keynes; aggregate demand by whoever can write the check can sustain an economy, regardless of what the check is being written for; smash a window and pay someone to fix it. Hayek; investment in productivity and work provides individuals with longterm material gains and improved quality of life. Hayek versus Keynes, the ongoing divide.
According to Paul Krugman who is astonishingly wrong on economics 100% of the time, this debate is OVER. The government must sustain aggregate consumption at all times, regardless of available revenue streams. Strains on the budgets of various governments must be offset by additional taxes or additions to the money supply, a remedy available only to the Federal government. Deficits are irrelevant in the world of Keynes and his devotees. Krugman and Obama advocate this school of thought, assuming Obama is qualified to be an advocate of any economic school given his sharp lack of economic literacy. Peter Orzag, Obama's director of the Office of Budget and Management, probably explains to Obama that his administration is sort of like Robin Hood, a role I imagine Obama relishes. Taxes are not about the money, Obama smugly asserted on the campaign trail, they are about what is fair. He is clearly not the smartest man in the room.
I am a follower of the Austrian school and Hayek's words ring true; hard work and investment will grow the economy. Curbed consumption funds savings, savings fund investment, investment funds efficiency gains. Improved productivity and free markets singularly account for improved standards of living throughout history. Exploding levels of government spending financed by fiat money are a prescription for financial ruin. There is no free lunch, not now, not ever. In this vein I support auditing the Fed and the US Treasuries reserves of gold.
Krugman denounces those of us who want to audit the Fed as members of the radical, fringe right, ruthlessly taking over the Republican Party. One can only dream. What is the appropriate label for those opposed to auditing the Fed? I can think of a few ..... Unfortunately, auditing the Fed is an academic's fantasy because the Keynesians have thrown a big, big party at precisely the wrong moment in history. If we did have a peek at the Fed's books some of us may take to this streets, the blow back could be severe. In the meantime, we are all going to have a terrible hangover in the days to come. The full effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 are no where close to being realized. Affordable Health Care for America, signed into law on March 23, 2010 is already $150 billion dollars off the mark. Viewed singularly or as a package it is like painting by numbers; you don't require a PhD in economics to understand where the United States is heading. Tune in to the riots in Greece; the images suffice as a crystal ball.
Monday, May 3, 2010
"Uneasy Lies the Head that Wears the Crown" Henry IV
Henry IV, King of England during the civil war with Wales in the early 1400s is the literary avatar of leaders burdened with serious responsibilities in difficult times. Americans now live in difficult times, not civil war but civil strife, as we continue to clash over the simultaneous federal intrusion into areas decidedly not its concern and federal impotence in areas which are solely its concern; national defense. The duty of Commander in Chief, apparently distasteful to Obama,has seemingly been assumed by his hapless sidekick Janet Napolitano who aides and abets Obama in shirking this responsibility. Her job is to be front and center after each and every attack, and she is getting better with practice, downplaying everything from the significance to the target.
For example, Times Square and Faisal Shahzad, astoundingly apprehended on a plane bound for Dubai within 53 hours of detection of the smoking car. A passenger despite being on a "no fly list". During that 53 hours Napolitano, Mayor Bloomberg and the infamous Contessa Brewer of MSNBC offered insight about the bombers identity. Speculation was made easy by the videos of the "person of interest" seen near the area removing his coat in exchange for a red shirt. Turns out this guy was just hot, which is not yet a crime in NYC. Nonetheless the theories poured forth "a one off isolated incident", offered Napolitano, echoing her best guess about the underwear bomber. Wrong twice. "Someone unhappy with Obama's health care, homegrown" (translation a "teapartier"). Bloomberg bet 25 cents on that guess. "Hopefully not someone with ties to Islam," said Contessa Brewer of MSNBC. Why hopefully, was all the money on teapartiers?
Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen, has ties to radical Isalm as did Farouk Abdulmutallab and Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan. Each of these men attacked Americans in the first 14 months of the Obama presidency and each attack represents a singular failure by this administration to get in the game; the war on terror. Islamic-fascism, radical Islam, two words Obama cannot bring himself to say, is apparently thriving here in the United States and he cannot bring himself to throw the weight of the executive branch into this war, here or there.
