Ann Coulter is at it again and this time she is taking on the supposed "victims" of the left. Liberals have long considered themselves the protectors of the downtrodden but how accurate is this portrayal? Not accurate at all according to Coulter.
Far from speaking for victims, liberals use victims or even create victims to inoculate themselves against criticism. As if showing the face of someone suffering makes it impossible to argue against what the liberal believes is the best way to help that person.
Coulter shows how liberals claim to be victims even when they are rewarded for what they do, like when Hollywood celebrities talk out against Bush. She explains how by celebrating victim status, such as women having children out of wedlock, damage is done to the second generation and dependency is created. She gives example after example of liberals receiving fawning media attention for their anti-war protests while claiming victim-hood.
A book review of an Ann Coulter book might even be largely unnecessary. You either love Coulter or you hate her. There is very little middle ground. Ann is an unabashed conservative who mixes in humor all while destroying liberals arguments. She doesn't pull punches or let the chance that she might offend someone get in the way of a great punchline.
Guilty is definitely not the book to get your liberal friends to try to get them to turn their beliefs around but she certainly could be appreciated by rock-rib conservatives as our answer to Bill Maher.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Healthcare Reform Is The Real Christmas Turkey
Most weeks, Congress does not work Fridays. Most holiday seasons, congressmen and Senators are home with their families long before the average worker starts his vacation. So why is the Senate in session on Christmas Eve? As Mark Twain put it, “No Man's Life Liberty or Property is Safe…While the Legislature is in Session.”
The Senate is in session on Christmas Eve for the same reason the House was in session during the wee hours of the morning on a Saturday, because they hope you don't notice what they are doing. The passage of the dueling healthcare bills in Congress will force Americans to do something they have never had to do up until this point, buy a service or risk fees and jail time.
Worse still, no one really knows what's in these bills. The House version has a public option and a ban on public money spent on abortion. The Senate version has no public option but allows federal dollars to be used on abortion. What comes out of the reconciliation process of these bills might very well be the worse of both worlds.
Items like individual mandates requiring every man, woman and child to buy a "state-approved" plan are a given. Community rating, charging the same rate regardless of health condition, destroys the incentive for the young to buy coverage by overcharging them to account for the elderly. Even with these provisions, the CBO says 24 million of the 46.3 million uninsured will remain so.
The money spent just to cajole congressmen and senators to vote for this bill is breaking all records. Mary Landrieu from Lousiana got 300 million dollars in earmarks for her vote. Ben Nelson of Nebraska got a state exemption that his state will never have to contribute to new Medicaid patients. All these bribes are really drops in the bucket when you consider the bill will cost 1 trillion dollars just in the next ten years, if anything they didn't get enough for their vote.
There is still time to stop the bill. Either the House will vote on the Senate version or the bill will go to reconciliation and need to be voted on again by both bodies. We are not done yet! A Rasmussen poll taken Dec 22-23 found that 41 percent favored the health care bill but 55 percent were opposed. If that number rises and we become more vocal about throwing the bums out of office who vote for this monstrosity, many Democrats may decide the political price is too high and change their vote.
Tort reform, buying insurance across state lines and health care savings accounts are all good solutions that would cost the American taxpayers nothing. Health care needs to be reformed but they know this Frankenstein monster of bad ideas and bribes for congressmen is NOT the way to get it done.
The Senate is in session on Christmas Eve for the same reason the House was in session during the wee hours of the morning on a Saturday, because they hope you don't notice what they are doing. The passage of the dueling healthcare bills in Congress will force Americans to do something they have never had to do up until this point, buy a service or risk fees and jail time.
Worse still, no one really knows what's in these bills. The House version has a public option and a ban on public money spent on abortion. The Senate version has no public option but allows federal dollars to be used on abortion. What comes out of the reconciliation process of these bills might very well be the worse of both worlds.
Items like individual mandates requiring every man, woman and child to buy a "state-approved" plan are a given. Community rating, charging the same rate regardless of health condition, destroys the incentive for the young to buy coverage by overcharging them to account for the elderly. Even with these provisions, the CBO says 24 million of the 46.3 million uninsured will remain so.
The money spent just to cajole congressmen and senators to vote for this bill is breaking all records. Mary Landrieu from Lousiana got 300 million dollars in earmarks for her vote. Ben Nelson of Nebraska got a state exemption that his state will never have to contribute to new Medicaid patients. All these bribes are really drops in the bucket when you consider the bill will cost 1 trillion dollars just in the next ten years, if anything they didn't get enough for their vote.
There is still time to stop the bill. Either the House will vote on the Senate version or the bill will go to reconciliation and need to be voted on again by both bodies. We are not done yet! A Rasmussen poll taken Dec 22-23 found that 41 percent favored the health care bill but 55 percent were opposed. If that number rises and we become more vocal about throwing the bums out of office who vote for this monstrosity, many Democrats may decide the political price is too high and change their vote.
Tort reform, buying insurance across state lines and health care savings accounts are all good solutions that would cost the American taxpayers nothing. Health care needs to be reformed but they know this Frankenstein monster of bad ideas and bribes for congressmen is NOT the way to get it done.
Christmas Day Massacre Averted
As many people were gathering together with friends and family and celebrating the Holiest day of the Christian calendar, a terrorist was plotting to use a new kind of explosive device on a plane arriving in Detroit.
The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance but the bomb composed of a powdery substance was designed to bypass TSA security. Hopefully, appropriate countermeasures will be taken in the future to account for this new threat.
It is a Christmas miracle that this unforeseen tragedy was averted thanks to the quick thinking of several passengers who subdued the man.
I sincerely hope that when Obama addresses the nation about what is being done with this terrorist, we hear that he is being interrogated and his associates are being rooted out. I hope that we don't hear about how this man is read his Miranda rights or how he is being given a lawyer. I hope that we hear about how this only strengthens the resolve of the American people to crush terror wherever it exists. I hope that we don't hear liberals trying to rationalize this as retribution for the troop surge in Afghanistan.
In short, I am hoping for a second Christmas miracle.
The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance but the bomb composed of a powdery substance was designed to bypass TSA security. Hopefully, appropriate countermeasures will be taken in the future to account for this new threat.
It is a Christmas miracle that this unforeseen tragedy was averted thanks to the quick thinking of several passengers who subdued the man.
I sincerely hope that when Obama addresses the nation about what is being done with this terrorist, we hear that he is being interrogated and his associates are being rooted out. I hope that we don't hear about how this man is read his Miranda rights or how he is being given a lawyer. I hope that we hear about how this only strengthens the resolve of the American people to crush terror wherever it exists. I hope that we don't hear liberals trying to rationalize this as retribution for the troop surge in Afghanistan.
In short, I am hoping for a second Christmas miracle.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
I Hate Huckabee
Mike Huckabee came very close to winning the Republican presidential nomination in the last election. The "Huck-a-boom" as it was called happened too early in the race to lead to victory but certainly raised his political capital enough to be a front-runner for 2012.
All that evaporated the Sunday after Thanksgiving. On November 29th, Maurice Clemmons walked into a cafe in Washington state and killed four police officers. Clemmons received a reduced sentence that lead to his parole from Huckabee, his original sentence was 95 years in prison. This is not the first time Huckabee has been embarrassed by a pardon. A convicted rapist, Wayne Dumond, went on to commit rape once again after a Huckabee clemency. In fact, Huckabee granted more than 1,000 clemencies during a 10 year period as governor of Arkansas.
The forgiving governor's law-and-order bona fides are nonexistent. We have trials for a reason. It is laid out in the Constitution that a panel of one's peers after hearing the charges and evidence against one is in the best place to pass judgment. When a governor or President commutes or pardons a criminal, that system's verdict is ignored.
Huckabee's clemencies are too numerous to be the result of poor judgment, it is a pattern for the governor. This pattern of government knows best is exemplified by his positions on such issues as trans fat bans, SCHIP, smoking bans and the environment.
There should be no place for progressives like Huckabee in the Republican party. Yet, Huckabee led in the straw poll for 2012 candidates just months ago. His status as a Baptist minister seems to have created a die-hard religious-right base that is willing to overlook his stance on the issues for his personality. However, after last Sunday it will be much harder for the evangelicals to stand by their man with the specter that maybe four cops would still be walking around today if Huckabee had held to the conservative law-and-order values that his party is known for.
Note: The title of this column is a parody of the movie "I Heart Huckabee." I do not hate Mike Huckabee although I think he is unfit to be elected dogcatcher. He would probably release the hounds that had previously bitten old ladies.
All that evaporated the Sunday after Thanksgiving. On November 29th, Maurice Clemmons walked into a cafe in Washington state and killed four police officers. Clemmons received a reduced sentence that lead to his parole from Huckabee, his original sentence was 95 years in prison. This is not the first time Huckabee has been embarrassed by a pardon. A convicted rapist, Wayne Dumond, went on to commit rape once again after a Huckabee clemency. In fact, Huckabee granted more than 1,000 clemencies during a 10 year period as governor of Arkansas.
