Still more Chickenshit

I was considering renaming this blog. Unfortunately, due to recent developments, that seems a little premature.

I have not posted here for a month. That's not because there has been nothing to write about. On the contrary, reading the local paper and other mainline media, there seems to be a great need to set the record straight. In fact, there seems to be so much misinformation and disinformation that it is hard to know where to begin. The tactic of the mainstream press seems to be to overwhelm the debate. By the time there is a response, they have moved on to promulgate some other factoid (something that sounds like a fact but not necessarily is) or error in reasoning. That's why Rush calls them the drive bys.

One example of an error in reasoning is represented by a proposition that has been often repeated of late. To wit: high levels of taxation are good for the economy. Hilary Clinton said so and now all the liberals are saying it. I guess that's what they mean by a talking point. Their proof of this is that during the Clinton administration, we had much higher income tax rates for the highest brackets. During that period, we had balanced federal budgets, even surpluses, and economic growth. This is an example of the post hoc fallacy. That is an error in reasoning involving the inference that if one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second. (The full name is post hoc ergo propter hoc -- after that, therefore on account of that.)

This is where the difficulties in unravelling this claims come in. I have not checked the economic data so I do not know if it was taxes collected from these higher tax brackets that brought about a healthy federal budget and economy (I doubt it). I seem to recall that Republican, Newt Gingrich was speaker of the Republican dominated House of Representatives. He proposed his 'contract with America,' which the press called a 'contract on America.' The House cut all of Clinton's spending proposals. They passed Welfare Reform over his multiple vetoes. In other words, Clinton was dragged to a balanced budget kicking and screaming. This and the fact that not many people paid the high income tax rates due to various tax avoidance strategies was probably what happened. As I said, I need to do some more research. This is one reason why the Austrian School believes that theories based upon mathematical economic analysis are mainly invalid. Statistics can show what happened but but not why. Common sense reasoning based upon observation of human behavior can tell us more.

Much more has been happening in the politicoeconomical realm. There's the Mosque at ground zero and its opponents, who the press portray as conservative bigots. There's the fed's plan to monetize the debt (which this blog said would eventually happen in an attempt to support the dollar.) There's the talk of further stimulus bills; the liberal talking point is that we have really not tried this yet, there was only the Bush (and therefore totally wrong headed and ineffective) TARP spending plan. Seems to me I recall a lot of Obama attempts at stimulus spending also, not to mention bailout/payoffs (e.g. to the auto workers). Just lately, there was the 'teacher bail-out.' This was a multi billion federal payment to the states so they could avoid cutting teacher salaries. Along with the funds come a federal mandate not to cut education spending by the states that accept the aid, including in subsequent years. (Seems there was a post about that here; Washington State did not want money offered earlier because of the strings attached.)

There has been much on the encouraging side as well. David Limbaugh's latest book catalogues the setbacks to liberty suffered by this nation due to the Obama policies. The book apparently addresses many of the catastrophic events that have lately befallen us; even an entire book is not nearly enough. Another recent happening was Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Honor' rally in Washington, DC. I wish I could have been there.

Anti-Global Warming Scientist Site

Dr. Spenser is one of those non-existent scientist who does not believe in man made global warming. Al Gore and his pals have said over and over and over that there is no legitimate scientific opposition to their global warming view. Even the supreme court bought the argument of the cap-and-trade crowd, not that they even tried to get the facts. The press of course repeats it every chance they get. Chickenshit to the max.

I try to take a look at Dr. Spenser's site as often as I can"

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Loopy Libertarians and Tea Partiers v. Reality

There are still a lot of points of contention between Libertarians and 'Common Sense Conservatives.' See what a Libertarian has to say:

Tea Party Fave Looks Increasingly Loopy

This Libertarian blogger takes issue with the platform of Nevada 'tea party' Republican, Sharron Angle. This shows some interesting riffs. How to compromise? Republican and tea partiers might modify views on marijuana legalization: there are good free market arguments for allowing people to screw up their lives if they so desire. Republicans need Libertarian support to oust the current regime this November and in the 2012 presidential election.

Also, the war in Afghanistan presents some tough technical problems. Libertarians just want out of this and any war other that in defense against an immediate, direct threat to this country. It would be nice to have a democratic, pro-American government in Kabul. However, without the 'democratic' requirement, this is all the Russians, British, and many others (including Alexander the Great) wanted. Over the centuries, this has proved elusive. Less ambitious, possibly achievable goals might be found. These goals would have to incorporate a lot of compromise reached through private negotiations with diverse factions. The deals would eventually fall apart. About all that could be reasonably hoped for would be a little influence with factions with the power to make life difficult for violent anti-West factions. Such a strategy could give us a little time, at least until the next violent fanatics come on the scene. It would also probably help if our government did not offer encouragement to the fanatics.