Question, Independents who hoped that Obama reaching out to radical Muslims would facilitate an "unclenching of fists" - are you disappointed yet? His personal appeal that so many banked on to part the waters is irrelevant to the men running the terror training camps in Pakistan. The Pakistani radicals are probably relieved that Obama is busy fixing his real enemies in his presidential cross hairs; Goldman Sachs, British Petroleum, Anthem Healthcare, and the General Motors bond holders. To Obama these organizations and free markets represent the clear and present danger to Americans and he behaves accordingly. His fondness for "incentives", punishing taxes and penalties to bend Americans to his vision of the world, will not work in the war on terror. At this point we must hope that he will turn to Ken Salazar, quick with the crushing boot for British Petroleum's neck, for some advice on how to deal with these homegrown enemies. Until then it really is time for Napolitano to fall on her sword and "confused lies the head that wears the crown."
For example, Times Square and Faisal Shahzad, astoundingly apprehended on a plane bound for Dubai within 53 hours of detection of the smoking car. A passenger despite being on a "no fly list". During that 53 hours Napolitano, Mayor Bloomberg and the infamous Contessa Brewer of MSNBC offered insight about the bombers identity. Speculation was made easy by the videos of the "person of interest" seen near the area removing his coat in exchange for a red shirt. Turns out this guy was just hot, which is not yet a crime in NYC. Nonetheless the theories poured forth "a one off isolated incident", offered Napolitano, echoing her best guess about the underwear bomber. Wrong twice. "Someone unhappy with Obama's health care, homegrown" (translation a "teapartier"). Bloomberg bet 25 cents on that guess. "Hopefully not someone with ties to Islam," said Contessa Brewer of MSNBC. Why hopefully, was all the money on teapartiers?
Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen, has ties to radical Isalm as did Farouk Abdulmutallab and Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan. Each of these men attacked Americans in the first 14 months of the Obama presidency and each attack represents a singular failure by this administration to get in the game; the war on terror. Islamic-fascism, radical Islam, two words Obama cannot bring himself to say, is apparently thriving here in the United States and he cannot bring himself to throw the weight of the executive branch into this war, here or there.
Question, Independents who hoped that Obama reaching out to radical Muslims would facilitate an "unclenching of fists" - are you disappointed yet? His personal appeal that so many banked on to part the waters is irrelevant to the men running the terror training camps in Pakistan. The Pakistani radicals are probably relieved that Obama is busy fixing his real enemies in his presidential cross hairs; Goldman Sachs, British Petroleum, Anthem Healthcare, and the General Motors bond holders. To Obama these organizations and free markets represent the clear and present danger to Americans and he behaves accordingly. His fondness for "incentives", punishing taxes and penalties to bend Americans to his vision of the world, will not work in the war on terror. At this point we must hope that he will turn to Ken Salazar, quick with the crushing boot for British Petroleum's neck, for some advice on how to deal with these homegrown enemies. Until then it really is time for Napolitano to fall on her sword and "confused lies the head that wears the crown."
Friday, April 30, 2010
Laugh Laugh
"I hate to say it but I told you so,
don't mind my preachin' to you,
I said don't trust him, baby now you know,
you don't learn everything there is to learn in school,
don't think I'm being funny when I say,
you got just what you deserved...
Laugh, Laugh I thought I'd die, it seemed so funny to me"
This 1965 hit from the Beau Brummels, obscure I know, struck a chord with me since it sums up my attitudes towards "independents" who voted for Barrack Obama. Our most scholarly of presidents and his brainy administration, 80% of whom have never worked outside of academia or the public sector, are proof positive that you don't learn everything there is to know in school.
And I don't really hate to say it, but I did tell you so, independent voters. After a year and four months of the monkey business known as the Obama administration, I offer two observations. One, the Republicans, specifically George W. Bush, found himself on the wrong side of the polls as he pushed the envelope of enumerated powers of the executive branch for what he believed, and the jury is still out, was the defense of the nation. Examples; the Patriot Act, wiretapping without a warrant, war in Iraq, overseas detention centers, Gitmo, torture. As the wars and the corresponding need for the policies dragged on, the nation grew weary. Fair enough, understandable. Come the election of 2008 the sought after bubble of "independents", highly coveted, threw in with the Democrats out of sheer exhaustion with Bush and the flexing of his federal muscles.
