The Tea Partiers, unlike how they are being characterised by the major (lamestream) media, are peaceful. Basically, tea party goers have better things to do than become active in politics. They (and me too) just want to be left alone, both by others and by the government. We are being forced into politics. (Michael Savage makes this point.) I have been called a Nazi by a local politician when I told him that I always vote Republican. He was a Democrat. I was called a racist and sexist by a passing driver just because I had a John McCain bumber sticker. (I plan to paste "Sarah Palin" over half of my bummber sticker that says veterans for McCain.) I have seen violent riots and I have seen violent protesters on television. They were left wing protesters and rioters of course. Everyone knows this. Obama, his Central Committee, his commissars, his lap-dog press, his Obama Squads are obviously trying to deceive the simple minded.
The Tea Parties remind me of non-violent anti-war protests of the 60's and 70's. When and if the tea partiers are confronted by left wing provocateurs, they should sit down and sing "All we are saying is give freedom a chance."
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Lying to Save the Planet
Lying to save the planet has obviously been a tactic of environmentalist and one of them fessed up. On the Peter Weisback radio show out of Seattle today an environmentalist leader was interviewed by a fellow with a British accent. Actually it was more of a cross examination; he didn't let up until the witness admitted that he did not believe that the Arctic would really be ice free by 2030 as he had stated science had revealed. The interviewer pointed out that the Greenland Icecap was about 1.5 million square miles and three miles thick. After trying to dodge five or six questions, the environmentalist stated that it was sometimes a good idea to emotionalize the issue. The interviewer stated that these were scare tactics. Weisback said that what he meant by 'emotionalizing' was he sometimes lied to advance the policy agenda of global warming. This has been rather obvious for a long time but the press, according to Mr. Weisback, continues to regurgitate what the environmentalists feed them. That has also been obvious for a long time.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
When Will Media Take off the Blinders?
As it is hard to find the time to do the searches and research, not to mention the composition, required to write a short post that does justice to a topic, I will again quote at length from a source on the web. (The Wall Street Journal; Best of the Web Today, August 14, 2009):
"The Media and the Haters on the Left Our item yesterday on media coverage of anti-Iraq vs. anti-ObamaCare protests prompted some interesting reader commentary, including this from William White:
The point you make about the media not covering liberal loonies at left-wing protests because such stories would be of dog-bites-man importance has some validity. However, I think you miss two much larger concerns.
First, I do not believe that the existence of left-wing fringe elements at liberal protests is at all common knowledge. Certainly political junkies like us know full well about what really goes on at these rallies. However, I think there is a huge swath of middle America that would be quite startled to get the full picture of liberal protests. I also think that were the media to provide such coverage it would notably alter public opinion on many political topics. (By way of contrast, note how the media cover religion. They almost never cover mainstream religious organizations and activity, but consistently report on religious extremists, and always in a negative light.)
Second, yes, at any political protest you will have elements there shouting, arguing, whatever, that politician so-and-so is a jerk and in bed with special interests and untrustworthy and all that. However, what infuriated me about the antiwar protests when Bush was in office is that the left's level of rhetoric was not just different in degree from what one might commonly see at political rallies but was different in kind. To me, the left became completely unhinged. To regularly brand Bush as Hitler, to regularly refer to the Bush administration as a "regime," to tolerate the not-uncommon calls for Bush's death or assassination reflected a serious change in the nature of political debate in this country. That change was very much a valid news story. In many respects, that change superseded the significance of the war itself. Yet, the media totally and completely ignored and whitewashed the level of lunacy among the left.
Now, maybe I, myself, am an extremist for seeing such an acute liberal bias in the MSM, but, I feel very strongly that the MSM is "at it again." They are working hard to report on fringe conservative protesters as a way to undercut conservative positions when they have regularly ignored the lunacy which exists on the left--and have ignored the size and sway that such extremists hold within the Democratic Party."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350400852801602.html
The poor job done by the news media in telling us what is really happening is a major cause of most societal problems. If we knew what was going on, we would vote for leaders who proposed solutions to the underlying problems, not to our superficial, though chronic, difficulties. The above quotation and other comments in the cited article demonstrate instances of media reporting based on their own political bias, while ignoring or even concealing obviously relevant evidence that is staring them right in the face. The goals and methods of the left are things that we should know in order to make an informed evaluation of current events. For a long time, the major mass media obviously has wanted us ignorant. Why? That's a good question.
