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