The forgiving governor's law-and-order bona fides are nonexistent. We have trials for a reason. It is laid out in the Constitution that a panel of one's peers after hearing the charges and evidence against one is in the best place to pass judgment. When a governor or President commutes or pardons a criminal, that system's verdict is ignored.
Huckabee's clemencies are too numerous to be the result of poor judgment, it is a pattern for the governor. This pattern of government knows best is exemplified by his positions on such issues as trans fat bans, SCHIP, smoking bans and the environment.
There should be no place for progressives like Huckabee in the Republican party. Yet, Huckabee led in the straw poll for 2012 candidates just months ago. His status as a Baptist minister seems to have created a die-hard religious-right base that is willing to overlook his stance on the issues for his personality. However, after last Sunday it will be much harder for the evangelicals to stand by their man with the specter that maybe four cops would still be walking around today if Huckabee had held to the conservative law-and-order values that his party is known for.
Note: The title of this column is a parody of the movie "I Heart Huckabee." I do not hate Mike Huckabee although I think he is unfit to be elected dogcatcher. He would probably release the hounds that had previously bitten old ladies.
Monday, November 30, 2009
TV Review: Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t!
During the last few years of his life the famous magician, Harry Houdini, dedicated his life to debunking the mysticism and the supernatural. Penn and Teller, the famous Vegas magicians, are now following in his path with a libertarian bent. Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t! is a program that tackles such topics like Walmart, the drug war, obesity, prostitution, the death penalty, etc. It's billed as a documentary series with an entertaining take on the issues. Think South Park with a bit more substance. Sure Penn often retorts against prerecorded interviews and always gets the last word, but if you want a truly scholarly approach, you're probably not watching a show called "Bullsh*t!"
A few caveats before you watch the program or rent the season on my recommendation. Penn and Teller's biggest problem was that their opposition to certain groups or people could be construed as slander. So rather than calling a program a scam or calling a person a con man, they resort to the tried and true "MFer," "a**hole," and of course, "bullsh*t." Apparently calling someone a scam artist is actionable, whereas calling someone a "MFer" is just provocative TV. Another questionable aspect of the program is the near-constant parade of naked women on the show for seemingly no reason. The show airs on Showtime and one gets the feeling that Penn and Teller take full advantage of the ratings system their pay-channel. Still not enough to scare you away? My only other problem with the show is the bashing of religions, the religious and the upholding of issues such as gay marriage. Penn and Teller are confirmed atheists and don't see much use for the church. I disagree with their view but it's one I'm used to dealing with in libertarian circles. Ayn Rand was also an atheist so it's hard to attack Penn and Teller on that considering what ideological camp they reside in.
"Bullsh*t" is not for the faint of heart and probably won't provide knowledgeable libertarians with much more information. However, if you're libertarian-curious or just want to be entertained and are not easily offended, Bullsh*t is a raucous good time.
Bullsh*t airs roughly whenever they feel like it on SHO. Click the link for upcoming episodes.
A few caveats before you watch the program or rent the season on my recommendation. Penn and Teller's biggest problem was that their opposition to certain groups or people could be construed as slander. So rather than calling a program a scam or calling a person a con man, they resort to the tried and true "MFer," "a**hole," and of course, "bullsh*t." Apparently calling someone a scam artist is actionable, whereas calling someone a "MFer" is just provocative TV. Another questionable aspect of the program is the near-constant parade of naked women on the show for seemingly no reason. The show airs on Showtime and one gets the feeling that Penn and Teller take full advantage of the ratings system their pay-channel. Still not enough to scare you away? My only other problem with the show is the bashing of religions, the religious and the upholding of issues such as gay marriage. Penn and Teller are confirmed atheists and don't see much use for the church. I disagree with their view but it's one I'm used to dealing with in libertarian circles. Ayn Rand was also an atheist so it's hard to attack Penn and Teller on that considering what ideological camp they reside in.
"Bullsh*t" is not for the faint of heart and probably won't provide knowledgeable libertarians with much more information. However, if you're libertarian-curious or just want to be entertained and are not easily offended, Bullsh*t is a raucous good time.
Bullsh*t airs roughly whenever they feel like it on SHO. Click the link for upcoming episodes.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
First the Mainstream Media, Now Mainstream Science?
This blog, as well as many other conservative sources, has documented the shameful antics of the mainstream media. Focusing only on certain congressional races, demeaning conservatives through personal attacks, only presenting one side of the issues is a fait accompli for many news organizations. Books like Bias by Bernard Goldberg even show insider views and egregious examples from such respected networks as CBS, CNN, etc.
Some liberals describe conservatives as fossils that must sink their head in the sand to avoid the reality as reported by the media. Several books have been written maintaining that conservatives rejection of the media as well as modern science shows that they are doomed to die an ignoble death at the hands of present truths.
The greatest example of this supposed rejection of modern science is conservative's contention that global warming is not man-made and not as significant as advertised. The science is settled and the consensus has been reached, we are told. Anyone who does not believe in global warming is a flat-earther and worse than that, maybe even dangerous. Ellen Goodman stated that global warming deniers are on par with Holocaust deniers. Al Gore maintains fighting global warming is a moral issue.
To mock the media is one thing, polls have shown that people trust the media only marginally more than politicians or lawyers. Many even recognize a leftward tilt. Scientists, however, deal with hard facts; reproducible data that are peer-reviewed and rigorously tested. They do not editorialize, they objectively interpret the data. We recognize the wiggle room in journalism and deny any in science. Certainly this is a positive view of science because this is what true science should be.
Unfortunately, global warming scientists seem to have fallen far short of the gold standard that the American people believed them to adhere to. The UK Telegraph reports on the 61 megabytes of data that were stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) and released by a hacker to the media. Private E-mails between scientists and the full spectrum of data suggests no less than a ideological agenda that was put above all dissenting evidence.
The Telegraph charges that examples of manipulation of evidence, suppression of evidence, fantasies of violence against warming deniers, attempts to deny the Medieval Warming Period, and squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process are all present. The scientists even privately acknowledged being in a cooling trend while issuing press releases of continuous warming.
Climategate, as this scandal has been dubbed by many news outlets, threatens to relegate science to the same dubious position the media has occupied for the past several decades. This is an absolute shame for anyone who believes in the idea of ascertaining objective truth through the scientific method.
Some liberals describe conservatives as fossils that must sink their head in the sand to avoid the reality as reported by the media. Several books have been written maintaining that conservatives rejection of the media as well as modern science shows that they are doomed to die an ignoble death at the hands of present truths.
The greatest example of this supposed rejection of modern science is conservative's contention that global warming is not man-made and not as significant as advertised. The science is settled and the consensus has been reached, we are told. Anyone who does not believe in global warming is a flat-earther and worse than that, maybe even dangerous. Ellen Goodman stated that global warming deniers are on par with Holocaust deniers. Al Gore maintains fighting global warming is a moral issue.
To mock the media is one thing, polls have shown that people trust the media only marginally more than politicians or lawyers. Many even recognize a leftward tilt. Scientists, however, deal with hard facts; reproducible data that are peer-reviewed and rigorously tested. They do not editorialize, they objectively interpret the data. We recognize the wiggle room in journalism and deny any in science. Certainly this is a positive view of science because this is what true science should be.
Unfortunately, global warming scientists seem to have fallen far short of the gold standard that the American people believed them to adhere to. The UK Telegraph reports on the 61 megabytes of data that were stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) and released by a hacker to the media. Private E-mails between scientists and the full spectrum of data suggests no less than a ideological agenda that was put above all dissenting evidence.
The Telegraph charges that examples of manipulation of evidence, suppression of evidence, fantasies of violence against warming deniers, attempts to deny the Medieval Warming Period, and squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process are all present. The scientists even privately acknowledged being in a cooling trend while issuing press releases of continuous warming.
Climategate, as this scandal has been dubbed by many news outlets, threatens to relegate science to the same dubious position the media has occupied for the past several decades. This is an absolute shame for anyone who believes in the idea of ascertaining objective truth through the scientific method.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Obama to Troops: You Guys Make A Pretty Good Photo Op
Alot of people feel Obama acts cavalierly towards the troops. Lines like "You guys make a pretty good photo op" DO NOT help.
Friday, November 13, 2009
A Note on Updates
Many blogs have several posts to several dozen posts a day. This blog shoots for 4-5 a month. This is due to several factors. First is due to the fact that this is a personal blog meaning there is only one contributor, me. I was in talks to be a regular contributor to Obamasoundoff.com but decided that their tone and take on the issues were not completely compatible with my own and their scope too narrow. If I do become a contributor to a group blog in the future, a link will be posted. Second, I consider this more than the average blog which might link to a video or a news story with only a line or two of commentary. I prefer to write columns which can pull from multiple sources (news stories, blogs, videos, etc.) to support a point of view on a subject. I still enjoy posting humorous video though and will continue to post those as they become available. Third, due to my unusual working shift (10Pm-6AM) and my continuing education I have limited time to update and almost no chance to do so in real time. I will continue to strive for a more-or-less weekly column with humorous irregular videos mixed in.
