Archive for Politics - page 5

There’s no inflation…unless you count food prices.  And why would you?  Who buys food ?  Ben Domenech writes at The Federalist that “Food Prices Are Soaring and Washington Doesn’t Care”.  Here’s a taste:

“a rational person might conclude that measuring food inflation without counting meat, fruit, and vegetables is like measuring the unemployment rate without counting men.  Here are the increases in a number of food costs, as well as the average hourly earnings, since the end of the recession (June 2009) through May 2014…the increases since June 2009 are: Beef and veal: +35.2%, Pork: +27%, Fish and seafood: +20.1%, Eggs: +33.1%, Dairy: +16.1%, Fresh Fruits: +13.8%. At the same time, Average Hourly Earnings have increased by 10.1%.”

Substantive analysis at the link.  Also…graphs.  So everyone knows that when the Fed increases the money supply (prints money), it results in inflation.  And when the Fed tells you there’s no inflation, it’s…well…

This is just great: the EPA now claims the authority to garnish our wages.  That’s the Environmental Protection Agency.  Claiming authority to unilaterally – bypassing the courts – garnish our wages if we are deemed in violation of their rules.  And I guarantee you that they can find a rule you are in violation of if they wish.

According to this article in the Washington Times the Agency has adopted a rule stating it’s intention to use the authority, a neccessary step before legally asserting the authority.  The garnishment threat would be a powerful tool to get people to agree to expensive settlements with the EPA rather than fighting them.

This dovetails with a post I was going to write about Administrative Law and/or The Administrative State and how it is at odds with our Representative Republic system of government.  In a nutshell, the Administrative State is a power grab by the executive branch.  “Administrations” or “Agencies” such as the EPA, the IRS, FEMA etc etc fall under the executive branch of the Fedral Government.  These agencies are allowed to make “rules” which carry the force of law, but often carry none of the due process protections associated with actual legislation.  Hence, the IRS can seize your property without a court order and now the EPA wants this power, too.  The argument against Adminstrative Law is that if these “rules” carry the force of legislation, then they are in fact legislation.  And legislating is not one of the enumerated powers granted to the executive branch under the Constitution – Congress is the only branch that has that power.  I can’t do the argument justice, so I direct you to some excellent posts at PowerLine.

Why do you care or why should you care?  Admittedly the chances of any suburbanite running afoul of EPA regs are slim.  I said slim…not non-existent.  But if you are a farmer, rancher, or own any property on a lake or river or in a watershed of any kind, you’re chances are better.  And you probably won’t know until it’s too late.  Here is just one horror story.

Any expansion of powers granted to Executive Branch Agencies are, in my opinion, a direct threat to your freedom and mine, and also to our republic.  They should be opposed.

Cross Posted at Men Out of Work Blog

Remember the good old days when the Affordable Care Act was being debated and President Obama was talking about how Grandma might not get that pacemaker or that expensive surgery because she’s too old?  Maybe we’ll just give her a pill instead?  And when opponents of the bill claimed that it would lead to “death panels” that would decide if  it was financially expedient to give a patient expensive treatments if they were near the end of their life?  And how those people were mocked as kooky paranoids?  Me too…good times, good times.  Anyhoo…in order to muster the votes to pass the bill (it passed by the barest margin with no republican votes – remember that the next time someone tells you there’s no difference between R’s and D’s) the “end of life counseling” provisions were removed.  But the dream lives on!  In the Politico article “Let’s Talk about ‘Death Panels’ – It’s Time To Revisit a Good Idea That Was Distorted By Demagoguery” Harold Pollack argues with what I’m sure are the noblest of intentions (eyeroll) that Sarah Palin and some other stupid heads ruined this “good” idea with all their kooky paranoid talk about how it would evolve into healthcare rationing and some people, i.e. the disabled or elderly wouldn’t be allowed treatments just to save money.  Like they do in Great Britain at the NHS.

Pollack blames Palin and other right wing ideologues for making this an issue, but it was none other than President Obama himself during what seemed like countless townhall meetings to sell the plan to the public, while making all kinds of promises would not promise that elderly Americans could receive all the treatments they want because “it might be cheaper to give them a pill”.  He also promised that if you liked your doctor or your health plan you could keep your doctor or your health plan.  We know how that worked out…the 2013 Lie Of The Year.  So you’ll excuse me if I’m skeptical that you won’t pull the plug on me or my loved one to save some money.