Two - the Democrats now banging themselves against the rock of "domestic policies" cap and trade, energy, health care, regulating wall street, out of sheer force of will, or thugery, feverishly push the federal government into every quadrant of each American's life, Main Street and Wall Street. Perversely, they manage to stay remarkably absent from the most vital of federal roles; overseeing immigration and securing the borders. Domestic policy has drained all energy and attention away from the primary role of federal government. Why has a man so fond of executive orders, same sex couple mandates to hospitals, abdicated his most obvious source of power? Is it too messy? Is he weak, or is he, my bet, conflicted? It is hard to be the president if too politically correct about "illegal aliens". And politically speaking the Hispanic vote is now the new "independent" vote and Barrack Obama, the most political of presidents, is shamelessly using the desperate plight of Arizona to exalt himself in the eyes of future Hispanic voters.
It is rather alarming, campaigning this early in his presidency. Let's not be fooled into believing he is campaigning for anyone other than himself. He has called his constituents unto him; the blacks, the Hispanics, the women. In doing so he refines his singular talent; stirring the racial pot. Rather odd for a post racial, bi-racial fellow. But boiled down, really what is the hub bub with this power grab by Arizona? Is the Arizona law more prone to abuse than the federal law? Are people, Hispanics afraid because they believe the state law will be enforced while the federal is not? Is e-verify a type of harassment that singles out Hispanics? Would one's civil rights be violated if asked to show a green card or visa if Arizona law enforcement asked to see them but not so much if asked by federal border patrol? How present are the Feds on any given day away from the border, in the towns where many illegals seek work? Is reasonable cause so complex that local law enforcement cannot comprehend its vagaries? Or are we being played by Obama and Democrats, Obama showing his solidarity, and I choose this word specifically, with the underdog, even those not legally eligible to vote?
Jan Brewer has cleverly flexed her own sovereign state's muscles and called Obama's and her predecessor's, Janet Napolitano, bluff. Napolitano, of famed zero credibility about anything, weakly protested that there was no need for this state law because the border had been stabilized on her watch. Hard to explain how that could be true in a state with 6.5 million people and anywhere from 600,000 to 1 million illegals on any given day. So, for all the disappointed independents who voted for Obama believing he was different and special and above the fray - I did tell you so. And now I offer a prediction - it seems you might not make it onto his dance card the next time around unless, must I say it, you are black, Hispanic or a woman. And I am laughing, a little.
don't mind my preachin' to you,
I said don't trust him, baby now you know,
you don't learn everything there is to learn in school,
don't think I'm being funny when I say,
you got just what you deserved...
Laugh, Laugh I thought I'd die, it seemed so funny to me"
This 1965 hit from the Beau Brummels, obscure I know, struck a chord with me since it sums up my attitudes towards "independents" who voted for Barrack Obama. Our most scholarly of presidents and his brainy administration, 80% of whom have never worked outside of academia or the public sector, are proof positive that you don't learn everything there is to know in school.
And I don't really hate to say it, but I did tell you so, independent voters. After a year and four months of the monkey business known as the Obama administration, I offer two observations. One, the Republicans, specifically George W. Bush, found himself on the wrong side of the polls as he pushed the envelope of enumerated powers of the executive branch for what he believed, and the jury is still out, was the defense of the nation. Examples; the Patriot Act, wiretapping without a warrant, war in Iraq, overseas detention centers, Gitmo, torture. As the wars and the corresponding need for the policies dragged on, the nation grew weary. Fair enough, understandable. Come the election of 2008 the sought after bubble of "independents", highly coveted, threw in with the Democrats out of sheer exhaustion with Bush and the flexing of his federal muscles.