Your favorite blogger,
Conservative Ken
Your favorite blogger,
Conservative Ken
Focus on NY 23rd!
I'm vaguely aware of a governor's race in New Jersey and Virginia where a Republican may or may not have won. It's hard to tell since the media has only reported on New York's 23rd District.
As the story goes, a Conservative Party candidate ran the Republican out of the race because she wasn't "far-right" enough and the Democrat won the Congressional seat. The fact that the Democrat won proves that conservatism is dead and liberalism is alive and well. Pelosi went so far as to assert that she had won on election day because a Democrat has not held that seat since the Civil War.
I'll abide by the media blackout and disregard the NJ and VA races. So let's look more closely at the 23rd. The original Republican in the race, called moderate by the mainstream media, has a laundry list of liberal positions. She voted 190 times to raise taxes, she favors card checks to abolish the secret ballot for unionization, she has received the Magaret Sanger award for pro-abortion activism and she was endorsed by the Working Families Party which is an arm of ACORN. Indeed, it is hard to distinguish her from the Democrats excepting only the "R" next to her name. Why would or should Republicans vote for someone who is a Republican in name only? And even then, the original candidate withdrew from the race and was not pushed. Needless to say, when her position on the issues were determined, her polling fell to single digits while the Conservative Party candidate went from single digits to double digits. Even when she withdrew from the race, she endorsed the Democrat!
As for the charge that Republicans are purging anyone who does not agree with their concept of ideological purity, Lieberman was actively abandoned by the Democrat party due solely to his position on the Iraq war. He is still a reliable liberal vote on almost all other issues.
But what does all this mean since the Democrat did win the race? For starters, maybe he didn't. News reports now indicate polling irregularities that have now been uncovered convinced Hoffman, the Conservative, to concede defeat to Owens, the Democrat. Even with Owens sworn into office, the ballots are still being counted and even if Owens wins in the end his lead is significantly less than has been reported.
While the absentee ballots will determine the winner, even if Owens retains his seat, this is a conservative victory. As Michelle Malkin has said, "He overcame impossible odds (single digits just a month ago) to come within two points of defeating Democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman had zero name recognition. National Republican Party officials dumped nearly $1 million into the race on behalf of radical leftist GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, who then turned around, endorsed Owens and siphoned off 5 percent of the vote with her name still on the ballot after she dropped out." The contrast is even greater now that the two points is gradually being whittled down. Certainly if Scozzafava's name had not been on the ballot, Hoffman would have won.
Honestly, I hope Democrats don't read this. I want them to continue on and miss the warning signs. My prayers are being answered with the House passing the health care reform bill. It will die an ignoble death in the Senate by most accounts and just drive the Democrat poll numbers down even further. I hope they continue to ignore conservative victories in NJ and VA and tell themselves Hoffman never had a chance because he was "out of the mainstream." Underestimating the Republicans the '09 will lead to their own undoing in '10.
As the story goes, a Conservative Party candidate ran the Republican out of the race because she wasn't "far-right" enough and the Democrat won the Congressional seat. The fact that the Democrat won proves that conservatism is dead and liberalism is alive and well. Pelosi went so far as to assert that she had won on election day because a Democrat has not held that seat since the Civil War.
I'll abide by the media blackout and disregard the NJ and VA races. So let's look more closely at the 23rd. The original Republican in the race, called moderate by the mainstream media, has a laundry list of liberal positions. She voted 190 times to raise taxes, she favors card checks to abolish the secret ballot for unionization, she has received the Magaret Sanger award for pro-abortion activism and she was endorsed by the Working Families Party which is an arm of ACORN. Indeed, it is hard to distinguish her from the Democrats excepting only the "R" next to her name. Why would or should Republicans vote for someone who is a Republican in name only? And even then, the original candidate withdrew from the race and was not pushed. Needless to say, when her position on the issues were determined, her polling fell to single digits while the Conservative Party candidate went from single digits to double digits. Even when she withdrew from the race, she endorsed the Democrat!
As for the charge that Republicans are purging anyone who does not agree with their concept of ideological purity, Lieberman was actively abandoned by the Democrat party due solely to his position on the Iraq war. He is still a reliable liberal vote on almost all other issues.
But what does all this mean since the Democrat did win the race? For starters, maybe he didn't. News reports now indicate polling irregularities that have now been uncovered convinced Hoffman, the Conservative, to concede defeat to Owens, the Democrat. Even with Owens sworn into office, the ballots are still being counted and even if Owens wins in the end his lead is significantly less than has been reported.
While the absentee ballots will determine the winner, even if Owens retains his seat, this is a conservative victory. As Michelle Malkin has said, "He overcame impossible odds (single digits just a month ago) to come within two points of defeating Democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman had zero name recognition. National Republican Party officials dumped nearly $1 million into the race on behalf of radical leftist GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, who then turned around, endorsed Owens and siphoned off 5 percent of the vote with her name still on the ballot after she dropped out." The contrast is even greater now that the two points is gradually being whittled down. Certainly if Scozzafava's name had not been on the ballot, Hoffman would have won.
Honestly, I hope Democrats don't read this. I want them to continue on and miss the warning signs. My prayers are being answered with the House passing the health care reform bill. It will die an ignoble death in the Senate by most accounts and just drive the Democrat poll numbers down even further. I hope they continue to ignore conservative victories in NJ and VA and tell themselves Hoffman never had a chance because he was "out of the mainstream." Underestimating the Republicans the '09 will lead to their own undoing in '10.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Is Fox News A Real News Network?
"Let's not pretend they're a news network," White House communications director Anita Dunn said of Fox News on CNN's "Reliable Sources." "Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."
Fox News does cover stories that no one else does, it is true. Van Jones was out the door by the time CNN decided to cover it. The National Enquirer reported on John Edwards' affair before any other mainstream media outlet. Maybe even Anita Dunn is angry because Fox is the only network to show the clip of her stating that her favorite philosopher is Mao Tse-Tung, the Chinese communist leader who killed tens of millions of people in his bloody revolution.
Of course, Fox News also broke the news of George Bush's DUI charge on the eve of his election. Not exactly something a communications wing of the Republican party would do, is it?
Fox News breaks stories, they ask tough questions and they do so relentlessly. They go after both parties on both their hard news and their commentary programs. Their commentary is colorful but anchors like Shep Smith just give the facts. Occasionally those facts are damning to those in power and that's the reporting that we must always protect.
It's refreshing to see that some in the journalistic field are telling the President to drop the attack on Fox. People and organizations I rarely agree with like Helen Thomas and The LA Times have all come out and told the White House to stop beating on Fox, if only for the fact that they have nothing to gain from it.
Fox, for their part, probably wishes the beating to continue. Ratings have been up 8% since the dust-up started and commentators like Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly are all counter-punching.
Regardless of how it plays out, it is good to know that politicians cannot intimidate news outlets. I don't want Republicans threatening MSNBC any more than I want Democrats threatening FOX. People can watch whatever news program they like and ignore the others but Obama is the President of every man, women and child in the US whether you like him or not. It's important that everyone gets an opportunity to have their say and leave it to the viewer to decide.
Fox News does cover stories that no one else does, it is true. Van Jones was out the door by the time CNN decided to cover it. The National Enquirer reported on John Edwards' affair before any other mainstream media outlet. Maybe even Anita Dunn is angry because Fox is the only network to show the clip of her stating that her favorite philosopher is Mao Tse-Tung, the Chinese communist leader who killed tens of millions of people in his bloody revolution.
Of course, Fox News also broke the news of George Bush's DUI charge on the eve of his election. Not exactly something a communications wing of the Republican party would do, is it?
Fox News breaks stories, they ask tough questions and they do so relentlessly. They go after both parties on both their hard news and their commentary programs. Their commentary is colorful but anchors like Shep Smith just give the facts. Occasionally those facts are damning to those in power and that's the reporting that we must always protect.
It's refreshing to see that some in the journalistic field are telling the President to drop the attack on Fox. People and organizations I rarely agree with like Helen Thomas and The LA Times have all come out and told the White House to stop beating on Fox, if only for the fact that they have nothing to gain from it.
Fox, for their part, probably wishes the beating to continue. Ratings have been up 8% since the dust-up started and commentators like Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly are all counter-punching.
Regardless of how it plays out, it is good to know that politicians cannot intimidate news outlets. I don't want Republicans threatening MSNBC any more than I want Democrats threatening FOX. People can watch whatever news program they like and ignore the others but Obama is the President of every man, women and child in the US whether you like him or not. It's important that everyone gets an opportunity to have their say and leave it to the viewer to decide.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Balloonatics
I hate personal interest stories.
If a celebrity dies or a bizarre story pops up you can be sure you will hear about it on every new program on every channel and it will linger on for days. The problem with these personal interest stories are that they don't give you information that is useful to you. If Congress is voting on a bill or the President is giving speeches about an issue, it may eventually affect you. As an informed citizen, you might feel the need to learn about that issue and either support or oppose it.