Of course, the bigger scandal is that we’re having this discussion at all because the federal government is now involved in healthcare decsions that should be between you and your doctor.  But I digress…

Part of the issue is federal compensation to doctors for “end of life counseling”, which isn’t allowed under The Act.  However, I’m pretty sure everyone gets end of life couseling as a routine part of their treatment without a specific “end of life counseling appointment”. I have been involved in the end of life care for  family members and this has been the case every time.  The Act doesn’t prohibit communication with your doctor or limit what can be discussed.

After reading through all the romanticized anecdotes in Pollack’s article about dying with dignity and hospice, and how Americans with the most reason to worry about death panels are among the most vocal supporters of “Health Care Reform”, the conclusion is this – saving money isn’t the goal, it’s just a happy coincidence.  And as far as the end of life counseling goes, in my opinion the goal is to open the door to assisted suicide.  We’ll make you your own death panel – the Government didn’t pull your plug!  You did!  That’s even cheaper!  Your Welcome!

Hat Tip:  Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller

Garbage in, garbage out or GIGO was what they used to teach computer programmers back in the days of COBOL and FORTRAN.  COBOL and FORTRAN are the equivalents of Latin in computer programming language.  GIGO means what it says – if you put the wrong data in at the front, you’ll get wrong data out at the back.  And when this happens to you, Everything You Know is Wrong.

It is often said that a person is entitled to their own opinions; however, they are not entitled to their own facts.  Facts are facts.  Concrete and provable, they exist in their own right regardless of a person’s opinion of them.  “Disagreeing” with a fact doesn’t change it.  In today’s era of mass media countless people opine on various subjects, asserting strong opinions and making conclusory statements based on those opinions, yet their acquaintance with the facts may be more problematic.  If you mistake the opinions of people you agree with for facts, you are bound to go off the rails.  If your analysis of a situation begins with a fallacy, then all that follows will be more fallacy. Though I suspect there is a small chance that if an error is made in an analysis  of a fallacy, the right conclusion could be accidentally reached.  But I digress…

There is another phrase with the acronym GIGO – it is “Garbage In, Gospel Out” and refers to people who have complete faith in computer generated data, and could also refer to a class of people who not only believe they are entitled to their own facts, they believe that no one has a right to disagree with them and their ill-drawn conclusions.  They have immense emotional investment in their opinions -there is a level of quasi-religious zealotry not often seen even among religious cultists, much less among rank and file churchgoers.  They have an unflappable faith in “the facts as they interpret them”, unable or more likely unwilling to waver from their dogma.  And…because their analyses eschew facts and embrace emotion, everything they know is wrong.

For example….

Pulling all this together into the context of The Big Picture: daily living is an exercise in observing facts, processing them, formulating reactions to them and then taking those actions.  If your data is bad, or your formula is bad then face it – everything you know is wrong.  Question is – what now?

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” 
-Bertrand Russell

There’s a chance that’s not true, but I doubt it.

Los Angeles Unified School Disrtict Board: We spent $1 billion to give every student an I-Pad and the program was a disaster.  Dang!  What do we do now?  I know!  Let’s give every student a laptop!  Now we’re talkin!

This falls under the headings of “never expect a bureaucrat to understand the real world” and “no idea is stupid if it’s for the children”.  Yes, the LAUSD spent a billion dollars to hand out I-Pads as a “homework aid” for the children.  What could go wrong?  Firewalls were installed to keep those krazy kidz off of the social networking and porn sites.  The kids would be using these strictly for doing their calculus, physics and chemistry homework.  I mean what’s the difference between some schmendrick on the street and a rocket scientist?  Well, the rocket scientist gots a computer.  So let’s give all the kids computers and they’ll be rocket scientists.  This education thing isn’t so hard after all!  Well, what could go wrong did go wrong.  When most of the I-Pads were broken, lost or stolen the district policy was sufficiently vague as to relieve the students or their parents of responsibility.  As far as the firewalls, it was a simple matter for the middle and high schoolers to recruit some third graders to disable those.

Now chastened, the LAUSD is assessing what went wrong and how to move forward, and they have decided that what went wrong was a “one device fits all” approach.

“Why would we treat all our students — whether they are a first-grader or a high school freshman — as if they all had the same technology needs? They don’t…. To have a one-device-fits-all approach does not make sense.”, said LAUSD Board Member Monica Ratliff.  

