Friday, November 11, 2011
Remember Our Vets Today
From the militia defending the frontier in the 1600s to the men and women on the front lines of freedom today. You all are appreciated. Thank you!
The Third Agency and the Stupid Shallowness of Debating
In the future, the Republican Party needs to shape the debate process better.
In no way, shape or form can voters make an intelligent decision about their candidates when their main national speaking forum resembles more a game show than a serious discourse.
In thirty seconds or less, explain how and why you would end Obamacare. Really? This is what an important issue gets reduced to?
Rick Perry is no debater, but he does have more executive branch experience than anyone that he might face in this election. How does eleven years of experience translate into debating? It doesn't. Pundits, based solely on his debating skills, rate him as mentally deficient. Debating skill does not necessarily equal political brilliance. Had Prince Otto von Bismarck, one of the great statesmen of the modern era, been put on stage with these GOP candidates, he would have flubbed worse than Perry.
Tell me when, outside of a campaign, does a president have to debate anyone in this fashion?
I am not endorsing Rick Perry here. In fact, if there is any way that we can set aside the personal baggage, Newt Gingrich may be the best potential president. He sounds absolutely Churchillian at times.
Gingrich, to his credit, is trying to change the game. America deserves thoughtful debate. We don't need guys standing behind podiums sweating nervously and trying not to make mistakes. Let us, just one time, sit these candidates down in comfortable chairs and let them calmly discuss the issues of the day. If it takes three hours, so be it. If America tunes out, that is our choice. But let us discuss issues in a civilized tone so we can make a truly educated choice.
In no way, shape or form can voters make an intelligent decision about their candidates when their main national speaking forum resembles more a game show than a serious discourse.
In thirty seconds or less, explain how and why you would end Obamacare. Really? This is what an important issue gets reduced to?
Rick Perry is no debater, but he does have more executive branch experience than anyone that he might face in this election. How does eleven years of experience translate into debating? It doesn't. Pundits, based solely on his debating skills, rate him as mentally deficient. Debating skill does not necessarily equal political brilliance. Had Prince Otto von Bismarck, one of the great statesmen of the modern era, been put on stage with these GOP candidates, he would have flubbed worse than Perry.
Tell me when, outside of a campaign, does a president have to debate anyone in this fashion?
I am not endorsing Rick Perry here. In fact, if there is any way that we can set aside the personal baggage, Newt Gingrich may be the best potential president. He sounds absolutely Churchillian at times.
Gingrich, to his credit, is trying to change the game. America deserves thoughtful debate. We don't need guys standing behind podiums sweating nervously and trying not to make mistakes. Let us, just one time, sit these candidates down in comfortable chairs and let them calmly discuss the issues of the day. If it takes three hours, so be it. If America tunes out, that is our choice. But let us discuss issues in a civilized tone so we can make a truly educated choice.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Why Republicans Should Engage Labor Unions
A dalliance. A brief liaison. A flirtation. That might be all that is needed to spur union rank and file towards the Republican camp in the upcoming election year.
Big Labor has a problem. They face squeezes from the Left and the Right. Conservatives want to check their power in the private and public workplace. They see Big Labor's goals as a burden upon the economy and what is left of the manufacturing sector.
The Left presents even more challenges. Its "Occupy" movement embraced Big Labor, then protested the economic development that labor needs to survive. The proposed pipeline from Canada to the Gulf would employ steelworkers, Teamsters, and who knows how many others who pay their union dues. Big Labor understands that these worker intensive projects form their lifeblood in a fashion that windmills and solar panels do not. Richard Trumka a few weeks ago angered the Right by threatening violence against the Tea Party. Now he angers the Left with his grumbling recalcitrance against their hypergreenie movement.
As I said last week, the American economy is capable of paying off our debt and social programs that have been vetted to prevent inefficiency and fraud. We can also handle some of the desires of Big Labor. It is interesting that we were able to pay for all of this until the 1970s when more and more regulations served to hogtie manufacturing and energy production. Now we need not go back to the bad old days of rampant pollution, but we also need a reasonable balance between the needs of conservationists and industry.
Were I a GOP presidential candidate, and Newt Gingrich is likely the only candidate with the brass cahones to do so, I would invite the AFL-CIO in for a discussion, much as he did with Herman Cain. They can discuss where conservatives and Big Labor can realize shared goals of expanding production and prosperity while clearing the air over shared anxieties about each other. Would they come away in perfect agreement? Probably not. But traditional Big Labor liberals have more shared interests with conservatives than they do with the Left.
