Thursday, June 17, 2010

Did Somebody Say Monopoly? (Part Deux)

"The Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote Thursday to begin taking public comments on three different paths for regulating broadband. That includes a proposal by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, to define broadband access as a telecommunications service subject to 'common carrier' obligations to treat all traffic equally.

Genachowski's proposal is a response to a federal appeals court ruling that has cast doubt on the agency's authority over broadband under its existing regulatory framework.

The plan has the backing of many big Internet companies, which say it would ensure the FCC can prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over broadband connections to determine what subscribers can do online.

"There is a real urgency to this because right now there are no rules of the road to protect consumers from even the most egregious discriminatory behavior by telephone and cable companies," said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition. The group's members include Google Inc., eBay Inc., Inc. and online calling service Skype Ltd."

From MyWay news. entire article here.

My Perspective:

Aside from the fact that we shouldn't even have an FCC, let alone one with any control over content, It is crazy to think that a governing body designed to manage limited resources (Radio Bandwidth) should be allowed to extend their power over the only resource on Earth that will never suffer from the problem of scarcity: The Internet.

The internet is quiet honestly the best invention for the common man. It is an infinitely expansive entity that can be accessed and added to by all. The government claims that they worry about service providers controlling what content people can and cannot access, and of course, they use the buzz word of discrimination.

This is obviously a massive case of projection and a red herring, for it is only government that can completely cut off access to content. If a service provider chooses to block certain content (i.e. a christian based web service that does not allow pornography or access to homosexual sites) then a person has the ability to go elsewhere until he/she is satisfied with the service. On the other hand, when the government has the power to control content, only what the government deems appropriate will be allowed. Under this scenario, anyone who seeks content that is not government approved will find him/herself on a wild goose chase at best and/or under indictment at worst.

In a truly free market, any service that is desired and not yet provided for is a de facto opportunity to create a new service and wealth. ISP's will be directed by market forces to provide that which is desired, or else they will risk loosing customers to a competitor and thus lose profit, which could ultimately drive them out of business.

This leads to another interesting observation. "The plan has the backing of many big Internet companies...[through the] Open Internet Coalition. The group's members include Google Inc., eBay Inc., Inc. and online calling service Skype Ltd."

Isn't it odd that in a world of greedy corporations who hate onerous regulations we find some of the biggest names in the game coming out to support more government power.

This is classic cronyism. Obviously these companies are already established and have a huge customer base. Obviously they provide a good service devoid of the problems they claim to be concerned about (problems that don't actually exist in reality, only in the minds of government bureaucrats). Yet they claim that we need this government protection. My question is, "from who?"

If these companies believe in the new government power to keep content open and neutral, then why wouldn't they do it themselves? the answer is, they will. And if "We the People" are truly outraged over content control by our ISP then wouldn't this drive us to switch providers, thus bettering the bottom line of the companies in the Open Internet Coalition? Yes, it would. But they aren't concerned about their own behavior, and they are certainly not concerned about taking business from sub-par companies. What they are really concerned about is possible new upstarts and increased competition, and they see this new government power as a way to stymie competition.

these Big Businesses are already working hand in hand with the Gov. to get this new power passed into law. If they can do that then it is entirely conceivable that they can and will use their lobbying power to make rules that protect their interests at the expense of you the consumer and free-person. (Don't believe me, check out what happened during the New Deal and how large established businesses used the NRA - National Recovery Act - to prop themselves up while using the rules, which they created, to keep their smaller competitors down).

These Big Businesses are using the government to protect their corner on the internet market. With increased regulation, it will be harder for new and small companies to compete against the established Big companies. "Did somebody say Monopoly?"

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Snapshot Fallacy

The desire for governmental fixes to our short term problems are always based on a common human mistake: The snapshot fallacy. In a picture you are given an infinitesimally small time frame with static information from which to draw all of your conclusions. This is another example of the knowledge problem. We look at the now and try to solve it as quickly as it happened. But that is in effect trying to pay for a 1 trillion dollar debt in one day. The debt accrued over a long time, yet it went undetected. Now that we can see the aggregate result and or consequences of our previous decisions over time we finally realize the folly of our ways, yet in cases where we borrow again against the future we are simply perpetuating the problem. Only long term solutions work for long term problems. However human ingenuity can create solutions that maximize the speed with which we can fix our previous woes, but if the solution is not based upon reality, then we again will cause even newer and by their very nature, more complex and thus more difficult problems to spot and fix (law of compounding action: All actions are based off of the altered perceived reality created by their results)