"The Media and the Haters on the Left Our item yesterday on media coverage of anti-Iraq vs. anti-ObamaCare protests prompted some interesting reader commentary, including this from William White:
The point you make about the media not covering liberal loonies at left-wing protests because such stories would be of dog-bites-man importance has some validity. However, I think you miss two much larger concerns.
First, I do not believe that the existence of left-wing fringe elements at liberal protests is at all common knowledge. Certainly political junkies like us know full well about what really goes on at these rallies. However, I think there is a huge swath of middle America that would be quite startled to get the full picture of liberal protests. I also think that were the media to provide such coverage it would notably alter public opinion on many political topics. (By way of contrast, note how the media cover religion. They almost never cover mainstream religious organizations and activity, but consistently report on religious extremists, and always in a negative light.)
Second, yes, at any political protest you will have elements there shouting, arguing, whatever, that politician so-and-so is a jerk and in bed with special interests and untrustworthy and all that. However, what infuriated me about the antiwar protests when Bush was in office is that the left's level of rhetoric was not just different in degree from what one might commonly see at political rallies but was different in kind. To me, the left became completely unhinged. To regularly brand Bush as Hitler, to regularly refer to the Bush administration as a "regime," to tolerate the not-uncommon calls for Bush's death or assassination reflected a serious change in the nature of political debate in this country. That change was very much a valid news story. In many respects, that change superseded the significance of the war itself. Yet, the media totally and completely ignored and whitewashed the level of lunacy among the left.
Now, maybe I, myself, am an extremist for seeing such an acute liberal bias in the MSM, but, I feel very strongly that the MSM is "at it again." They are working hard to report on fringe conservative protesters as a way to undercut conservative positions when they have regularly ignored the lunacy which exists on the left--and have ignored the size and sway that such extremists hold within the Democratic Party."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350400852801602.html
The poor job done by the news media in telling us what is really happening is a major cause of most societal problems. If we knew what was going on, we would vote for leaders who proposed solutions to the underlying problems, not to our superficial, though chronic, difficulties. The above quotation and other comments in the cited article demonstrate instances of media reporting based on their own political bias, while ignoring or even concealing obviously relevant evidence that is staring them right in the face. The goals and methods of the left are things that we should know in order to make an informed evaluation of current events. For a long time, the major mass media obviously has wanted us ignorant. Why? That's a good question.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Socialism Marches On
Today, President Obama addressed the objection that private insurance could not compete against a government owned "insurance" enterprise. He stated, among other things, that UPS and Fed Ex currently compete against the Post Office, so why couldn't insurance companies also compete against a government enterprise? He did mention that the post office has chronic financial troubles (and thus is tax payer supported). I doubt that they even count the cost of the postal workers pensions. There are probably many other "costs" that are paid by the tax payer and are not figured in the profit-lost calculations for the post office. In fact, there are probably costs that cannot be calculated because they are for good and services from other government agencies that are not on the market, and thus have no price. The government monopoly post office also does not allow competition in the area of first class mail delivery and probably in other areas.
Whether or not government health care insurance would loss money (and I am sure it would - lots of money), it would always be competing on its own terms. Any services that it wished to monopolize, it would. Any regulations that it wished to impose on the so-called free market insurers, it would.
It seems obvious to me that government could could not compete with business. That is why it would impose regulation upon commercial insurers. They have already listed several new mandates it would impose (on top of the ones it has imposed over the last few decades). Business would not be allowed to operate in the ways it deemed most efficient and profitable. The flip side is that consumers would not be able to chose the type of insurance or coverage plans that they want. Government would surely want to unionize every aspect of health care, otherwise the government labor costs would be much higher than the private, given all of government employee union benefits. Either taxes would have to cover government losses or private premiums would have to be forced as high as government costs. These items would actually be beyond our power to calculate. Government would effectively set the price of insurance. They would soon find that they had to set the price of health care itself in order for their "insurance" to work. That, in turn, would not work either.