Big Labor has a problem. They face squeezes from the Left and the Right. Conservatives want to check their power in the private and public workplace. They see Big Labor's goals as a burden upon the economy and what is left of the manufacturing sector.
The Left presents even more challenges. Its "Occupy" movement embraced Big Labor, then protested the economic development that labor needs to survive. The proposed pipeline from Canada to the Gulf would employ steelworkers, Teamsters, and who knows how many others who pay their union dues. Big Labor understands that these worker intensive projects form their lifeblood in a fashion that windmills and solar panels do not. Richard Trumka a few weeks ago angered the Right by threatening violence against the Tea Party. Now he angers the Left with his grumbling recalcitrance against their hypergreenie movement.
As I said last week, the American economy is capable of paying off our debt and social programs that have been vetted to prevent inefficiency and fraud. We can also handle some of the desires of Big Labor. It is interesting that we were able to pay for all of this until the 1970s when more and more regulations served to hogtie manufacturing and energy production. Now we need not go back to the bad old days of rampant pollution, but we also need a reasonable balance between the needs of conservationists and industry.
Were I a GOP presidential candidate, and Newt Gingrich is likely the only candidate with the brass cahones to do so, I would invite the AFL-CIO in for a discussion, much as he did with Herman Cain. They can discuss where conservatives and Big Labor can realize shared goals of expanding production and prosperity while clearing the air over shared anxieties about each other. Would they come away in perfect agreement? Probably not. But traditional Big Labor liberals have more shared interests with conservatives than they do with the Left.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
A Tale of Two Joes
Two Joes have the spotlight today. One finally got his due, another got exposed. One was beloved by the media, the other ridiculed. Time has a way of uncovering the good and evil that men do, or at least tolerate.
Joe Frazier never got his due while he was alive, as a boxer or a man. The media always saw him as a placeholder for Muhammed Ali during his suspension, even after Frazier beat him. It took Frazier's death for the media to admit, finally, that Ali (as a Washington D. C. sports talk commentator said this morning) that Ali was a "d!&k" and that Frazier conducted himself with class.
The media always looked upon Joe Frazier with scorn and laughed at Ali's racial characterizations of him. They sounded a lot like later attacks on Condoleeza Rice and Michael Steele. Frazier bore them with pride and dignity, even in his later, impoverished years. Only now, with his death, do we finally hear that, yes, this was a great man in his own way.
Joe Paterno has always been identified as morality and rectitude itself. He comes from that greatest generation and seemed to symbolize all of its virtues. Unfortunately, he could not bring himself, when given a statement that a child had suffered sexual attack, to turn in his old friend who happened to attack at least eight other children. Paterno did the legal minimum. He told his superiors. It does not matter that Paterno knew few of the pertinent details. He knew a man with Penn State credentials had sexually forced himself on a young boy. That is all you need to know to pick up the damned phone and call 9-1-1.
So while we feel disappointment with one Joe, let us remember fondly the other. Joe Paterno was not the man we thought he was. But Joe Frazier was so much more.
Joe Frazier never got his due while he was alive, as a boxer or a man. The media always saw him as a placeholder for Muhammed Ali during his suspension, even after Frazier beat him. It took Frazier's death for the media to admit, finally, that Ali (as a Washington D. C. sports talk commentator said this morning) that Ali was a "d!&k" and that Frazier conducted himself with class.
The media always looked upon Joe Frazier with scorn and laughed at Ali's racial characterizations of him. They sounded a lot like later attacks on Condoleeza Rice and Michael Steele. Frazier bore them with pride and dignity, even in his later, impoverished years. Only now, with his death, do we finally hear that, yes, this was a great man in his own way.
Joe Paterno has always been identified as morality and rectitude itself. He comes from that greatest generation and seemed to symbolize all of its virtues. Unfortunately, he could not bring himself, when given a statement that a child had suffered sexual attack, to turn in his old friend who happened to attack at least eight other children. Paterno did the legal minimum. He told his superiors. It does not matter that Paterno knew few of the pertinent details. He knew a man with Penn State credentials had sexually forced himself on a young boy. That is all you need to know to pick up the damned phone and call 9-1-1.
So while we feel disappointment with one Joe, let us remember fondly the other. Joe Paterno was not the man we thought he was. But Joe Frazier was so much more.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Liberalism Needs to Separate From Leftism
America is moving towards disaster. Greece, which currently is in debt at 120% of its GDP, is set to collapse. We are at 101% and rising. Tough decisions must be made.