To combat this phenomenon we must first be honest with ourselves and accept things that are true even though we don't like them. Then we must seek the Truth out honestly. This will give us the knowledge to to fix problems, but then we must do the hardest part, and that is abide by these laws. If we do not follow them, then all our fixes will be flawed, and produce worse results.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Free Markets require Free Men

Obama and his sidekicks keep deriding the free market. They tell us that the free market is a joke and that it has failed. They demonize the free market as an instrument of evil intent, but what is the free market? It is just what it says, a market of free people. It is the ability for us to live and conduct commerce freely. When they talk about corporate greed and 'market abuses,' they are actually pointing to problems they [government] have created and then calling it the free market. It is nothing of the sort. This is just a massive projection of tyranny on liberty.

George Orwell wrote of a day when the government would engage in flagrant acts of double-speak, and we all thought we'd be too smart for that. However, the subtleties the progressives used slipped by with little detection until now. The government, when it trashes the free market, is in fact demonizing the American people for we are the creators of and actors in the market, and it is only through our personal liberties that the market works, and yet our liberties rely on the market remaining free. It is similar to a symbiotic relationship with one major difference. A symbiotic relationship is between two different entities, however the free market is impossible to separate from us. We are the 'Free' in Free Market, and without our freedom, neither the market, nor the "individual" can survive.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

A Clinton on Welfare?

"Former President Clinton's niece, Macy Clinton, said she is in such a rut, she uses a government benefit card to get food from her local grocery store. She blames her financial trouble on former President Clinton's brother, Roger, who she says abandoned her."

"It's hard, because I'm a Clinton, too, but I have to be on food stamps, and I have to sacrifice everything just to make it day by day,"

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

My Perspective:

So the Clintons, who were all about helping others, want us to foot the bill for their own family problems...This is ridiculous and is a perfect example of the "do as I say, not as I do" political crowd. Welfare gets votes, plain and simple. If these people really cared about the poor they would be doing more than passing laws to make other people take care of it (foot the bill).

Also, I find it hard to believe that a Clinton could not find a good enough job to put food on the table. There are plenty of people who support themselves on meager jobs, they just have to live a meager lifestyle. She is taking the easy way out, and there is no question about that.

Lastly, she blames her situation on her father. Well, being too poor to be able to afford food should have been a sufficient motivator for her to either make amends or request help from her Uber-rich uncle Billy. Unfortunately, she instead turned to welfare which only eased her current situation. She still has all the problems that got her to where she is at.

Of course, she could have asked for help from the family. I don't know all the things she tried. However, if she did approach Uncle Billy or Aunt Hillary, she was obviously turned away (and probably told to just go on welfare). And we wonder why the family unit is in shambles in America.

Throwing money at a person or problem rarely fixes it, especially when the real issue is not a lack of money, but a lack of responsibility (on all sides).

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

A Mentality not Based in Reality

"It's just going to be like Christmas," said DeCarlo Flythe, who lost health coverage for his family when he was laid off almost three years ago. "It's going to be great. You know, no worries (about) the bills. We are going to go ahead and pay our co-pay and be alright."

Flythe, a diabetic, said he checked into buying a policy for his family, but he couldn't afford it. He recently landed another job, but the new benefits haven't kicked in yet.

Flythe was among the patients Monday at the Walltown Clinic, a joint program of Duke University and Lincoln Community Health Center that serves the low-income neighborhoods near Duke's campus. The clinic serves 3,000 to 4,000 patients a year – 80 percent don't have health insurance – and charges co-pays based on what patients can afford.

"People will come in and say, 'I suddenly don't have a job. I've lost my insurance. Can you help me?'" said Kaity Granda, a physician's assistant at the clinic.

Norman Rucker said he hasn't had health insurance in almost 10 years because his employers haven't offered it.

"I'm not a person who gets sick a lot, so I didn't think I'd need any medicine," said Rucker, who racked up about $100,000 in hospital bills over that period by going to the emergency room whenever he needed care. "I'm trying to pay them off. Collection agencies call me all the time." Link here.