News programs defend their decision to run these stories, saying that they get high ratings. Although everyone complains about hearing about Michael Jackson every night for a month, they still watch. It draws in not only the regular watchers but also the lookie-loos who's closest brush with news is paging through the Enquirer at the grocery store checkout line.
The latest of these personal interest stories is "Balloon Boy". Unless you've been living under a rock you already know the general story. Homemade balloon flies away, boy is supposedly inside and flying thousands of feet in the air, balloon lands, kid is not inside, kid was hiding in attic all along. And then there was the breaking news that the parents knew all along that the kid was not in the balloon and that they had actually planned this as a stunt to get a reality TV show.
The balloon boy even threw up on national TV during the debacle. The Heene family's neighbors, who comforted them while the balloon was in the air, are reportedly furious about the deception. When police seized the Heene's computer they found two theme songs Heene had recorded for his new potential reality shows:
"When you want to learn the mysteries of how things work
Weather, the planets, the whole universe.
Tune into the show, that's really effective
Watch Richard Heene -- Science Detective!"
"If you need it built or fixed,
There's just one man to pick ...
That's Richard Heene ... contractor!"
Apparently Richard Heene thought that "losing" his son temporarily in a hot air balloon was enough to make him a "Science Detective." One wonders what the son would have had to endure to give his father bona fides to be a contractor.
Maybe there is an important story buried among this nonsense. People are willing to date Flavor Flav, eat horse testicles, and be stranded on a desert island all for the privilege of being marginally famous. Now it seems people are willing to train their children to lie to Wolf Blitzer, throw up on live TV, and alienate their neighbors for the chance to be marginally infamous. One is just foolish and the other is obviously over the line. But they are not borne of different desires, they are only differentiated by magnitude.
America needs to remember that fame did not solve the problems of Freddie Prinze, Jim Morrison, Jimmi Hendrix, Janis Joplin or Kurt Cobain. Lasting happiness must be found in our occupations, families and friends. When pursuit of fleeting acknowledgment puts those things in risk, one has truly lost his way.
If a celebrity dies or a bizarre story pops up you can be sure you will hear about it on every new program on every channel and it will linger on for days. The problem with these personal interest stories are that they don't give you information that is useful to you. If Congress is voting on a bill or the President is giving speeches about an issue, it may eventually affect you. As an informed citizen, you might feel the need to learn about that issue and either support or oppose it.
News programs defend their decision to run these stories, saying that they get high ratings. Although everyone complains about hearing about Michael Jackson every night for a month, they still watch. It draws in not only the regular watchers but also the lookie-loos who's closest brush with news is paging through the Enquirer at the grocery store checkout line.
The latest of these personal interest stories is "Balloon Boy". Unless you've been living under a rock you already know the general story. Homemade balloon flies away, boy is supposedly inside and flying thousands of feet in the air, balloon lands, kid is not inside, kid was hiding in attic all along. And then there was the breaking news that the parents knew all along that the kid was not in the balloon and that they had actually planned this as a stunt to get a reality TV show.
The balloon boy even threw up on national TV during the debacle. The Heene family's neighbors, who comforted them while the balloon was in the air, are reportedly furious about the deception. When police seized the Heene's computer they found two theme songs Heene had recorded for his new potential reality shows:
"When you want to learn the mysteries of how things work
Weather, the planets, the whole universe.
Tune into the show, that's really effective
Watch Richard Heene -- Science Detective!"
"If you need it built or fixed,
There's just one man to pick ...
That's Richard Heene ... contractor!"
Apparently Richard Heene thought that "losing" his son temporarily in a hot air balloon was enough to make him a "Science Detective." One wonders what the son would have had to endure to give his father bona fides to be a contractor.
Maybe there is an important story buried among this nonsense. People are willing to date Flavor Flav, eat horse testicles, and be stranded on a desert island all for the privilege of being marginally famous. Now it seems people are willing to train their children to lie to Wolf Blitzer, throw up on live TV, and alienate their neighbors for the chance to be marginally infamous. One is just foolish and the other is obviously over the line. But they are not borne of different desires, they are only differentiated by magnitude.
America needs to remember that fame did not solve the problems of Freddie Prinze, Jim Morrison, Jimmi Hendrix, Janis Joplin or Kurt Cobain. Lasting happiness must be found in our occupations, families and friends. When pursuit of fleeting acknowledgment puts those things in risk, one has truly lost his way.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Obama Does In 12 Days What Gandhi Couldn't Do In 78 Years!
The Nobel Peace Prize has been given to such greats as Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King Jr. It has also been given to such not-so-greats as Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat and Mikhail Gorbachev, to say nothing of Al Gore. But never before has it been given to a blank slate and that is what the Norwegian Parliament did when they gave it to Barack Obama.
Consider that the nominees had to be in by Feb. 1, when Obama had only been in office 12 days. It was humorous to see liberal pundits try to defend the decision. While a few insisted that closing Guantanamo, which Obama did on his first day in office, was sufficient most claimed that he had revitalized the feeling of hope in the world. Even Obama himself seemed dubious in his acceptance speech that this supposed revitalization of hope was sufficient to receive the prize.
In contrast, Reagan freed hundreds of millions of people from the iron grip of the Soviet Union and never received the prize. Gandhi liberated India and won self-determination for what is now the largest democracy in world by solely non-violent means and also never received it.
This is truly the cult of self-esteem taken to its inevitable and laughable conclusion. He made the rest of the world feel good about America again! He doesn't need to DO, he INSPIRES. And that he does. He inspires North Korea to fire missiles at Hawaii. He inspires the Taliban to ramp up the violence in Afghanistan to make the politically difficult (to Obama) decision to send more troops even more difficult. He inspires Iran to go nuclear while the United States insists countries like France and Germany give up their armaments.
But he hasn't inspired our allies to send more troops to Afghanistan. He hasn't inspired the Olympic Committee to pick Chicago. He hasn't inspired the American people that the same government that does everything half as well and at twice the cost of the private sector can run national health care.
Even giving Obama the credit of his full term so far, he is muddling through the economy, race issues (illustrated by the Gates affair), health care, Iraq and Afghanistan. At best, these are all unresolved issues; at worst, they are all worse now than they were a year ago.
If we remain on this path, by the end of his term we will be no more of a world power than Norway is...
...Oh wait now I get it.
Consider that the nominees had to be in by Feb. 1, when Obama had only been in office 12 days. It was humorous to see liberal pundits try to defend the decision. While a few insisted that closing Guantanamo, which Obama did on his first day in office, was sufficient most claimed that he had revitalized the feeling of hope in the world. Even Obama himself seemed dubious in his acceptance speech that this supposed revitalization of hope was sufficient to receive the prize.
In contrast, Reagan freed hundreds of millions of people from the iron grip of the Soviet Union and never received the prize. Gandhi liberated India and won self-determination for what is now the largest democracy in world by solely non-violent means and also never received it.
This is truly the cult of self-esteem taken to its inevitable and laughable conclusion. He made the rest of the world feel good about America again! He doesn't need to DO, he INSPIRES. And that he does. He inspires North Korea to fire missiles at Hawaii. He inspires the Taliban to ramp up the violence in Afghanistan to make the politically difficult (to Obama) decision to send more troops even more difficult. He inspires Iran to go nuclear while the United States insists countries like France and Germany give up their armaments.
But he hasn't inspired our allies to send more troops to Afghanistan. He hasn't inspired the Olympic Committee to pick Chicago. He hasn't inspired the American people that the same government that does everything half as well and at twice the cost of the private sector can run national health care.
Even giving Obama the credit of his full term so far, he is muddling through the economy, race issues (illustrated by the Gates affair), health care, Iraq and Afghanistan. At best, these are all unresolved issues; at worst, they are all worse now than they were a year ago.
If we remain on this path, by the end of his term we will be no more of a world power than Norway is...
...Oh wait now I get it.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Big Bird Is Not Afraid To Ask The Tough Questions!
Just for grins, this is a clip of Michelle Obama on Seasame Street that late night talk-show host Conan O'Brien edited to comedic effect.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The ADD President
For years, children have been prescribed Ritalin for a wide variety of symptoms under the vague grab-bag of Attention Deficit Disorder. Some experts claim that ADD is over diagnosed as high as 50%, others say that it is under diagnosed as much as 50%. While experts can disagree on the statistics, there is no doubt our President suffers from a very severe case.
Upon taking office, the economy was front and center. Gotta fix it and gotta do it now! TARP II, Stimulus II, omnibus, etc. were all passed with few members of Congress even reading the several hundred page bills. Some economists still warn of a double dip recession, a jobless recovery and that worries over tax code changes at the end of the recession are inhibiting growth.
Then, without skipping a beat and making a non sequitur tying it to the economy, the President pledged to fix health care. Gotta fix it and gotta do it now! Public option in, public option out, co-op's in, co-op's out. Three different bills all being referenced in the same breath and finally the Baucus bill emerges. No public option but there will be a tax on "gold-plated" policies. Since the bill is not indexed for inflation, much less medical inflation (which runs about three times regular inflation) and doesn't take affect until 2013, 40% of Americans will be considered to have "gold-plated" plans the first year it kicks in. In effect, it will be the new Alternative Minimum Tax.