Two - the Democrats now banging themselves against the rock of "domestic policies" cap and trade, energy, health care, regulating wall street, out of sheer force of will, or thugery, feverishly push the federal government into every quadrant of each American's life, Main Street and Wall Street. Perversely, they manage to stay remarkably absent from the most vital of federal roles; overseeing immigration and securing the borders. Domestic policy has drained all energy and attention away from the primary role of federal government. Why has a man so fond of executive orders, same sex couple mandates to hospitals, abdicated his most obvious source of power? Is it too messy? Is he weak, or is he, my bet, conflicted? It is hard to be the president if too politically correct about "illegal aliens". And politically speaking the Hispanic vote is now the new "independent" vote and Barrack Obama, the most political of presidents, is shamelessly using the desperate plight of Arizona to exalt himself in the eyes of future Hispanic voters.
It is rather alarming, campaigning this early in his presidency. Let's not be fooled into believing he is campaigning for anyone other than himself. He has called his constituents unto him; the blacks, the Hispanics, the women. In doing so he refines his singular talent; stirring the racial pot. Rather odd for a post racial, bi-racial fellow. But boiled down, really what is the hub bub with this power grab by Arizona? Is the Arizona law more prone to abuse than the federal law? Are people, Hispanics afraid because they believe the state law will be enforced while the federal is not? Is e-verify a type of harassment that singles out Hispanics? Would one's civil rights be violated if asked to show a green card or visa if Arizona law enforcement asked to see them but not so much if asked by federal border patrol? How present are the Feds on any given day away from the border, in the towns where many illegals seek work? Is reasonable cause so complex that local law enforcement cannot comprehend its vagaries? Or are we being played by Obama and Democrats, Obama showing his solidarity, and I choose this word specifically, with the underdog, even those not legally eligible to vote?
Jan Brewer has cleverly flexed her own sovereign state's muscles and called Obama's and her predecessor's, Janet Napolitano, bluff. Napolitano, of famed zero credibility about anything, weakly protested that there was no need for this state law because the border had been stabilized on her watch. Hard to explain how that could be true in a state with 6.5 million people and anywhere from 600,000 to 1 million illegals on any given day. So, for all the disappointed independents who voted for Obama believing he was different and special and above the fray - I did tell you so. And now I offer a prediction - it seems you might not make it onto his dance card the next time around unless, must I say it, you are black, Hispanic or a woman. And I am laughing, a little.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Wisdom from Huckleberry Finn
The Citizens of Boulder County need to wake up, quickly. As of January 2010 the highly restrictive, and widely contested, FAR regulations are being enforced in the city of Boulder. Boulder County's evil twin "sustainability" measures have been in place since August 2008 and are gradually having the dual effect of slowing the number of permits issued in Boulder County and eroding private property rights. Not suprisingly, the one effect not being realized is containment of carbon emissions. The quasi-judicial commissioners are aware of these measures ineffectiveness; it has been well documented by the energy auditing community. Still, the citizens must carry on and come together in compliance with the pie in the sky Kyoto II.
The Daily Camera has reported that property values are down for the first time in 26 years in Boulder County. The real estate market has been over-valued both locally and nationally for the past five years and Boulder is not immune to corrections of the market. Locally our community has better withstood other downturns and it is worth asking what makes this real estate recession unique. I assert in heavy measure our local government is to blame. The sustainability/green measures taking affect concurrent with this downturn have generated only negative results; job losses and company foreclosures for businesses in the construction industry, architects, cabinet makers, painters etc. Permits are harder and more expensive to get as the compliance bar has been raised; some people have bypassed the permit process altogether. Most significantly, is the decline in property values and private property rights. For people who support these measures because you think people with big houses are profligate consumers and should live om some other town, be careful what you wish for because in Boulder you are going to get it.
As a builder I view the world through my prism of self-interest, which is obviously one reasons why I reject these measures. Empty political gestures such as Boulder's compliance with Kyoto tend to irritate me. The primary reason I reject the measures,however, is they are a ruse by the county to achieve their cherished objective; affordability. As of December 31st, 2009 one modest north Boulder property lost approximately 1000 square feet of development rights over night. A second story for this home is now not possible. In my assessment this is a "taking"; a violation of the fifth amendment. Private property has been taken in exchange for a benefit to the "community" and the property owner has not been compensated. Some people shrug this asset loss off as no big deal. Until they want to refinance their home or borrow against the equity they thought was there. It isn't there any more.