My Perspective:

So if he doesn't have to worry about his bills, why can't I stop caring about mine? This seems to be an inequality of non-responsibility. Shouldn't we all have an equal right to be equally irresponsible without being unfairly penalized by the consequences just because of our class: economic or social, or any other trait. If anything, this mentality rewards those who are a drain on the system while hurting those who prop the system up by their own hard work and personal sacrifices.

As sad as it is for people like Flythe, It is neither moral nor practical for his personal debts, decisions, and unfortunate circumstances to be paid by someone else who is of no fault. I'm sorry, but he was laid off 3 years ago and couldn't find a job? I can get a job at McDonald's and get benefits almost immediately. An acquaintance of mine just started working full time in a kitchen wash room to support himself and he gets medical coverage for as little as $18 a month.

Of course, not everyone can find these jobs, but have they really looked? Have they made the hard choices such as moving to a new area or city where the economy is flourishing. Or have they even spent their "time off" doing anything productive? That time could have been used to learn new skills and become more marketable, but instead many use those extended times of unemployment as a paid vacation, and paid by who? You.

This story puts the lie to all the stories that we have heard over the last year and a half. There are free clinics everywhere where people who don't have insurance can get the care they need to survive. However, it is up to them to provide for themselves if they want more. We are all in the same position, we all must obey the law of Nature: which is the laws of human nature, economics, physics, biology, etc. -- or better yet: Reality.

As much as we would like to legislate a utopia, it is not possible to accomplish that which violates these laws. A piece of paper with words on it, however noble they may be, can not stand up to nor overpower the laws that govern the universe.

"Norman Rucker said he hasn't had health insurance in almost 10 years because his employers haven't offered it. "I'm not a person who gets sick a lot, so I didn't think I'd need any medicine," said Rucker, who racked up about $100,000 in hospital bills over that period by going to the emergency room whenever he needed care. "I'm trying to pay them off. Collection agencies call me all the time."

So just because someone didn't extend it to him on a silver platter, Rucker "couldn't" get care. He could have changed jobs, picked up personal insurance, or moved to another state that was more friendly to his situation (after all that is what the states are for, options, opportunity, and competition).

Rucker made a simple value judgement, the implications of which are severe and far reaching. Not only did Rucker value the status quo of every other part of his life above the cost of improving the status of his healthcare, He thought he didn't need insurance because he rarely got sick. In the second case he may have made a good judgement because he may not have wanted or needed the "state dictated minimum coverage," but he clearly misjudged the importance of his health in relation to the importance of all his other desires. If Rucker would have either paid for a catastrophic plan, or budgeted his money to provide for those times when he would get sick or injured--because we all do, and it is fool hardy to believe otherwise--he would most likely not be in this position. Also, I find it hard to believe that this man rarely got sick, yet ended up with a $100,000 bill. If that is true, then he was simply foolish in the method he chose to solve his problem. It would be akin to a person using single dollars as toilet paper instead of using much less of that same money to buy a product that did the job better and for a more reasonable cost. In any case, his original problem of relying on employer based coverage was a problem caused by the state, but I cover that issue elsewhere: Insurance: Hedging yourself; The Fallacy of the Single Payer System.

Although unfortunate, Rucker's situation could have been foreseen, but he made his decisions and now must live by them. This may seem a harsh reality, and that is exactly what it is. I have no problem with private individuals helping him out, and they should--and history has proven that they will without the safety net of government discouraging private charity. but to have me by threat of force from the government pay for his mistakes and poor value judgments is not the remedy, it only masks the symptoms of the disease. The symptoms being the unfortunate circumstances he is experiencing right now. If we [government] can quell his discomfort of the symptoms by getting the collective to pay his price, then he is only being delivered to his own sickness, and in doing so, is spreading it further. This is the ultimate end of statism and the errant belief that men can become gods in which they attempt to manipulate the laws of the universe for their own liking and personal gain. It is a fantasy and it is being perpetuated by those whom we have put our trust in to lead us. How dare they! Yet, if we are aware of this and do nothing then I think it more appropriate to say: How dare us.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

When Reality Doesn't Matter...

MADDOW: Should we not expect the public option anytime soon?

BROWN: No. Just—Rachel, you know history. I‘ve seen your show enough to know that you understand sort of how progressive—the progressive movements worked. When we passed, what, Social Security was passed in the ‘30s. It wasn‘t all that great at the time. When Medicare was passed, it was good, but not great.

… That‘s what happens here. This—you can bet that a lot of us are going to introduce a public option bill.