Then, the President runs off to Copenhagen in the midst of the debate to get the Olympics for Chicago. Gotta get the Olympics and gotta do it now! In a time of crisis for Afghanistan, with a foundering economy and during a crucial time for his signature legislation, the President is focusing on the Olympics?
Multi-tasking is an important part of being President but when you leave every issue half-completed it is no longer multi-tasking, it is simply ADD.
Upon taking office, the economy was front and center. Gotta fix it and gotta do it now! TARP II, Stimulus II, omnibus, etc. were all passed with few members of Congress even reading the several hundred page bills. Some economists still warn of a double dip recession, a jobless recovery and that worries over tax code changes at the end of the recession are inhibiting growth.
Then, without skipping a beat and making a non sequitur tying it to the economy, the President pledged to fix health care. Gotta fix it and gotta do it now! Public option in, public option out, co-op's in, co-op's out. Three different bills all being referenced in the same breath and finally the Baucus bill emerges. No public option but there will be a tax on "gold-plated" policies. Since the bill is not indexed for inflation, much less medical inflation (which runs about three times regular inflation) and doesn't take affect until 2013, 40% of Americans will be considered to have "gold-plated" plans the first year it kicks in. In effect, it will be the new Alternative Minimum Tax.
Then, the President runs off to Copenhagen in the midst of the debate to get the Olympics for Chicago. Gotta get the Olympics and gotta do it now! In a time of crisis for Afghanistan, with a foundering economy and during a crucial time for his signature legislation, the President is focusing on the Olympics?
Multi-tasking is an important part of being President but when you leave every issue half-completed it is no longer multi-tasking, it is simply ADD.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
To Obama: Don't Say I Never Gave You Anything
This week, Obama decided against installing a missle control shield in Poland and the Czech Republic? This breaks the previous administration's promise and angers our allies in Eastern Europe.
I applaud the move.
What vital interest does the US have in Poland or the Czech Republic? Why are both even in NATO? NATO is a defensive alliance pact. An attack on one is an attack on all. Of course, except if the attack is on the US. When Afghanistan's Taliban attacked the US on 9/11 in the worst attack on the homeland in our history, much of NATO balked or sent a paltry number of "non-combat" troops.
Even if Poland and the Czech Republic mobilized much of their army to support us in a future conflict, is it a worth the risk of having to mobilize our army to defend Krakow or Prague?
Charles De Galle doubted that America could be trusted to act as France's nuclear deterrent against Russia when he said he could not imagine the US bombing Moscow in retalliation for a possible bombing of Paris since America knew that Russia would bomb Washington in return. Essentially, would America trade Washington for Paris? De Galle decided we would not and created his own nuclear deterrant.
Are we now telling ourselves we would trade Washington for two capitals most Americans could not find on a map?
Russia does present a danger but moreso in Georgia and the Ukraine if they decide to seize oil lines. A missile shield in Poland would not defend against this possibility and might even spur Russia's aggression under the auspices of grabbing what they can while they can.
Russia is not the old Soviet Union and Obama is no Reagan. Reagan developed SDI to break the Soviets but the Soviet Union still lies in pieces. Russia has become the old sick man of Europe with it's dwindling population, rising AIDS rates, pathetic life expectancy and low birth rates
So, good work Obama. Even a clock that has stopped is right twice a day.
I applaud the move.
What vital interest does the US have in Poland or the Czech Republic? Why are both even in NATO? NATO is a defensive alliance pact. An attack on one is an attack on all. Of course, except if the attack is on the US. When Afghanistan's Taliban attacked the US on 9/11 in the worst attack on the homeland in our history, much of NATO balked or sent a paltry number of "non-combat" troops.
Even if Poland and the Czech Republic mobilized much of their army to support us in a future conflict, is it a worth the risk of having to mobilize our army to defend Krakow or Prague?
Charles De Galle doubted that America could be trusted to act as France's nuclear deterrent against Russia when he said he could not imagine the US bombing Moscow in retalliation for a possible bombing of Paris since America knew that Russia would bomb Washington in return. Essentially, would America trade Washington for Paris? De Galle decided we would not and created his own nuclear deterrant.
Are we now telling ourselves we would trade Washington for two capitals most Americans could not find on a map?
Russia does present a danger but moreso in Georgia and the Ukraine if they decide to seize oil lines. A missile shield in Poland would not defend against this possibility and might even spur Russia's aggression under the auspices of grabbing what they can while they can.
Russia is not the old Soviet Union and Obama is no Reagan. Reagan developed SDI to break the Soviets but the Soviet Union still lies in pieces. Russia has become the old sick man of Europe with it's dwindling population, rising AIDS rates, pathetic life expectancy and low birth rates
So, good work Obama. Even a clock that has stopped is right twice a day.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Is Finger Reattachment Covered Under Obamacare?
An Obamacare supporter bit off part of the pinky of an Obamacare protester. No greater message here, except maybe that liberals fight dirty.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Did We Say 7 Trillion? We meant 9...
The White House's forecast of the deficit has increased from 7 trillion dollars to 9 trillion. A mere 28% over what they forecasted. I guess we should all be thankful. Government always has done a terrible job of estimating what it is spending and why not, it's your money not theirs.
Medicare Part A spending was 700% over what was forecasted back in 1965. But maybe that is unfair to take such a long view of things. Stuff happens in 40 years no one can predict. How about a more recent example? The Medicaid special hospitals subsidy was $11 billion, more than 100 times the government's projection of $100 million in 1987. Is it that government is getting more irresponsible with their forecasting or just better at hiding the true cost?
Something as massive as healthcare reform as currently proposed is projected as creating a 1 trillion dollar deficit in 10 years. Many people believe that the true number cannot even begin to be calculated as to what this will really cost tax payers.
The fact that 2 trillion dollars can just pop into the deficit by "surprise" shows how fast the trillions can add up. If it is 7 times what they forecast, America is in serious trouble. If it is 100 times what they forecast, America ceases to be a nation.
You would never buy a home or a car or anything without knowing the true cost but government does this all the time. It is about time we told the politicians in Washington that this kind of spending in any climate is unsustainable at best and in our current economic climate, it is downright suicidal.
Medicare Part A spending was 700% over what was forecasted back in 1965. But maybe that is unfair to take such a long view of things. Stuff happens in 40 years no one can predict. How about a more recent example? The Medicaid special hospitals subsidy was $11 billion, more than 100 times the government's projection of $100 million in 1987. Is it that government is getting more irresponsible with their forecasting or just better at hiding the true cost?
Something as massive as healthcare reform as currently proposed is projected as creating a 1 trillion dollar deficit in 10 years. Many people believe that the true number cannot even begin to be calculated as to what this will really cost tax payers.
The fact that 2 trillion dollars can just pop into the deficit by "surprise" shows how fast the trillions can add up. If it is 7 times what they forecast, America is in serious trouble. If it is 100 times what they forecast, America ceases to be a nation.
You would never buy a home or a car or anything without knowing the true cost but government does this all the time. It is about time we told the politicians in Washington that this kind of spending in any climate is unsustainable at best and in our current economic climate, it is downright suicidal.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Stimulus, Healthcare and Bear Markets, Oh My!
If you're a conservative in America, you've had little reason to smile recently. Filibuster proof majorities of Democrats in the Senate and significant majorities in the House combined with possibly the most liberal President to hold that office make for a bleak outlook.
However, all is not doom and gloom. Slowly, the populace is starting to rise up and the Democrats just don't get it.
Pat Buchanan in his latest article draws from recent polls, best selling book lists and what we've all seen reported on the nightly news to forecast a better day for the GOP coming up.
Now, the Democrats insist they will go it alone at healthcare if neccessary. I say, go for it boys! Americans are already steaming mad about the possibility of nationalized healthcare. Even a watered down version of the current propositions would face tough resistance from voters who don't even trust their congressmen to read the bill, let alone understand it.
It was healthcare that doomed the Dems in '94 and it will be healthcare that will doom them again in '10. I can only hope that this happens every 16 years.
However, all is not doom and gloom. Slowly, the populace is starting to rise up and the Democrats just don't get it.
Pat Buchanan in his latest article draws from recent polls, best selling book lists and what we've all seen reported on the nightly news to forecast a better day for the GOP coming up.
Now, the Democrats insist they will go it alone at healthcare if neccessary. I say, go for it boys! Americans are already steaming mad about the possibility of nationalized healthcare. Even a watered down version of the current propositions would face tough resistance from voters who don't even trust their congressmen to read the bill, let alone understand it.
It was healthcare that doomed the Dems in '94 and it will be healthcare that will doom them again in '10. I can only hope that this happens every 16 years.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Reagan's Socialized Medicine Speech
I know this clip has been played ad nauseum but you gotta love how Reagan's words seem to reach through time and still be relevant:
The Public Option or the Public Ultimatum?
None of the noise surrounding the healthcare debate matters if you intend to keep your private coverage, right?
Wrong.
Wrong.