This is where traditional American, old school liberalism needs to reassert itself. American liberalism was not anti-industrial. As a matter of fact, they cringed at radical environmentalist proposals in the 1960s that feel far short of the Lisa Jackson EPA. They understood that labor needed industry in a basic way, but also needed help. Labor needed prosperous industry to employ workers and pay for pension and social programs.
At some point, liberals joined with leftists and therein lies the current problems.
Liberals understand that business needs to profit so that it can grow, employ more people, and pay its taxes. The Left sees business as a milk cow to be squeezed as much as possible, then whipped when it can provide no more milk.
The fact is that, given the knowledge that the United States can lead the world in energy production, including oil, we can pay for our social welfare system. We need to make tough decisions about federal spending on such things as education and we definitely need to cut waste. But, in reality, if we unleash American energy and manufacturing from its regulatory shackles, the resulting economic growth can pay for social welfare IF we do not start tacking on a whole bunch of new programs.
I don't mean gutting all environmental and labor laws. But we need to recognize that a balance must exist. We must stop discouraging development and begin encouraging growth.
To do so, the liberals need to reject the left and support energy and manufacturing growth. They need to stop bashing the productive simply because they exist and realize that if they are doing better, so is labor and so are the tax revenues that fund the programs that liberals love.
In other words, you cannot have it both ways. We cannot expand social benefits and discourage manufacturing and energy production at the same time.
This is where traditional American, old school liberalism needs to reassert itself. American liberalism was not anti-industrial. As a matter of fact, they cringed at radical environmentalist proposals in the 1960s that feel far short of the Lisa Jackson EPA. They understood that labor needed industry in a basic way, but also needed help. Labor needed prosperous industry to employ workers and pay for pension and social programs.
At some point, liberals joined with leftists and therein lies the current problems.
Liberals understand that business needs to profit so that it can grow, employ more people, and pay its taxes. The Left sees business as a milk cow to be squeezed as much as possible, then whipped when it can provide no more milk.
The fact is that, given the knowledge that the United States can lead the world in energy production, including oil, we can pay for our social welfare system. We need to make tough decisions about federal spending on such things as education and we definitely need to cut waste. But, in reality, if we unleash American energy and manufacturing from its regulatory shackles, the resulting economic growth can pay for social welfare IF we do not start tacking on a whole bunch of new programs.
I don't mean gutting all environmental and labor laws. But we need to recognize that a balance must exist. We must stop discouraging development and begin encouraging growth.
To do so, the liberals need to reject the left and support energy and manufacturing growth. They need to stop bashing the productive simply because they exist and realize that if they are doing better, so is labor and so are the tax revenues that fund the programs that liberals love.
In other words, you cannot have it both ways. We cannot expand social benefits and discourage manufacturing and energy production at the same time.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Greece
It was either this or Herman Cain today. I happened to see Cain last night at the American Spectator dinner. He has a power and an eloquence in his public speaking and an easy going nature around his potential constituents. If you wonder how conservatives react to Cain now, he got a standing ovation after his introduction.
Unless the accusers have something more than inappropriate talk, Cain ain't going anywhere.
And now Greece.
2,400 years ago, Greece stood at the center of civilization. Persia's slow decline coupled with regional desire for olive oil and wine made the Greek cities wealthy. They traded their own, and other countries' products. However, their own tragic flaw lay in their inability to unify on anything. Their fratricidal wars left them vulnerable to the expansion of Rome.
Today, Greece stands at the abyss. Most of their country wants to stick its head in a hole and pretend that a welfare state is viable. Their debt is 120% of their GDP (ours is 101%, so we are not far behind) and they must pare away much of their welfare state and bureaucracy to qualify for a loan that will only pay their bills until the end of the year. An agreement was made, then rescinded as their prime minister agreed to put it to a national referendum, which is allowed under their legal system.
Where will Greece go from here? No one knows. The agreement will fail to win the vote, according to polls and observers. Had the prime minister gone ahead with the deal with the European Union, he risked civil war. If the country votes the plan down, there will still be massive social unrest, but the people can only blame themselves for that. However, if the vote passes, then it will give their government a mandate to make the reforms that they desperately need.
Greece's prime minister has gotten pummeled by the international press. But the spoiled brat populace of Greece gives him little choice
Unless the accusers have something more than inappropriate talk, Cain ain't going anywhere.
And now Greece.