The whole idea of parallel systems sounds like a huge debacle doomed to failure. I for one would not want to pay taxes to the government system and also pay for private coverage. The forced failure of private insurance would be in furtherance of their ultimate plan. Talk radio has been playing clips of BHO and other Party dignitaries making campaign speeches at Party gatherings. They state quite clearly that a single payer government plan is what they want. BHO says we may not get it right away. We may have to offer a private option for a while. Presumably, this would be crippled by "regulation" then phased out and the government plan would take over the whole thing. This is exactly the socialists dream and method in all areas of human society and always has been. It has already happened to GM and Chrysler and to the biggest mortgage companies and banks. I do not see how anyone can really be deceived by this unless they want to be.
Whether or not government health care insurance would loss money (and I am sure it would - lots of money), it would always be competing on its own terms. Any services that it wished to monopolize, it would. Any regulations that it wished to impose on the so-called free market insurers, it would.
It seems obvious to me that government could could not compete with business. That is why it would impose regulation upon commercial insurers. They have already listed several new mandates it would impose (on top of the ones it has imposed over the last few decades). Business would not be allowed to operate in the ways it deemed most efficient and profitable. The flip side is that consumers would not be able to chose the type of insurance or coverage plans that they want. Government would surely want to unionize every aspect of health care, otherwise the government labor costs would be much higher than the private, given all of government employee union benefits. Either taxes would have to cover government losses or private premiums would have to be forced as high as government costs. These items would actually be beyond our power to calculate. Government would effectively set the price of insurance. They would soon find that they had to set the price of health care itself in order for their "insurance" to work. That, in turn, would not work either.
The whole idea of parallel systems sounds like a huge debacle doomed to failure. I for one would not want to pay taxes to the government system and also pay for private coverage. The forced failure of private insurance would be in furtherance of their ultimate plan. Talk radio has been playing clips of BHO and other Party dignitaries making campaign speeches at Party gatherings. They state quite clearly that a single payer government plan is what they want. BHO says we may not get it right away. We may have to offer a private option for a while. Presumably, this would be crippled by "regulation" then phased out and the government plan would take over the whole thing. This is exactly the socialists dream and method in all areas of human society and always has been. It has already happened to GM and Chrysler and to the biggest mortgage companies and banks. I do not see how anyone can really be deceived by this unless they want to be.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Supernormal Profits
In a lecture, one of my economics professors said that there are only two ways to make more that a "normal" profit over any length of time. Either 1) by providing something no one else can, by possession of a secret formula, for example; or 2) by providing something no one else is allowed to, by possession of a government patent, for example.
No entrepreneur wants to just make a "normal" profit. He or she goes into business to make a killing. Innovation and hard work is the starting point but once you start succeeding, the competition will start to imitate your plan. They might have better financing or more energy. This is where the government connection makes sense. The more power government has, the more it can help. Government can limit entry into your industry, allow you to (or prevent you from) buying up the competition, tax away foreign competitors, mandate the use of your product, there is a never-ending list of possibilities.
Favors, perks, and pay-offs to government officials often helps to smooth the way to higher profits. This is called "corruption." It is usually frowned upon. (For instance, George W. Bush is often accused of giving companies lucrative contracts for government work in Iraq, in return for some pay-off. If his administration did give out contracts without competitive bidding, it may have been because Halaburton was the only company that wanted the job.) Unquestionably, corruption leads to economic inefficiencies. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I WOULD CALL FREE MARKETS (see the Basiat quote in an earlier post). Preventive regulation hardly ever works, becomes corrupted itself, and stifles innovation more than it stops corruption. The best preventive is to refrain from giving the government much power to sell. Our founders created governmental checks and balances to limit the influence of this special interest corruption.