Tacoma Ethnic Fest

I had a very pleasant day at the Tacoma 'Ethnic Fest.' This is an annual event held in our large, near to downtown, Wright Park. There are always many booths selling items from around the world and 'ethnic' food. I am not exactly sure what ethnic means and am not comfortable with the concept. Once my own ethnicity was represented at the event. There was a French Canadian booth selling hot dogs with Frenches mustard.

Today there were also many political and semi-political booths. I had long discussions at the Republican booth. Jesse Young, candidate for US Congressional Sixth District, was there. He is an excellent conservative candidate running for the nomination to face Representative Norm Dicks in the general election. Is web cite is at:

http://www.jesseyoungforcongress.com/issues.html

Mr. Young's primary concern is to try to bring some sanity to the budget, that is less spending. He also favors repeal of the Health Care law. Outright repeal and redoing health care legislation from scratch is a position that separates the conservatives from the RINO's. He says all the right things about free market economics. That also is something the RINO's give only lip service to. Mr. Young seems to have a real understanding of the terrible results of government intervention in economic affairs.

Other people working at the Republican booth were interesting and informative. I emphasised that I was wholly in favor of the Tea Party principles and would support candidates similarly inclined. For the most part, I believe that they were sympathetic. Dick Muri is an excellent candidate for the 9th Congressional District. There are three candidates for the Republican nomination in the Senate race. At this point, I am uncertain who is best.

Claire Sussman is a very nice lady and well qualified by experience to be on the bench. She is running for County District Court. When asked about her philosophy, she stated that she does not believe in legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, they all say that, even Sotamayor and Kagan. Her campaign brochure emphasises that she is a working mother, former deputy prosecutor, handled over 20,000 cases as a pro temp judge, and worked as a private attorney. She certainly sounds good. As the first judge candidate I have met or asked a question, it occurs to me that the most that can be expected of a judge is an extensive knowledge of the law and respect for it. She seemed to have those qualities based upon my limited discussion with her.

I also spoke to the Democrats, who were cordial. As I was wearing a couple of Republican buttons, I felt somewhat protected against attempts to win my vote. I bought an artistically done BHO button for my collection. The ACLU people were pleasant and I even signed up for their emails. Their sign-up sheet asked for areas of interest so I put 'freedom.' They claim to support that. I talked to people at the Centro Latino, The Washington Health Plan, and the Islam booth. I told the very polite young lady at the Islam booth that I certainly supported her right to wear the Hijab (veil) and would like to wear a burka myself. We also talked about the Qaran. I talked to the Theosophical Society people. Their motto is 'There is no higher religion that truth.' That sounds good to me.

The teamsters were about the only standoffish people. I picked up 'The Guardian' newsletter and a flyer opposing I-1082. This initiative would end the state run monopoly on workers compensation insurance. Of course, their argument is something along the lines of big corporations: bad, insurance companies: bad. That is, the same old anti-business claims they have made for decades to take over or destroy industry. I was not so anxious to talk to them either. Of course conservatives support the people, we are the people. We do not support the oppressive policies toward business that make us less prosperous and makes life harder for anyone just trying to support themselves and their family. Unions can only help a select few at the expense of everyone else. How can anyone but the select few favor that? If all workers were in a union, as they claim to want, no one would be helped. Higher wages would only cause higher prices. The only ones to benefit from that would be the union bigwigs through dues. The goals and methods of labor are deceptive and illogical. Ultimate success of the labor movement could bring only complete socialism and should be opposed because socialism is destructive. (Progressives and Unions go hand in hand and are equally dishonest and destructive.)

Elena Kagan, Just a Gigolette?

Is Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan’s primary qualification that she is an Obama sycophant zombie drone clone? Appears that way. Here's what she had to say about her silver tongued, rock-star, wizard hero:

An intense Elena discussing her 'hero' BHO when he was a senator. She heaps it on quite deeply about his 'truly rock star qualities.' You can imagine the thrill running down her leg. Unfortunately the utube link may not be functioning anymore, it appears. The link may be reestablished but I also add an entertaining video on the topic of Elana K that I just found:





Not that she is bought and paid for; she is just on the same wave length as BHO. Just as Judge Bork was sympathetic toward the constitutional philosophy of Ronald Reagan, Kagan is in accord with the anticonstitutional philosophy of BHO. Is that sufficient reason for conservative senators to oppose her nomination? Political differences alone have been good enough reasons for liberals to oppose Judge Bork and other nominees for the supreme court and courts of appeal. With Kagan, Obama is pulling no punches. She is a blatant rubber stamper for his policies, which conservatives believe to be often at odds with the constitution. If Republicans on the judicial committee are not going to make a stand here then where? Nowhere, I guess.