As soon the president signs this, we‘ll start working towards it. It may take a year. It may take five years. There are a lot of things we‘re going to do to continue to improve this system. We obviously don‘t give up on it. We don‘t get everything we want. But we work—we look how this bill works, we look how this new law works, and we continue to try to improve it.

My Perspective:

I love how liberals are so ready to champion a cause simply because it creates a "better world"--even if it only does so in their minds. Rachel Maddow has such an arrogance of character that she can't even see the evidence directly in front of her. Sen. Brown not only admits that a public option is in the future (which I'm sure Ms. Maddow was thrilled to hear), but he also gives two prime reasons why he and others should not be voting on any "progressive" healthcare bill.

"Social Security was passed in the ‘30s. It wasn‘t all that great at the time." How is this supposed to encourage Americans. Sure, in the 30's Americans were given a gift from the Federal government. With the creation of Social Security some Americans were granted government aid, but as time passed, and government required more power and money to fund itself, Social Security turned into a government backed retirement plan. Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to guarantee anyone's retirement, let alone finance it with other people's money?

Social Security's progressive journey is an argument against this healthcare bill, not for it. Just look at the end of Brown's statement..."It wasn't all that great at the time." Hell, I don't know if Brown has noticed, but Social Security ain't all that great now either. Not only is it a mandatory program that taxes you over 15%, in addition to your income and other taxes, but it has been run into the ground. If the same scheme as Social Security was perpetrated by a private company, they would be sued out of existence (oh wait...Bernie Madoff anyone?)

Only in the mind of a progressive, where the idea of a perfect world trumps the realities of the one we live in, could this "case in point" be used in a positive manner. Most people look at Social Security and ask, "so we want government to be in charge of our healthcare too?" Yet Sen. Brown and Ms. Maddow think that all the progressive Social Security promises make the program great--even if the promises can't be kept. This is a mentality that relies on dreams, happy thoughts, and is unable or unwilling to look at the facts. A world with no death or poverty would be nice, but it is not a reality, and you can tax the wealthy 1000% but it won't change the reality. It won't fix the problem. It will only be an added burden on those trying everyday to make life better for their fellow man.

Also, I have a problem with the progressive promises of Social Security even being viewed as "great," for they are antithetical to the ideas that founded this country. Maddow and Brown think that Social Security is fundamentally a good idea, where as I, and other freedom loving individuals, find Social Security to be fundamentally and morally flawed. Any "right" that the government grants you, which imposes on another's rights, is not a right, but a selfish want. If healthcare is so important to everyone, then why do they spend their money on clothes, entertainment, or cigarettes instead? The fundamental question being asked here should not be, "doesn't everyone deserve healthcare," but instead "shouldn't something as important as healthcare (apparently it is important, since they want to spend over $1 Trillion on "fixing" the "problem") be worth your hard work, and wise discretion?"

"...Medicare was passed, it was good, but not great." So is medicare great yet? I thought it was going broke, just like all those other government programs and services...To even use medicare and Social Security as evidence to support the Progressive Healthcare bill makes me wonder about Brown's, and Maddow's intellectual abilities. There is no way one can look at those two programs and think anything other than..."well they had good intentions, but boy did they mess that up." (and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were working out of good intentions).

Just looking at these two examples, how could anyone want more of the same? These two programs alone are making America go broke; not the government--because they can always tax us more--but the country. We can't afford to pay off all of the unfunded liabilities now--these are the promises that the government made of which they had no right, legal or otherwise, to make. So how can we be expected to pay off those debts while adding this new, insanely expensive, healthcare bill? all while our economy is in shambles, and it will remain that way until we get leaders who embrace free markets and limited government again. We don't need more government to fix this healthcare problem, because the problem is the government.

I'm sick and tired of people hearing of a noble pursuit and thinking that as long as it is the goal, the means don't matter. We need solutions based in reality. We need free market solutions, but free market solutions mean that people must be free for them to work. The left/progressives would rather see us living obliviously in their dream world of to-good-to-be-true promises that solve nothing--while at the same time creating new problems at every turn--than see us living in unfettered freedom because that would make the progressives, and their "solutions" obsolete. Another case of creative destruction leading to a better life for all.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Evil Corporations Require Big Government

"Market entrepreneurs like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Hill built businesses on product and price. Hill was the railroad magnate who finished his transcontinental line without a public land grant. Rockefeller took on and beat the world's dominant oil power at the time, Russia. Rockefeller innovated his way to energy primacy for the U.S.