The Party of No?
Democrats have been hitting the TV and radio waves to strike back at their Republican counterparts. We have been told by liberal after liberal that the Republican party is the party of no. We have been told that the real tragedy here would be to do nothing. But who is saying to do nothing?
John Mackey's The Whole Food Alternative to Obamacare offers free market solutions that could lower the cost of healthcare immediately while making wiser consumers out of us all.
Some of the ideas he suggests:
• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
As with anything else, the answers are there in the free market. Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries we have. Some of the regulations, such as not allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, serve no one but the insurance companies who are free to act without competition. Others such as the complete lack of tort reform in any of the current bills is a sop to the trial lawyers that donate so much money to the Democrat party.
When housing was determined to be "too important to be left to the free market" we created Fannie and Freddie, and with them the seeds of our current economic crisis.
With healthcare now comprising 16% of our economy, is it any wonder people are skeptical that the government has now determined that it is also "too important to be left to the free market"?
John Mackey's The Whole Food Alternative to Obamacare offers free market solutions that could lower the cost of healthcare immediately while making wiser consumers out of us all.
Some of the ideas he suggests:
• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
As with anything else, the answers are there in the free market. Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries we have. Some of the regulations, such as not allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, serve no one but the insurance companies who are free to act without competition. Others such as the complete lack of tort reform in any of the current bills is a sop to the trial lawyers that donate so much money to the Democrat party.
When housing was determined to be "too important to be left to the free market" we created Fannie and Freddie, and with them the seeds of our current economic crisis.
With healthcare now comprising 16% of our economy, is it any wonder people are skeptical that the government has now determined that it is also "too important to be left to the free market"?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
American Spectator Founder Says Birther Conspiracy Untrue
Robert Emmett Tyrrell, Jr says Birther conspiracies are unfounded
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Taking it to the Streets
It seems liberals are always marching for something. Whether it's opposing the war, a women's right to "choose", animal rights, gay rights, etc. we are barraged by images on the nightly news of liberals seeking redress of their pet grievance.
Conservatives, on the other hand, rarely seem to organize in a public way other than the occassional abortion clinic protest. When they do, the nightly newscasts either ignores them or maligns them. Who can forget the CNN reporter arguing with the tea party member over Obama's policies?
Has a mainstream reporter ever argued with a pro-choice marcher?
The tea parties were the first big exception to the rule that liberals are more activist than conservatives. The tea parties showcased conservative anger over what they saw as government encroachment on steroids. TARP, stimulus, and nationalized medicine topped the list of monstrosities the tea parties rallied against.
When talk of a second (actually third) stimulus package was heard, even liberal senators publicly opposed it. Now that nationalized medicine is on the table, the Democrats are wary but tempted to revert to form. Nationalized medicine is the gateway to the complete control of a nanny state, a lofty goal of liberals.
Once again though, conservatives (and some independents) are coming out in force to the townhall meetings of their representatives and letting them know they risk their careers by supporting this boondoggle. The anger is at possibly an even higher level than the last time our government tried to go around us, the amnesty bill.
Even the mainstream networks are starting to pick up on these outbursts even if they do ridicule those involved. But that is OK in my book. They ridiculed the tea parties but it was settled that there would be no further stimulus. Enough people are wary of nationalized medicine that they will make up their own mind about the story regardless of what Katie Couric tells them to think.
Conservatives, on the other hand, rarely seem to organize in a public way other than the occassional abortion clinic protest. When they do, the nightly newscasts either ignores them or maligns them. Who can forget the CNN reporter arguing with the tea party member over Obama's policies?
Has a mainstream reporter ever argued with a pro-choice marcher?
The tea parties were the first big exception to the rule that liberals are more activist than conservatives. The tea parties showcased conservative anger over what they saw as government encroachment on steroids. TARP, stimulus, and nationalized medicine topped the list of monstrosities the tea parties rallied against.
When talk of a second (actually third) stimulus package was heard, even liberal senators publicly opposed it. Now that nationalized medicine is on the table, the Democrats are wary but tempted to revert to form. Nationalized medicine is the gateway to the complete control of a nanny state, a lofty goal of liberals.
Once again though, conservatives (and some independents) are coming out in force to the townhall meetings of their representatives and letting them know they risk their careers by supporting this boondoggle. The anger is at possibly an even higher level than the last time our government tried to go around us, the amnesty bill.
Even the mainstream networks are starting to pick up on these outbursts even if they do ridicule those involved. But that is OK in my book. They ridiculed the tea parties but it was settled that there would be no further stimulus. Enough people are wary of nationalized medicine that they will make up their own mind about the story regardless of what Katie Couric tells them to think.
Friday, July 24, 2009
"Stupid" Racist Officers
The latest human interest story in the news is about Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and his run in with local law enforcement. The professor, a noted black scholar, was arrested for disorderly conduct following an officer arriving at his residence to investigate a reported break-in attempt. A woman had called police when she witnessed Gates and his driver wedging their shoulder into the door of Gates' home.
Upon arriving at the scene, the officer was immediately accused of racism by the professor for responding to the call. The professor, according to the full police report which can be found here , repeatedly yelled "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA!" The professor initially refused to show identification and proceeded to yell at the officers to the point where many onlookers gathered outside his residence. The uber-cultured Gates even made a slur against the officer's "mama."
As if the story didn't already have legs for the mainstream media, Obama recently commented that the officer had acted "stupidly."
But let's look at the facts, after the officer arrested the professor for disorderly conduct the professor commented that he could not secure the door to his residence due to a recent break-in. If a recent break-in had occurred, shouldn't the professor have been grateful for the quick response? Shouldn't his ID card been all it took to clarify this situation? Break-ins do happen and apparently even to him personally so shouldn't he have been a bit more understanding in dealing with officers? After all, if they had caught a true burglar which they had reason to believe they were dealing with, shouldn't the professor have been appreciative that his property would be secure?
Police officers have a hard job and we all need to cut them a little slack for the kind of basic police work that keeps us and our property safe. The professor was returning from an overseas trip which might account for his bad mood upon having to deal with this but he obviously felt safe leaving his property for an extended period of time even though the door could not be secured. Who did he think would look after his home while he was away? The same officers that he has no problem roundly denouncing as racist when they ask for his ID after hearing about a questionable situation on his porch, no doubt.
I do not believe that we can call the arresting officer racist due to this one incident. But certainly there are racist police officers just like there are racist teachers, racist chemists, racist psychologists, racist butchers, etc. The real question here is why does the professor believe all officers are racist? The idea of institutional racism is alive in this country even if the facts don't back it up. Institutional racism, like that which was present under Jim Crow, has been abolished. Affirmative action, diversity courses, and sensitivity courses are all mandatory for many professions. We create quota systems in colleges so as to even avoid the appearance of racism. Incidents of true racism are to be condemned but for basic police work to be demagogued is ridiculous.
Unfortunately for people like the professor, we will always be a racist nation in their minds. The professor would find good company with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
More people seem to reject this worldview than not, as recently Obama retracted his comment of the officer acting "stupidly." As additonal facts roll out: the caller never identified Gates' race, a second black officer who witnessed the arrest supports it 100%, and the head officer and union stand four-square behind the arrest; there seems to be a retreat even in the media. But even the media can't resist saying just because it might not have been racism today doesn't mean there won't be racism tomorrow.
Even though this looks like a win for the people who reject the politics of victimization and stereotypes, it is just one stop for race hustlers. The Duke lacrosse rape case, the Gena 6, Tawana Brawley, etc. all were debunked and repudiated but the race hustlers just move on to the next big story. We celebrate today because a good cop came out on top and a race-obsessed professor looked foolish but the game goes on.
Upon arriving at the scene, the officer was immediately accused of racism by the professor for responding to the call. The professor, according to the full police report which can be found here , repeatedly yelled "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA!" The professor initially refused to show identification and proceeded to yell at the officers to the point where many onlookers gathered outside his residence. The uber-cultured Gates even made a slur against the officer's "mama."
As if the story didn't already have legs for the mainstream media, Obama recently commented that the officer had acted "stupidly."
But let's look at the facts, after the officer arrested the professor for disorderly conduct the professor commented that he could not secure the door to his residence due to a recent break-in. If a recent break-in had occurred, shouldn't the professor have been grateful for the quick response? Shouldn't his ID card been all it took to clarify this situation? Break-ins do happen and apparently even to him personally so shouldn't he have been a bit more understanding in dealing with officers? After all, if they had caught a true burglar which they had reason to believe they were dealing with, shouldn't the professor have been appreciative that his property would be secure?
Police officers have a hard job and we all need to cut them a little slack for the kind of basic police work that keeps us and our property safe. The professor was returning from an overseas trip which might account for his bad mood upon having to deal with this but he obviously felt safe leaving his property for an extended period of time even though the door could not be secured. Who did he think would look after his home while he was away? The same officers that he has no problem roundly denouncing as racist when they ask for his ID after hearing about a questionable situation on his porch, no doubt.