I live on a six acre property and was told by the County that the median size home for my parcel is 4700 square feet; a floor area ratio of less than ten percent. If I lived in the city it would be 45 percent. Why this discrepancy? The residents of the city, who support the restrictions in the county, like to think of undeveloped private property as open space. Shame on them. The county commissioners attend to maintaining an "affordable housing stock" and now restrict growth as a way of slowing prices. Shame on us for letting these people keep their jobs. The results so far? 1.For every permit issued in the County in the first half of 2009 a coal burning plant in China became operational. 2. A widening chasm between the haves and have nots in the County, with large homes escalating in value and smaller homes falling in value. 3. The County Commissioners, led by the ever smug Will Toor, hide behind the fig leaf of sustainability, while committing to affordability at the expense of private property owners. Well. I know how Huck Finn felt when he said to his pal Jim, "I too have known the boot heel of oppression". I am just a little suprised by who is wearing the boots; the residents in the County who voted for these measures.
The Daily Camera has reported that property values are down for the first time in 26 years in Boulder County. The real estate market has been over-valued both locally and nationally for the past five years and Boulder is not immune to corrections of the market. Locally our community has better withstood other downturns and it is worth asking what makes this real estate recession unique. I assert in heavy measure our local government is to blame. The sustainability/green measures taking affect concurrent with this downturn have generated only negative results; job losses and company foreclosures for businesses in the construction industry, architects, cabinet makers, painters etc. Permits are harder and more expensive to get as the compliance bar has been raised; some people have bypassed the permit process altogether. Most significantly, is the decline in property values and private property rights. For people who support these measures because you think people with big houses are profligate consumers and should live om some other town, be careful what you wish for because in Boulder you are going to get it.
As a builder I view the world through my prism of self-interest, which is obviously one reasons why I reject these measures. Empty political gestures such as Boulder's compliance with Kyoto tend to irritate me. The primary reason I reject the measures,however, is they are a ruse by the county to achieve their cherished objective; affordability. As of December 31st, 2009 one modest north Boulder property lost approximately 1000 square feet of development rights over night. A second story for this home is now not possible. In my assessment this is a "taking"; a violation of the fifth amendment. Private property has been taken in exchange for a benefit to the "community" and the property owner has not been compensated. Some people shrug this asset loss off as no big deal. Until they want to refinance their home or borrow against the equity they thought was there. It isn't there any more.
I live on a six acre property and was told by the County that the median size home for my parcel is 4700 square feet; a floor area ratio of less than ten percent. If I lived in the city it would be 45 percent. Why this discrepancy? The residents of the city, who support the restrictions in the county, like to think of undeveloped private property as open space. Shame on them. The county commissioners attend to maintaining an "affordable housing stock" and now restrict growth as a way of slowing prices. Shame on us for letting these people keep their jobs. The results so far? 1.For every permit issued in the County in the first half of 2009 a coal burning plant in China became operational. 2. A widening chasm between the haves and have nots in the County, with large homes escalating in value and smaller homes falling in value. 3. The County Commissioners, led by the ever smug Will Toor, hide behind the fig leaf of sustainability, while committing to affordability at the expense of private property owners. Well. I know how Huck Finn felt when he said to his pal Jim, "I too have known the boot heel of oppression". I am just a little suprised by who is wearing the boots; the residents in the County who voted for these measures.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The New Working Class
In the matter of health care I would like to propose the following modified definitions:
1. Working Class - any individual earning greater than $200K/year or family/couple filing jointly earning greater than $250K/year. These annual incomes are not to be indexed for inflation, ensuring growth in the ranks of the working class, thereby securing revenue flows to the Elites and Uber-Elites. Working class is synonomous with the following: net tax payer,private sector employee, minority.
2. Elites - any individual currently employed by one of the following; United States federal government,one of the 50 so called sovereign states, excluding New Jersey. The elites' health insurance and pensions are paid by members of the working class. Elites is synonomous with: net tax receiver,growing majority, public sector employee
3. Uber Elites - any individual currently employed by the SEIU, General Motors, or the state of New Jersey teachers union.