Republican Lindsey (Goober) Grahm has nothing but praise for the lady. (Goober is the epithet supplied by Mark Levin.) This seems to defy reason. What are conservative voters to think of someone who claims to oppose the socialist policies of the current administration, does not vehemently voice that opposition, and now will not turn that opposition into action with his vote?

Economics of Unemployment Benefits

It is a truism of economics that unemployment is caused by wages being too high. How can that be? Simple: government intervention. Unemployment benefits are only one form of government intervention that prop up wages. Government hiring for work projects is another. We are doing both of these now. Most attempts at regulation in that area distort the market for labor. Labor laws that make it difficult and costly to dismiss workers once hired is a disincentive for business to hire. Uneven labor laws often give business only the option to cave in to union demands or go out of business -- negotiating at the point of a gun as they say. These laws are enacted to support union workers but actually hurt them and other workers. Due to higher labor costs, the level of production is decreased. Therefore, not only are fewer union workers hired, but nonunion hiring is diminished due to lower overall production.

Adjustments of price is the mechanism that allows markets to clear. In order for markets for labor or anything to clear, prices must adjust downward until a buyer comes forward. Labor prices, i. e. wages, are notoriously sticky downward. This is because of reasons outlined above and because of similar government intervention policies.

These are simple and basic economics principles. Even socialist economist, for the most part, agree. The difference is that champions of the free market want market principles to prevail so that we can have sustainable economic functioning and growth. Socialists want to intervene to 'correct' the market. They also favor certain groups to enhance their political power so they can implement more intervention policies. The progressive believes that policies of more and more government intervention will lead to continuing improvement in people's lives. The actual outcome of their policies is increasingly depressed levels of employment and production. Progressives' only remedy is to increase government intervention. This has always led to still worsening conditions. There seems to be no limit to their interventionist economic ideas. They have all proved to be destructive. Ultimately complete or nearly complete loss of liberty can be the only outcome. We have Cuba and North Korea as leading examples.

Unemployment benefits lasting over two years are currently a major impediment to lower wages. (This is obvious, but to state the obvious, many will not want employment if they are paid benefits, which in addition to the value they put on their free time, exceed the amount being offered. Therefore, employers have to offer more to purchase labor.) Employment benefits should be limited and the amounts paid should gradually diminish. Now is the time for choosing freedom and prosperity, not slavery and impoverishment.

Obma and Immigration: Yes We Can't

Arizona's recent immigration law creates some interesting dilemmas for the current administration, and for conservatives also. The fact that it brings into question some of the Obama administration's policies, especially its alleged unwillingness to secure the US and Mexican boarder, forces Obama to focus on an area where he is on thin political ice. Furthermore, the immigration debate also impinges upon the foundation of the welfare state. Can we simultaneously grant increasingly large welfare benefits while encouraging the immigration of those who will be given those benefits? Does, "yes we can" apply in these areas? The political nature of the human beast dictates that no government or policy will survive without popular backing. This is the fundamental theorem of politics.

Conservatives back the Arizona law because it attempts to remedy weak enforcement by the federal officials. This (I believe) puts conservatives on the opposite side of the preemption question that usual. Justice Thomas, for instance, believes that federal statutes should not be read with a presumption against preemption. (see Cipollone v. Liggett Group,(1992)). Preemption is the doctrine that states federal law invalidates state and local law on the same subject.

Preemption is a complicated topic. Most conservatives believe that the federal government should be silent on most questions traditionally addressed by our common law. That covers almost everything, but probably not immigration. Courts have not only looked at the state and federal statutes to determine if conflicts exist, but they have also looked at the factual background to determine if there is a state interest that is not being addressed by the federal law, or federal enforcement there of.

That is why lack of federal enforcement is an issue in the present case. That is why BHO recently stated that the boarders are more secure that ever. What that opinion is based upon,or whether that is good enough, he did not say. The U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 US 497 (1956), stated that there was no state interest to be protected and that the federal government was dealing appropriately with the problem that the laws in question were enacted to address. (In that case the court held that the Federal Alien Sedition act preempted the Pennsylvanian statute.)

Two factors that obviously distinguishing the Pennsylvania and Arizona cases: 1) Arizona is indeed being harmed by illegal aliens who must be provided services at state expense, and 2) in spite of its expenditures, the federal enforcement effort has been ineffective as demonstrated by the number of illegal aliens in Arizona and elsewhere. There are of course other distinguishing factors and other legal arguments in favor of (and against) the Arizona enactment, which time prevents me from discussing here.

Regarding the propaganda surrounding this matter, why did the BHO functionaries and lackeys and their lap dog press proclaim loudly and ad infinatum that the Arizona law was racist then not include civil rights violations claims in their legal arguments ???? Inquiring minds and the junior Senator from Minnesota want to know why they were lying.