Political entrepreneurs, by contrast, made money back then by gaming the political system. Steamship builder Robert Fulton acquired a 30-year monopoly on Hudson River steamship traffic from, no surprise, the New York legislature. Cornelius Vanderbilt, with the slogan "New Jersey must be free," broke Fulton's government-granted monopoly.

If the Obama model takes hold, we will enter the Golden Age of the Political Entrepreneur. The green jobs industry that sits at the center of the Obama master plan for the American future depends on public subsidies for wind and solar technologies plus taxes on carbon to suppress it as a competitor. Politically connected entrepreneurs will spend their energies running a mad labyrinth of bureaucracies, congressional committees and Beltway door openers. Our best market entrepreneurs, instead of exhausting themselves on their new ideas, will run to ground gaming Barack Obama's ideas.

If the goal is job growth, we need to admit one fact: Political entrepreneurs create fewer jobs than do market entrepreneurs. We need new mass markets, really big markets of the sort Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie created. Great employment markets are discoverable only by people who create opportunities or see them in the cracks of what already exists—a Federal Express or Wal-Mart. Either you believe that the philosopher kings of the Obama administration can figure out this sort of thing, or you don't. I don't." - Daniel Henninger of the WSJ

Entire Article Here

My Perspective:

What the left commonly calls big business and "Evil corporations" who seem to be able to manipulate Adam Smith's invisible hand--at your expense of course--can't exist without the authoritarian hand of government. Big government breeds bad business. Businesses operating in a truly free market are not the problem. Government, who distorts the market to obtain a desired political outcome, is.

Monday, March 1, 2010

The Real Cost of Government Intervention

"One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs, whether an insurance company or the government (see chart above). What is the politicians' answer? To have more costs paid by insurance companies and the government." ~ Thomas Sowell

Carpe Diem (entire article)

My Perspective:

This is exactly what I have said in the past, yet Dr. Sowell says it so much better, as always.

Bipartisanship...What's That?

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that Republicans have left their mark on the healthcare bill and should accept that the bill will go forward.

"They've had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard," she said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday morning. "
Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint."

Read the whole article here

My Perspective:
WHAT?!? Bipartisanship can only exist if the people's representatives from both parties come together to vote for, or against something. Just because the Democrats allowed the Republicans to supposedly have some input on the bill doesn't mean that the bill is bipartisan, especially if those same Republicans vote against the bill. I would like to see how Pelosi would react if this same statement came out of a Republican's mouth.

The only true bipartisanship happening in Washington right now is the push back against the healthcare bill. Both Dems and Republicans are agreeing on saying "NO" to this bill while Pelosi and the like can't even garner enough support from their own party. The Dems had a super majority until Scott Brown was elected, and they could have pushed this through at any time regardless of Republican opposition.

Oh, and about bipartisanship being a two-way street...

Pelosi and her ilk have ignored the will of the people and are trying to force this bill through because they can't get support from either Republicans or many Democrats. That is anything but bipartisan. I love how politicians think we are stupid enough to believe this line of bull. I think they truly believe that us normal dumby dumb dumb citizens need them and their genius. They believe that we can't figure out anything without a powerful centralized government to do it for us...yeah those guys that can't run their own cafeteria (which is done by many of those dumb citizens everyday as their living); those guys who can't run the postal service without a huge deficit; those genius politicians that can't keep their monopoly on schools without keeping school choice off limits...yeah I think they can make my decisions for me better than I would have. Hell they can probably make everyone's decisions for them. I mean, they are so much smarter than us. That is why this healthcare bill isn't passing, it is because we just don't understand. I sure hope Obama will have another 7 hour healthcare summit so I can finally become a smart intellectual like him and his friends...

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Quote of the Day

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, January 21, 2010

The Power of Truth and Knowledge.

My Perspective:

It is good to hear that there are those on the other side of the pond who are trying to maintain our liberties.
Global Warming is the biggest sham ever pushed on the American people and the world, especially the
third-world. These "environmentalists" want to keep us from using our resources and technology, and they
cause more harm then good with their "well intentioned policies."