Having defined the terms for this purposes of this blog I move on to basic math, again, It is curious; when members of the working class object to a new tax of 3.8% on "unearned income, e.g. revenues such as the sale of stock, rental incomes, real estate transactions, the elites, who authorized this new tax, are put off and annoyed by the outcry. The outcries are destabilizing to the elite's franchise; government. Yet when the foolishly brave Chris Christie suggests that the Uber Elites in New Jersey, the teachers union, pay 1.5% for their own health care a mass email is circulated to 17,000 Uber Elites praying for the Christie's death. This is not deemed an aggressive destablilizing act. The head of the New Jersey Teacher's Union, Barbara Keshishian, was incredulous when Christie inquires if the author, Joe Coppolla has been fired. "For what", she inquired.
I am impressed by the brazeness, if not the stupidity of Joe Coppolla, who defended his email as "a joke, not meant to be public", (I wish 17,000 people read my blog) but that is neither here nor there. As a member of the working class
I stand accused of being a greedy, cold slave to the free market if I protest the 3.8% tax to pay for other people's health care. What is the appropriate accusation for the teachers union of New Jersey as they stubbornly resist shouldering their own financial burdens, namely, paying for a tiny portion of their own, untaxed, health care benefits? Stubborn might be accurate, or maybe childish. What I think works best is entitled. The teachers union of New Jersey is entitled to benefits paid for by others,the working class, even as the revenues streams run dry. New Jersey has had 115 tax increases in 8 years and the state's revenues continue to go down. What is going up? Well the budget for the states public schools has increased 11% over the past year though enrollments have increased by only 6%. That is some crazy math. Further, this very modest shift to the employee of 1.5% for their own health care, coupled with a freeze in pay, could save the working class in New Jersey 850 million dollars. It could also prevent the necessity of cuts related specifically to the classroom. New Jersey pays an incredible $22K/student/year in the city of Newark and a 1/4 of enrolled students graduate. Where oh where does the money go? A civil servant in New Jersey, having contributed $120,000 towards his defined retirement plan can retire at age 49 and, if he lives to the age of 85, can extract a total of 3.2 million dollars in benefits from the working class. Marx would be tickled.
1. Working Class - any individual earning greater than $200K/year or family/couple filing jointly earning greater than $250K/year. These annual incomes are not to be indexed for inflation, ensuring growth in the ranks of the working class, thereby securing revenue flows to the Elites and Uber-Elites. Working class is synonomous with the following: net tax payer,private sector employee, minority.
2. Elites - any individual currently employed by one of the following; United States federal government,one of the 50 so called sovereign states, excluding New Jersey. The elites' health insurance and pensions are paid by members of the working class. Elites is synonomous with: net tax receiver,growing majority, public sector employee
3. Uber Elites - any individual currently employed by the SEIU, General Motors, or the state of New Jersey teachers union.
Having defined the terms for this purposes of this blog I move on to basic math, again, It is curious; when members of the working class object to a new tax of 3.8% on "unearned income, e.g. revenues such as the sale of stock, rental incomes, real estate transactions, the elites, who authorized this new tax, are put off and annoyed by the outcry. The outcries are destabilizing to the elite's franchise; government. Yet when the foolishly brave Chris Christie suggests that the Uber Elites in New Jersey, the teachers union, pay 1.5% for their own health care a mass email is circulated to 17,000 Uber Elites praying for the Christie's death. This is not deemed an aggressive destablilizing act. The head of the New Jersey Teacher's Union, Barbara Keshishian, was incredulous when Christie inquires if the author, Joe Coppolla has been fired. "For what", she inquired.