I do not believe that we can call the arresting officer racist due to this one incident. But certainly there are racist police officers just like there are racist teachers, racist chemists, racist psychologists, racist butchers, etc. The real question here is why does the professor believe all officers are racist? The idea of institutional racism is alive in this country even if the facts don't back it up. Institutional racism, like that which was present under Jim Crow, has been abolished. Affirmative action, diversity courses, and sensitivity courses are all mandatory for many professions. We create quota systems in colleges so as to even avoid the appearance of racism. Incidents of true racism are to be condemned but for basic police work to be demagogued is ridiculous.
Unfortunately for people like the professor, we will always be a racist nation in their minds. The professor would find good company with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
More people seem to reject this worldview than not, as recently Obama retracted his comment of the officer acting "stupidly." As additonal facts roll out: the caller never identified Gates' race, a second black officer who witnessed the arrest supports it 100%, and the head officer and union stand four-square behind the arrest; there seems to be a retreat even in the media. But even the media can't resist saying just because it might not have been racism today doesn't mean there won't be racism tomorrow.
Even though this looks like a win for the people who reject the politics of victimization and stereotypes, it is just one stop for race hustlers. The Duke lacrosse rape case, the Gena 6, Tawana Brawley, etc. all were debunked and repudiated but the race hustlers just move on to the next big story. We celebrate today because a good cop came out on top and a race-obsessed professor looked foolish but the game goes on.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Why does Obama not release his birth certificate?
Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez
More fuel on the conspiritorial flames about our President's birth certificate. The WND piece is exhasutive and damning but in the end, I believe the President was native-born despite my policy disagreements with him. He needs to release his birth certificate and end this pointless debate. If you don't like Obama's issues, fight him on them but don't waste time on this drivel.
More fuel on the conspiritorial flames about our President's birth certificate. The WND piece is exhasutive and damning but in the end, I believe the President was native-born despite my policy disagreements with him. He needs to release his birth certificate and end this pointless debate. If you don't like Obama's issues, fight him on them but don't waste time on this drivel.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Obama: More Catholic than the Pope but mostly just because he is God
The praise and adoration surrounding President Obama is unprecedented in American politics. That is, if you are watching the mainstream media. Americans in general seem to be starting to wake up to his brand of socialism. Rasmussen reports that his approval index has fallen to it's lowest rate yet, -7% (Obama Approval Number at New Low). This number is due to his policies, how every President should be judged. People largely don't understand cap and trade but they understand nationalized health care means higher taxes. They understand that the stimulus never stimulated. His talk of "saved jobs" rings hollow as the unemployment rate reaches 10%.
So how does the mainstream media respond, keeping in mind that they savaged Bush's economic policies when the unemployment rate was below 5%? They say he is more Catholic than the Pope (Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does. ). They call him "sort of God" If I had to speculate, Chris Matthews' leg tingle is probably unabated and possibly in overdrive.
Now to be fair, there are wackos on both sides. One moment that made me uncomfortable with some people's perception of Bush was on the documentary "Jesus Camp" in which there were cardboard cutouts of the then-President which children adulated. But the kids were not reporters and the entire exercise was roundly mocked in the media. This IS the media adulating Obama! Some in alternative media, notably Newsbusters, have mocked the media for this ridiculousness but it continues on. This is more than an annoyance, it is downright dangerous. On June 24, ABC anchored the news from inside the White House and aired a health care special that was purely a propaganda video explaining the "benefits" of nationalized healthcare. ABC even refused to allow opposing voices buy airtime in the form of commercials
(ABC REFUSES PAID ADS OFFERING ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT FOR WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM ). Does anyone believe ABC would have aired a special explaining the benefits of privatizing Social Security during the Bush years?
When the evening news is nothing more than an ideological extension of Obama, is there any doubt to why there ratings have sunk to all time lows across the board?
So how does the mainstream media respond, keeping in mind that they savaged Bush's economic policies when the unemployment rate was below 5%? They say he is more Catholic than the Pope (Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does. ). They call him "sort of God" If I had to speculate, Chris Matthews' leg tingle is probably unabated and possibly in overdrive.
Now to be fair, there are wackos on both sides. One moment that made me uncomfortable with some people's perception of Bush was on the documentary "Jesus Camp" in which there were cardboard cutouts of the then-President which children adulated. But the kids were not reporters and the entire exercise was roundly mocked in the media. This IS the media adulating Obama! Some in alternative media, notably Newsbusters, have mocked the media for this ridiculousness but it continues on. This is more than an annoyance, it is downright dangerous. On June 24, ABC anchored the news from inside the White House and aired a health care special that was purely a propaganda video explaining the "benefits" of nationalized healthcare. ABC even refused to allow opposing voices buy airtime in the form of commercials
(ABC REFUSES PAID ADS OFFERING ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT FOR WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM ). Does anyone believe ABC would have aired a special explaining the benefits of privatizing Social Security during the Bush years?
When the evening news is nothing more than an ideological extension of Obama, is there any doubt to why there ratings have sunk to all time lows across the board?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Palin Resigns
I haven't decided on a candidate for 2012, yet. I certainly considered that Palin would be in the running which seems to be confirmed by this move but I also think this decreases her chances. I have watched this speech a few times and still cannot understand her reasoning. She makes references to basketball and football, magnets on her mother's refrigerator, and a speech by General MacArthur. I can't claim to understand what she is doing but first impressions seem to be that this was a bad move. Even Rove has called this a "risky strategy."
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Block Cap and Trade in the Senate!
Now with Al Franken in the Senate, the Dems have a filibuster-proof supermajority. But all is not lost. I urge everyone to contact their Sentor and tell them to vote against the cap and trade bill. Some Dems from industrial and agricultural states could be swayed. If this bill sails through, socialized medicine is next. Stopping this bill could end Obama's honeymoon and slow our nation's slide into socialism.
A list of sentor phone numbers can be found here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
A list of sentor phone numbers can be found here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Congratulations, you’re in the top 5% on earners!
In his campaign for the office he currently holds, Obama pledged not to tax anyone but the top 5% of earners. Of the remaining 95%, he emphasized his pledge by saying they would not see their tax increase “not one dime.” Six months later, he has already broken his promise.
Earlier this week the House passed the Cap and Trade bill. This bill caps the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that a company can emit into the atmosphere. If a company exceeds that cap, it must buy carbon credits from another company that has not exceeded its limit. Proponents of this bill claim that by capping the emissions and gradually lowering that cap we can save the planet from the eternal boogeyman of Global Warming.
Already the rational for the bill is falling apart. A suppressed EPA report requested by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., states that although CO2 emissions have increased in recent years, temperatures have declined. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/)
In fact, there is still no consensus that global warming is due to man-made causes. Furthermore, the last ten years have actually seen a global cooling, not warming. (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/01/no_climate_debate_yes_there_is/)
So why pass a bill that taxes emissions? In Obama’s own words:
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket . . . because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you name it . . . Whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, and they will pass that [cost] on to consumers…If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can, It’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.’’
As the cost of energy skyrockets, conservation will become a necessity for the poor, elderly, and young adults. The very people Obama and the democrats claim to be for! Businesses will lay off employees and raise prices in an effort to stay in business despite the huge tax increase. Many of these operations will be shipped overseas to avoid the legislation. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2009398877_cap-and-trade_is_this_climate.html)
As we lose these jobs to the emerging economies of high polluting countries like India and China, the net result will be more carbon in the atmosphere and fewer jobs for Americans. Everyone loses.
Earlier this week the House passed the Cap and Trade bill. This bill caps the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that a company can emit into the atmosphere. If a company exceeds that cap, it must buy carbon credits from another company that has not exceeded its limit. Proponents of this bill claim that by capping the emissions and gradually lowering that cap we can save the planet from the eternal boogeyman of Global Warming.
Already the rational for the bill is falling apart. A suppressed EPA report requested by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., states that although CO2 emissions have increased in recent years, temperatures have declined. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/)
In fact, there is still no consensus that global warming is due to man-made causes. Furthermore, the last ten years have actually seen a global cooling, not warming. (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/01/no_climate_debate_yes_there_is/)
So why pass a bill that taxes emissions? In Obama’s own words:
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket . . . because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you name it . . . Whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, and they will pass that [cost] on to consumers…If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can, It’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.’’
As the cost of energy skyrockets, conservation will become a necessity for the poor, elderly, and young adults. The very people Obama and the democrats claim to be for! Businesses will lay off employees and raise prices in an effort to stay in business despite the huge tax increase. Many of these operations will be shipped overseas to avoid the legislation. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2009398877_cap-and-trade_is_this_climate.html)
As we lose these jobs to the emerging economies of high polluting countries like India and China, the net result will be more carbon in the atmosphere and fewer jobs for Americans. Everyone loses.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Socialized Medicine: Wrong for Europe, Wrong for America
Listening to Obama, one would think that Europe has a far superior healthcare system than the United States. Listening to Michael Moore, one would think our healthcare system even lags behind Cuba! What are we to do? All the experts agree, we are told. We need to nationalize healthcare. A national system of doctors would work together to deliver us the kind of healthcare Europeans and Cubans receive. Not only that but it will cost less than it does now. After all, you’re already paying for those who aren’t covered. Some say as much as $1,800 a year in healthcare costs that are passed on to you. So if we nationalize the system the healthcare will be better and cheaper than it is now, right?