What these people don't understand is that even though our resources may be finite, there is no limit to
human innovation. We can, and we will figure out a way to provide and do it at a fair market price. Every
decade or so, some alarmist theorizes about some environmental calamity. In the 70's it was global cooling,
then the population bomb, and of course the land-fill issue, endangered species, etc. The point is, these
"scientists" don't realize that as situations change, so too do people and industry. If there is a need for
energy and thus a demand, then there will be a supply, and there are huge incentives for people to discover
new methods.

The population bomb was supposed to have us all eating each other before the new millennium. If you
haven't noticed, that didn't happen. Why? well mainly because the man who predicted it didn't take into
account a very important variable. Human ingenuity. Yes, the world population is increasing, but because of
advancements in farming technology we have more than enough food, and at a very low price. Sure, hired
hands at farms probably took a beating, but they found new work (and probably better, more likable work)
and food production was increased while prices were lowered. So even though the population soared, we
could keep up, and the same is true with other resources like oil, electricity, metals, and others. New
advancements in technology are changing the world everyday, and once nano tech gets up and running,
the world will get that much bigger all over again.

Don't believe the obvious lies of a select few scientists, bureaucrats, and ex-politicians. Climate change is
just another vehicle of government to gain power. Remember, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
~ White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

The Beauty of Market solutions

From Carpe Diem

"In 1967, the American alligator was listed as an endangered species (under a law that preceded the Endangered Species Act of 1973), meaning it was considered in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

However, the creation of large, commercial alligator farms contributed significantly to saving alligators in the U.S.. Alligator farming is a big and growing industry in Georgia, Florida, Texas and Louisiana, and these states produce a combined annual total of some 45,000 alligator hides.

Florida has 2 million wild alligators. In fact, there are so many wild alligators in Florida that state officials have lifted the ban on alligator hunting, and they now have an 11-week hunting season each year"

"Bottom Line: Private property rights, commercial farming, and the commercial sale of alligator meat and hides was largely responsible for the full recovery of the American alligator and helped save it from extinction. The same approach could help save tigers (see recent CD post), elephants and rhinos, or any other endangered species."

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Is Olbermann ever right?

Get the truth here: Republicans and Civil Rights

"In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See and]"

My Perspective:

Olbermann is trying to make this about race so he can have an explination as to why Obamacare failed. It couldn't be because we are smart enough to elect someone on ideas. No, we are only simple minded country folk who are all racist white people who only care about race. If that isn't sterotyping (aka racism) then I don't know what is.

Even though Olbermann is wrong, it doesn't matter. The past votes of a party don't matter as much as the current ones do. If my principles dictate liberty, then I must be against this healthcare bill, along with many other government "fixes." And If Olbermann thinks that wanting to maintain liberty means that I am a racist then he must be so consumed by race that it is always on his mind. It seems to be that way for many democrats and progressives. So many seemed to question Obama's blackness. Reid and other key figures were caught discussing his qualities of being light skinned and negro dialect-free. Those are the people who keep telling us that we always make it about race, but we don't. Those who favor liberty, true freedom for all mankind, don't think about the messenger, they think about the message.

It is not men but ideas that this country looks to, and if an idea is a bad, regardless of the man who has it, then we will say so. We don't care if it appears racist, because we can defend our position from every angle of attack. The progressives and liberals use race as their trump card, their last line of defense, or their first strike weapon. When they can't win the debate on the issues, then they try to deflect to another issue that has strong emotional ties, and is easily used to smear the other side (even though, as you can read in the link above, the republicans have always been the party for blacks).

Monday, January 18, 2010

More facts on "Climate Change."

"Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain's 1999 interview with the New Scientist.

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower."

My Perspective:

Here is a story from the
Times Online showing the absolute lack of scientific professionalism in studying and reporting global warming. After seeing this report, and throwing in the "Climategate" emails -- not to mention the countless other "facts" and studies that have been proven wrong -- it should be hard for anyone, especially our government (who is supposed to be so much wiser and more informed than us) to take what these IPCC "scientists" say as truth.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

How do you stop inefficient spending in government? do more of it...

I'm constantly in awe at how our government can find any excuse for why they are failing us. Here's the latest:

"A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office. This startling admission came Thursday from Peter Orszag, who manages the federal bureaucracy for President Barack Obama. The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs."

My Perspective:

This in fact may be true. I have no doubt that some systems in our government are not up to date, but that hardly qualifies as an excuse for all of the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of government. Hell, if that were the case then we would only need a few Macs and some software and all our problems would be over, or at least severely improved.