Obviously that was the problem.  The fact that a single device was used district wide made it simple to lose, destroy or steal them.  Allowing schools to choose from 6 different models of laptops will take care of that.  Problem solved.  Heckuva job, Monica!  You can’t expect all the kids to be able to use the same device, can you?  That’s just kooky.  They need choices.  Like in the real world when you go to work in an office and the first thing they do is let you choose what kind of computer you want…Oh wait.

Initial funding for the I-Pad program came from a bond measure which all Californians recognize as “free money” and therefore impossible to waste.  The source of additional funding is unclear, but why not just pass another bond measure?  Or pick it from trees?  Better yet…I hear North Korea is printing some fine facsimile US currency these days.

May I make a suggestion?  What went wrong was not a “one device fits all” approach, it was an “any device at all fits” approach.  The idea that a first grader, or any elementary school student needs a laptop or I-Pad to learn their lessons is ludicrous on it’s face and a colossal waste of allegedly scarce education funds.  I think you could make an argument that high schoolers need have access to computers at school so they have the opportunity to learn to use the computer as a tool.  It’s not the I-Pad or laptop that makes one smart.  It is a tool, like a pencil is a tool, and  a piece of paper is a tool.  The kids need to learn to work the computer that drives that pencil and paper – that’s the one between their ears.  If they can’t work that one, all the computers in the world aren’t going to help.

Today the United States Supreme Court ruled on two cases.  I won’t go into details here – I may at a later date, but I don’t think readers of this blog want to wade that deep into the law.  If you do feel like wading, here are a couple good places to do so:   SCOTUSblog     and     The Volokh Conspiracy. My intention here is to make a broader observation, especially in light of the fact that Independence Day is just a few days away. Begin Observation:  The U.S. Supreme Court consists of nine Justices and is the people’s last line of defense against an overreaching Congress or President or in this case, both.  Often, as today, cases are decided with a one justice majority, i.e. 5-4.  In my informed opinion, four of the Justices are reliably pro-government and believe in essentially unlimited government power, regardless of Constitutional text.  Since I cannot see into their hearts to divine their true intentions, I give them benefit of the doubt and assume their motives are benevolent, and their goal is to build a utopian society where all forms of entitelments are “rights”, certain favored classes have more rights than others and the government is the source and sole provider of those rights.  Should a fifth Justice join them to form a pro-government majority, we can kiss our free country goodbye since individual liberty would be impossible in such a society.  I find the prospect of their benevolence frightening, especially in light of the fact that any means they choose to achieve their ends would be done with the blessing of their conscience.

click on the picture to enlarge

No matter your ideaology, remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want can also take from you everything you have.  And take it will…because Government has nothing to give anyone that it hasn’t first taken from someone else.

I have an idea to balance California’s budget.  What’s that you say?  California already has a balanced budget?  I see…I see.  Look at that last line there…on the bottom.  In small print.  Why would there be $20,000.000.00 appropriated for “Smoke and Mirrors”?  Hmmm?  You see my point.

I have a real world solution.  We simply replace the entire legislature with a broken clock.

This one should do the trick

It’s a fact that a broken clock is right twice a day, which is two times a day more than the legislature is.  Case In Point: Plastic Bag Bans Will Cost You.

The fact that my idea is stupid is no reason not to do it.  That never stops the Legislature from pushing their silliness on all of us.  Besides…it’s for the children.  And it’s not stupid if it’s for the children.

You’re Welcome!

Unidentified sources reveal that there are behind the scenes discussions at the State Capitol to introduce legislation that would require all legal residents of California to wear Birkenstock Sandals.  No attempt to verify the report was neccessary, since the legislature’s record on such matters combined with the sheer stupidity of the proposal makes it a statistical impossibilty that the report is not true.

Members of the Democratic caucuses in both chambers are reportedly “giddy” at the prospect of moving California a quantum leap forward toward the zen state of “Liberal Utopia”.  “This legislation checks all the boxes”,  one politico gushed.  It adresses footwear inequality, global warming and landfill overcrowding, among other things.  Perhaps most importantly, it reduces the undue influence the Global Footwear Conglomerates have over the California economy.  It was previously believed that the best way to reduce the economic clout of these and other big corporations was to simply destroy the California economy altogether, then those evil corporations would “just go away and leave us alone”.  Those efforts continue apace.