Ramming through legislation with arm twisting and political back room favors are exactly where the danger lies. This too used to be frowned upon. The current administration seems to be doing exactly what they accused the previous administration of doing but could never prove. Actually, the Republicans are usually kept in line by the press anyway. Democrats, because they favor bigger government, have always been more usefully to special business interests. Democrats also seem to have immunity from popular press criticism, until lately.
No entrepreneur wants to just make a "normal" profit. He or she goes into business to make a killing. Innovation and hard work is the starting point but once you start succeeding, the competition will start to imitate your plan. They might have better financing or more energy. This is where the government connection makes sense. The more power government has, the more it can help. Government can limit entry into your industry, allow you to (or prevent you from) buying up the competition, tax away foreign competitors, mandate the use of your product, there is a never-ending list of possibilities.
Favors, perks, and pay-offs to government officials often helps to smooth the way to higher profits. This is called "corruption." It is usually frowned upon. (For instance, George W. Bush is often accused of giving companies lucrative contracts for government work in Iraq, in return for some pay-off. If his administration did give out contracts without competitive bidding, it may have been because Halaburton was the only company that wanted the job.) Unquestionably, corruption leads to economic inefficiencies. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I WOULD CALL FREE MARKETS (see the Basiat quote in an earlier post). Preventive regulation hardly ever works, becomes corrupted itself, and stifles innovation more than it stops corruption. The best preventive is to refrain from giving the government much power to sell. Our founders created governmental checks and balances to limit the influence of this special interest corruption.
Ramming through legislation with arm twisting and political back room favors are exactly where the danger lies. This too used to be frowned upon. The current administration seems to be doing exactly what they accused the previous administration of doing but could never prove. Actually, the Republicans are usually kept in line by the press anyway. Democrats, because they favor bigger government, have always been more usefully to special business interests. Democrats also seem to have immunity from popular press criticism, until lately.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Environmentalism is a Fake
I enjoy hiking, camping, running, photography, and other outdoor activities. I do not like seeing the natural world degraded. I pick up litter and do not leave any behind. Unfortunately, environmental organizations that I have respected in the past have not been honest and I now distrust any sort of environmentalism. They seem more intent on destructionism that preservation. The global Warming hoax is so outlandish that it at long last exposes them for what they are. Environmentalism is being used to advance socialistic type of control over the national economy. This will destroy the only thing about this country that separates us from the rest of the world: FREEDOM. Freedom is the only thing that I write about in this blog.
Ludwig von Mises: "Socialism... is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created." - Socialism
Regarding global warming there are many sources of scientific inquiry that attempt to explain and refute the warmist ideology. However, it is difficult to refute their theory because the theory has no definitive statement. How do you refute something that does not exist? Opponents almost have to develop their own theory and explain its flaws. Al Gore is a spokesperson for a theory that he says scientists agree upon. Show me the theory. Scientific theories are necessarily stated in mathematical terms that allow for no rhetorical tricks. It is what it is. Global warming theory seems to morph whenever it is attacked. Proponents claim that it exists in the ever expanding, ever improving black boxes of their computer models. That is like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain or the swindlers behind locked doors weaving the emperor’s non existent new clothes. I want a statement of the theory with numbers that can be checked and that are based upon empirical results, which can also be checked.
A good starting point to understand why manmade CO2 generated global warming is not scientifically plausible is:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Ludwig von Mises: "Socialism... is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created." - Socialism
Regarding global warming there are many sources of scientific inquiry that attempt to explain and refute the warmist ideology. However, it is difficult to refute their theory because the theory has no definitive statement. How do you refute something that does not exist? Opponents almost have to develop their own theory and explain its flaws. Al Gore is a spokesperson for a theory that he says scientists agree upon. Show me the theory. Scientific theories are necessarily stated in mathematical terms that allow for no rhetorical tricks. It is what it is. Global warming theory seems to morph whenever it is attacked. Proponents claim that it exists in the ever expanding, ever improving black boxes of their computer models. That is like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain or the swindlers behind locked doors weaving the emperor’s non existent new clothes. I want a statement of the theory with numbers that can be checked and that are based upon empirical results, which can also be checked.
A good starting point to understand why manmade CO2 generated global warming is not scientifically plausible is:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)