I will agree with one statement from this article: “The American people deserve better service from their government, and better return for their tax dollars.” Unfortunately, knowing this government they will tell us that the way to get a better return is to spend millions, if not billions, of our dollars on "improving" technology. It will be a bigger waste than what is currently happening. If you don't believe me, just look at how much they spent on one freakin' web site: (not actual site).

This administration spent $18 million on a web site redesign. And you want to trust them with your healthcare? This is just another lie, another way to pass the buck, and another way to justify more stimulus type spending.

"The White House release that included Orszag’s comments said one “specific source” of ineffective and inefficient government is the huge technology gap between the public and private sectors that results in billions of dollars in waste, slow and inadequate customer service and a lack of transparency about how dollars are spent."

"“Improving the technology our government uses isn’t about having the fanciest bells and whistles on our websites — it’s about how we use the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars to make government work better for them,” Obama said in a statement." Yeah, instead you will spend $18 million and not get all "the fanciest bells and whistles [your] websites." That's just retarded, or the most egregious misallocation of funds ever.

Orszag claims that the technological inefficiencies of government cost us billions of dollars in waste. I would contend that it isn't the technology causing that waste, it's the people using the "outdated" technology. You want better customer service (aka your government listening to you and actually representing you) and more transparency, then don't spend billions on new tech, just spend 44 cents and mail in your ballot to get rid of these adolescents.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

The Monopoly of Government

"Likewise, didn't you know all along that Republican opposition to current health care reform is about maintaining the unconscionable monopoly that insurance companies have in the American economy. Why? For the same reason Bush went to war in Iraq, spent money we didn't have, pushed the country into financial ruin and did more to threaten our long term national security than any modern president."
~ from Alec Baldwin at the Huffington Post.
My Perspective:

Aside from an obvious ignorance of the laws of economics, and a knowledge of the history and philosophy of Business/Government relations, Baldwin is just plain stupid. First off, there is no monopoly for the insurance companies. If anything, it would be called an Oligopoly, but I would contend that the oligopoly only exists because of government. currently there are around 1300 insurance companies in the United States, but at any given time, a citizen of the united states has only a small fraction of those to choose from. Why is this? because government has restricted access to insurers that are located across state lines. This results in a shortage, which drives up cost, and restricts competition which is how costs would be brought back down.

Isn't it the Federal Government's job to keep commerce flowing freely from state to state? Shouldn't any citizen have access to choose from the 1300 insurers no matter where they live? It works for other forms of insurance, why not medical? Oh that's right, because government is dictating to the insurance companies and the citizens what must be covered, even if the consumers (you) do not want that service and are willing to go without it.

According to Mr. Baldwin, the GOP wants to keep the status quo because it is a boon to the insurance companies and their "monopoly" (just using the phrase "their monopoly" is a contradiction in terms). But, I and any free market thinker would agree that if the Leftists in power get their way, and Baldwin's way, then we truly will have a healthcare monopoly: Government.

It is shocking to realize how stupid the left thinks we are. They tell us that we are the victims of a 1300 company large "monopoly" and tell us the only way to fix it is to create a public option--which actually is a monopoly, since it will not have to operate within the laws of economics. This is Cronyism at its finest. A bunch of rich elitists think that they know what is best for everyone, and they can't stand the notion of those "below" them making decisions for themselves, regardless of the result. These people, like Baldwin, think that if they can just control a part of the world (because they know how to do it, right?) then all will be better.

When government gets involved in any part of the free market the market ceases to be free, and instead is controlled by the "benevolence" of those who think of themselves as mini-gods, holier than thou, wiser than you (even though they have no idea of your ever changing individual situation; your personal desires; nor do they have any experience in the areas they wish to legislate) Once your markets are not free, then neither are you.

Milton Friedman put it best when he said, "capitalism (meaning free market capitalism) is not a sufficient condition for freedom, it's a necessary condition for freedom...Wherever you have freedom, you have capitalism."

P.S. Mr. Baldwin, I contend that this sentence, "spent money we didn't have, pushed the country into financial ruin and did more to threaten our long term national security than any modern president." Is far more emblematic of our current president, Obama. Just where do you plan on finding the money to pay for his healthcare bill, and the countless other social programs that he has waiting in the wings, ready to take center stage as soon as this fight it over? You should probably heed the words of Margaret Thatcher who said, "the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Share on Facebook