But total destruction of the economy would only go so far – other measures were needed.  A staffer who requested anonymity stated “One of the hurdles we’ve always had to cross was how to get all Californians to think like burnt-out Haight-Ashbury refugees.  Then one day the light went on:  If we can get people to dress like burnt-out Haight-Ashbury refugees, they will start to think like them.  It is hoped that a side benefit of the legislation would be to drive any remaining rational people out of the state once and for all.  Everyone knows that there is no place in the California political debate for fact-based rational analysis, and it’s time for these people to just go away and stop harshing on us all the time.  Of course we would require them to continue to pay California taxes.  You know what they say:  You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.  Ha Ha.”

A comment was sought from the State Republican Party, but it was flat on it’s back, not breathing and with no discernable pulse.

Word has it that final touches are being put on the bill at this moment as legislators work out their color preferences and whether any synthetic materials should be permitted, or whether to add a $100.00 “Bullet Train” surcharge on the production of what some are already calling “the State Sandal”.  Also being considered is a rider to the bill to make Marijuana use mandatory in order for the government’s actions to be percieved as “sane” by the general public, though there is debate as to whether a stronger drug would be needed to produce that effect.

No real people other than myself contributed to this report.

Cross posted at Men Out of Work Blog

Today we learn that the 1st quarter 2014 GDP estimate is revised down again!.  The US Gross Domestic Product (GDP), often referred to generically as “the economy” contracted for the 1st quarter of 2014.  Originally estimated at a merely anemic .01% it was revised downward for a second time, this time to a disastrous -2.9%.  That’s minus 2.9%.  Oh…did I say disastrous?  I meant awesome!

It’s ok, because now the economy is even more poised to rebound!  So much more rebound potential!  I mean, we thought is was poised before.  Turns out that was nothing.  It is now poised like a…like a…giant poised thing.  Because…something something.  Trust me.  We are in great shape.

Hang on.  I hear some kind of alarm…

It wasn’t that long ago we were treated to a media firestorm over possible gaffes Mitt Romney may have comitted 30 or 40 years ago.  There was in depth reporting over his behavior in Prep-School (that’s High School in case you’re wondering):  He might have been a bully!  Or that infamous family vacation where the dog’s crate was strapped to the roof of the car. Q’uelle Horreur!  Our diligent media was just doing their jobs, dont you know.  The public has a right to know what kind of person they might elect to the presidency.  Thank God we dodged that bullet and didn’t elect Romney with his binders full of women.  This Obama fellow is doing a smashing job.

Now we are finding out that Hillary Clinton once defended an accused child rapist, and through some borderline ethical conduct helped secure a plea bargain to a lesser offense resulting in the accused rapist receiving less than 1 year in jail.  Part of the borderline conduct involved proposed testimony attacking the girl’s credibility and claiming that the twelve year old victim bore some of the reponsibility for her own rape, and telling the prosecutor that they had an “expert” that would testify in court to discredit their forensic evidence.  This helped secure the plea bargain.  Then, a few years later when recounting the episode for a reporter, she laughed about her client’s obvious guilt and what a great job she did helping him beat the rap.  However, I am told, she did not put the victim “in a binder”.  The media’s interest in this story?  Zip, zero, zilch.  Why?  It’s old news.  Well so is the fact that you can save 15% on your car insurance, but that doesn’t stop Geico from running their commercials.

The rape trial was in 1975, and the incident recounted to a reporter in the mid-1980’s for an Esquire magazine article on rising politcal stars.  The reason you can’t remember it, other than the fact you might not have been born yet, is that the article was never printed.  The incident has received scant mention considering Clinton’s life and career have been so meticulously documented.  Hillary herself mentions it briefly in her first memoir Living History as an aside to to crediting herself with starting Arkansas’ first rape crisis hotline.  In 2008, Newsday journalist Glenn Thrush wrote a lengthy article about it – which his editors killed because “it might have an impact” on the election.  The tapes of the interviews and reporters notes from the original Esquire story ended up in the University of Arkansas Library archives where they were discovered by the Washington Free Beacon., and tht is how we are hearing about it now.

So if a Republican candidate may have been guilty of boorish behavior in the past, the media will leave no stone unturned in their quest to Bring Out The Truth®.  Because War On Women!  But if a Democrat candidate may have actually engaged in a war on women, well…*crickets*

Democrats – that (D) behind their names is like a damn kevlar shield with a teflon coating.  And it’s the mainstream media’s Kryptonite.