I am impressed by the brazeness, if not the stupidity of Joe Coppolla, who defended his email as "a joke, not meant to be public", (I wish 17,000 people read my blog) but that is neither here nor there. As a member of the working class
I stand accused of being a greedy, cold slave to the free market if I protest the 3.8% tax to pay for other people's health care. What is the appropriate accusation for the teachers union of New Jersey as they stubbornly resist shouldering their own financial burdens, namely, paying for a tiny portion of their own, untaxed, health care benefits? Stubborn might be accurate, or maybe childish. What I think works best is entitled. The teachers union of New Jersey is entitled to benefits paid for by others,the working class, even as the revenues streams run dry. New Jersey has had 115 tax increases in 8 years and the state's revenues continue to go down. What is going up? Well the budget for the states public schools has increased 11% over the past year though enrollments have increased by only 6%. That is some crazy math. Further, this very modest shift to the employee of 1.5% for their own health care, coupled with a freeze in pay, could save the working class in New Jersey 850 million dollars. It could also prevent the necessity of cuts related specifically to the classroom. New Jersey pays an incredible $22K/student/year in the city of Newark and a 1/4 of enrolled students graduate. Where oh where does the money go? A civil servant in New Jersey, having contributed $120,000 towards his defined retirement plan can retire at age 49 and, if he lives to the age of 85, can extract a total of 3.2 million dollars in benefits from the working class. Marx would be tickled.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Alice, in Alice in Wonderland, had an argument with the Red Queen who made an absurd comment which Alice declared 'impossible". The Red Queen, queen that she was, said she made a point of believing six things that were impossible every day before breakfast. This was funny, in the book Alice in Wonderland, but it is not very funny when Barack Obama, of legendary intelligence, behaves more like the Red Queen than the leader of the free world. The following quote by Peggy Noonan, a presumed conservative, asserts,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144070064980374.html?KEYWORDS=peggy+noonan
Who, other than those committed to believing the impossible, believe that ObamaCare will expand coverage for the uninsurable, e.g. people who are very sick, snuff out waste and fraud from Medicare without restricting coverage at the same moment in time when 10,000 new retirees are joining Medicare ranks, without adding one dime to the federal deficit?!? When social security was signed into law there were17 workers for every retiree; today there are three. Piling new entitlements onto this system on the verge of collapse is not "intelligent" - it requires only basic math taught in the fourth grade to conclude that this new entitlement is "impossible".
Noonan's point is that there is a growing divide in this country between "those in the cart and those pulling the cart". This health care bill has metaphorically filled the divide with fire and barbed wire and Molotov cocktails - the gap is a minefield and cannot be bridged. Why is that? Because the people pulling the cart are angry as more people climbing into the cart make it ever harder to pull. The people who favor the massive expansion of entitlement programs, Barrack Obama for example, have decided that writing legislation and creating a legal right to something, health care, is equivalent to a constitutional right, freedom to practice the religion of one's beliefs. Entitlements and constitutional rights are not comparable because an entitlement can only be bestowed on a person by the coercion of the people funding the entitlement. Hence the anger and the rage and the Tea Parties, all of which by the way are protected by the Constitution. Leading me back to Noonan's concession that the administration, bursting with the best and the brightest, does not know the temperature and how it is that they have managed to raise it. I offer a counter explanation, the administration is full of Red Queens, who apparently wake up every day looking for six new impossible things to believe before breakfast.
The End of Satire
As a brand new blogger it was necessary to choose a name for my blog that provided insight to things I might be interested in discussing here. My mind,when faced with this decision, went deadly blank since, I confess, I am not creative, especially when it is important to be creative. That said, I do sport a bumper sticker on both of my cars "FORGET TIBET FREE BOULDER COUNTY". This sticker is neither original or literal ; it is ironic and satirical. Satire and irony are necessary to provoke thought, expose hypocrisy and preserve intellectual honesty. I mean no harm to the people of Tibet but I do want the citizens of Boulder to wonder, as they sit behind me me at a traffic light - why Free Boulder County? Aren't we free? Well - considerably less so than we used to be and, I will assert, more liberties will be lost before any are restored. The progressives are running the show and many Americans do not fully comprehend the changes in store for all of us. Hence my bumper sticker, the metaphorical poke in the eye to the poor guy stuck behind me in traffic.
Is satire dead? No, but it is running for its life. Intolerance for opposing points of view, expressed satirically, strikes a nerve now that does seem to reflect an "off with his head", mindset by people on the other side. There is hope, though, for the mood of the nation is restless and the Internet remains, remarkably, free from censorship and government intrusion. So -now I throw my hat into the blogoshpere for kicks! Here goes!
Is satire dead? No, but it is running for its life. Intolerance for opposing points of view, expressed satirically, strikes a nerve now that does seem to reflect an "off with his head", mindset by people on the other side. There is hope, though, for the mood of the nation is restless and the Internet remains, remarkably, free from censorship and government intrusion. So -now I throw my hat into the blogoshpere for kicks! Here goes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)