Wrong.
The very premise of the argument falls apart under closer observation. Not only is the U.S. healthcare system as good as its European counterpart, its better.
According to a recent article in the Washington Times, Americans have better survival rates from both common and rare cancers than Europeans and Canadians. Not only that but we also have better access to screening and treatment for chronic diseases.
What about our seniors who supposedly stand to receive better care by the larger pool created by adding young and healthy people to the insurance rolls? The same article says Canada has an even greater disparity among treatments available for the elderly in a study of Canadians aged 16-64. In fact the same article states that the average wait to see a specialist is about twice as long in the UK and Canada. Some specialists who perform hip replacements or radiation therapy for cancer sometimes have up to a year wait.
But aren’t the people in Europe happy with their healthcare? The same article finds that More than 70 percent of Germans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and U.K. adults say their health systems needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
But isn’t something as vital as healthcare better off with all the doctors working together? Isn’t healthcare above the competition of the market? What possible good could this competition create? According to the same article, the vast majority of all the innovation in health care in the world comes out of the U.S. health-care system. The same competition that drives every industry to improve their product or service also drives the healthcare industry to improve the quality of healthcare.
OK, so maybe our healthcare system is better but what about the people who can’t pay? Wouldn’t a system where everyone had access be better than one where some didn’t? Didn’t you say we’re almost paying two grand a year for these people anyway?
Certainly the healthcare system needs reform but we need to go in the opposite direction that Obama is leading us. Competition is already stifled by an insurance system that distorts the fair market value of the services rendered. In many situations neither the doctor nor the patient knows the cost of anything from a check-up to a life saving procedure. It often depends on the insurance a patient carries. In the cost of any visit with a doctor is built in the cost of an additional administration and all the paperwork required. This cost is passed along in the form of insurance premiums. No one would order a meal at a restaurant if the price wasn’t on the menu but this is what we do every time we see a doctor!
Sound radical? A price board in your doctor’s office? It could never happen, right?
Actually many doctors have decided to stop taking insurance and have prospered. John Stossel recently reported on several doctors who found they could offer lower prices by cutting out the middle man.
The solution is to let the free market back into the system and reduce the number of claims submitted to insurance companies. Certainly insurance can still play a role. No one in a car accident or suffering a heart attack should have to play hundreds of thousands of dollars for life saving surgery. But do we really need insurance for when we have a case of the sniffles or need a yearly check-up? Let’s let competition reign and see prices fall. By shrinking the size of the insurance bureaucracy to only cover catastrophic cases we can reduce insurance premiums and make healthcare available to all Americans.
http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1547496.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/pardon-the-interruption/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3602626&page=1
Wrong.
The very premise of the argument falls apart under closer observation. Not only is the U.S. healthcare system as good as its European counterpart, its better.
According to a recent article in the Washington Times, Americans have better survival rates from both common and rare cancers than Europeans and Canadians. Not only that but we also have better access to screening and treatment for chronic diseases.
What about our seniors who supposedly stand to receive better care by the larger pool created by adding young and healthy people to the insurance rolls? The same article says Canada has an even greater disparity among treatments available for the elderly in a study of Canadians aged 16-64. In fact the same article states that the average wait to see a specialist is about twice as long in the UK and Canada. Some specialists who perform hip replacements or radiation therapy for cancer sometimes have up to a year wait.
But aren’t the people in Europe happy with their healthcare? The same article finds that More than 70 percent of Germans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and U.K. adults say their health systems needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
But isn’t something as vital as healthcare better off with all the doctors working together? Isn’t healthcare above the competition of the market? What possible good could this competition create? According to the same article, the vast majority of all the innovation in health care in the world comes out of the U.S. health-care system. The same competition that drives every industry to improve their product or service also drives the healthcare industry to improve the quality of healthcare.
OK, so maybe our healthcare system is better but what about the people who can’t pay? Wouldn’t a system where everyone had access be better than one where some didn’t? Didn’t you say we’re almost paying two grand a year for these people anyway?
Certainly the healthcare system needs reform but we need to go in the opposite direction that Obama is leading us. Competition is already stifled by an insurance system that distorts the fair market value of the services rendered. In many situations neither the doctor nor the patient knows the cost of anything from a check-up to a life saving procedure. It often depends on the insurance a patient carries. In the cost of any visit with a doctor is built in the cost of an additional administration and all the paperwork required. This cost is passed along in the form of insurance premiums. No one would order a meal at a restaurant if the price wasn’t on the menu but this is what we do every time we see a doctor!
Sound radical? A price board in your doctor’s office? It could never happen, right?
Actually many doctors have decided to stop taking insurance and have prospered. John Stossel recently reported on several doctors who found they could offer lower prices by cutting out the middle man.
The solution is to let the free market back into the system and reduce the number of claims submitted to insurance companies. Certainly insurance can still play a role. No one in a car accident or suffering a heart attack should have to play hundreds of thousands of dollars for life saving surgery. But do we really need insurance for when we have a case of the sniffles or need a yearly check-up? Let’s let competition reign and see prices fall. By shrinking the size of the insurance bureaucracy to only cover catastrophic cases we can reduce insurance premiums and make healthcare available to all Americans.
http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1547496.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/pardon-the-interruption/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3602626&page=1
Conservative Ideals
First, a little bit about me. I believe that conservatism, both ecomonic and social, is the path to greatest personal freedom.
Economic conservatism simply put means small government, keeping more of what you earn and keeping government out of your business.
Small government means following the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution. Any rights not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved for the states.
Keeping more of what you earn means low taxes. The people as a group forms the market and the market, when it is free of government interference, is the best way to determine what a good or service is worth. When people spend their money as they see fit it does the most economic good. People will spend and invest the money with an eye for economic value whereas government spends and invests for purely a political return. People in the market create wealth whereas the government only moves money from one pocket to another, tying up funds in a zero sum game.
Keeping government out of your business deals with regulation. Monopolies are rare things. If one company can make a good or service, many other companies can make that same product. Some can even make it better. This competition for customers leads to lower prices and higher quality than any other economic system we have. The Monopolies that do exist always do so with the government's help. Burdensome regulations prevent some companies from creating products. Heavily regulated industries such as the car companies, oil companies, etc. have had the bar of entry set so high by the US government that the cost of entry is almost unthinkable. This leads to cabals being formed by competitors who know that they can artificially increase prices above market value since no new competitors can enter the market. Noncompetitive industries also know that there is less of a need to improve the quality of goods or services that they provide. With the advent of free trade, companies that are not burdened by these regulations can undercut US companies. While this does reignite some companies to lower prices and improve quality, it may also drive US companies out of the industry if they find the regulations that once protected them from domestic competition hobble them against foreign competition. The best regulation comes from the free and fair marketplace-driven competition.
Many in the conservative movement would look to say that although these principles are correct we need the federal government to have this right not enumerated in the Constitution or we need more tax dollars for this program or more regulation in this or that industry. Just this once, or just in times of economic trouble. That government will grow today but shrink tomorrow. This is worrisome. Although it is easy to fund a new program, how many old programs ever are terminated? How many entitlements are ever rolled back? How many departments are ever disbanded?
The fear of being a Hoover, not responding to economic hardship of the people, is maybe the greatest fear among politicians. The old adage that if you don't know what you are doing, look busy is alive and well in Washington. But the government cannot control the market unless it controls every part of the market. Look at the old Soviet Union to see how well that works. The market is a balloon, squeeze it somewhere and it bulges out somewhere else. The government dutifully squeezes the new area but the problem continues in another section. This leaves politicians an endless game where they can look busy but doesn't help those affected.
Social conservatism means carrying on the moral legacy of our Founders. This is not the only reason to do so. Morality leads to a healthier society. Poverty, homelessness, and crime grow out of a lack of a cohesive family unit. All studies show fatherlessness is one of the greatest indicators that a child is at risk. Children who grow up without a father tend to be poorer, less educated and more likely to commit crime than children who grow up with a father.
Some of these problems are interconnected with economic conservatism. Does anyone really believe the welfare state has not decimated the family unit especially in urban areas?
One of the greatest goals of social conservatism is to create a stable environment for our children. Two consenting adults may do as they choose within the boundaries of the law but with children involved their personal behavior can lead to a lifetime of instability and tragedy to those they otherwise love.
No one is saying divorce or lesser immoralities should be legislated against. No one is saying a father must stay with a mother or vice versa under penalty of law. These are values that must be learned but are difficult to teach. Social conservatives must be like Ronald Reagan's city on a hill, we must lead by example first and legislate only when necessary.
Welcome
This is my first post, hopefully of many, to a conservative minded blog. I created this blog to voice my opinions about conservatism, current events and how best to further the cause of our Founders. If any of these things offend you, I made this website for you. If you support these things, I made this website for you. If you are indifferent either way about these things, I made this website for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