2,400 years ago, Greece stood at the center of civilization. Persia's slow decline coupled with regional desire for olive oil and wine made the Greek cities wealthy. They traded their own, and other countries' products. However, their own tragic flaw lay in their inability to unify on anything. Their fratricidal wars left them vulnerable to the expansion of Rome.
Today, Greece stands at the abyss. Most of their country wants to stick its head in a hole and pretend that a welfare state is viable. Their debt is 120% of their GDP (ours is 101%, so we are not far behind) and they must pare away much of their welfare state and bureaucracy to qualify for a loan that will only pay their bills until the end of the year. An agreement was made, then rescinded as their prime minister agreed to put it to a national referendum, which is allowed under their legal system.
Where will Greece go from here? No one knows. The agreement will fail to win the vote, according to polls and observers. Had the prime minister gone ahead with the deal with the European Union, he risked civil war. If the country votes the plan down, there will still be massive social unrest, but the people can only blame themselves for that. However, if the vote passes, then it will give their government a mandate to make the reforms that they desperately need.
Greece's prime minister has gotten pummeled by the international press. But the spoiled brat populace of Greece gives him little choice
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Jim DeMint (R-SC) Blasts Environmentalists Who Put Extremism Ahead of Public Safety
Recent Press Releases
November 1, 2011
54 Senators Risk Health of Millions to Appease Environmentalists on Inhaler Ban
Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement after the Senate voted 44-54against his amendment that would have stopped the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ban on over-the-counter (OTC) epinephrine asthma inhalers. The amendment would have disallowed the use of taxpayer funds to enforce the ban on OTC inhalers. The ban is set to take effect in Jan. 1, 2012 and puts environmental concerns ahead of concerns for the estimated 3 million American asthma sufferers who use these inhalers.“Fifty-four Senators voted to appease extreme environmentalists by banning inhalers that millions of Americans that depend on to breathe,” said Senator DeMint. “This ban won’t do anything serious to help the environment but it will force asthma suffers to spend two to three times more on prescription inhalers, leading many low-income Americans to seek less effective remedies. Even the EPA and FDA admit that banning OTC inhalers will do little to nothing to affect the ozone, but it could lead to hundreds of thousands of new asthma related hospital visits and hundreds of millions in new health costs.”
“This is exactly the kind of ridiculous regulation that shows why Americans are so fed up with the federal government’s nanny-state mentality. Once again, Washington is willing to put Americans at risk in the hopes of appeasing special interests.”
The FDA estimated that the inhaler ban may result in asthma sufferers self-medicating with less effective remedies, and could lead to an increase in annual health expenditures from $180 million to $1.1 billion and hospital ER visits for asthma could increase by anywhere from 0 to 444,000. (source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-27436.htm)
The ban is an attempt to reduce chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, yet even the FDA admits that “The reduction of CFC emissions associated with removing OTC epinephrine CFC MDIs [Metered-Dose Inhalers] from the U.S. market represents only a fraction of 1 percent of total global CFC emissions. Current allocations of CFCs for OTC epinephrine MDIs account for less than 0.1 percent of the total 1986 global production of CFCs.” (source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-27436.htm)
Monday, October 31, 2011
Federal Reserve Not Immune From Law of Unintended Consequences
Twist Puts Looney Tune Squeeze on Citizens
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently announced that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) would begin a process informally known as “Operation Twist,” in which the Federal Reserve will attempt to force long term rates downward while letting short term rates rise.
This will be accomplished by selling short term treasuries and purchasing longer term ones with those same funds. Bernanke believes that this will aid the economy by allowing individuals to refinance at lower rates, thereby providing support for real estate markets and yielding an increase in consumer spending money.
With this announcement, Mr. Bernanke has proven once more that elaborate theories crafted by geniuses always yield results even Wile E. Coyote himself could not devise a more promising scheme if left alone in the desert with stacks of economic data.
If by now you’re wincing just a bit, it could be because you know that reality comes with its own set of rules. Attempting to manipulate markets to achieve a desired outcome may appear logical…. it might even seem like the right thing to do on many occasions, but the law of unintended consequences always does exactly what you don’t expect, as its name implies.
Economic recovery in this environment is not unlike the Road Runner. Each time you think it can be had, it leaves you looking silly. What we need is an elaborate plan—or two…or even three.
The problem is that we have already made these attempts. First, there was QE1, then there was QE2. Both were extravagant and expensive ways to attempt economic stimulus. And now, because the first two were so successful, this third round of tinkering is being forced upon the public by a Fed Chairman concerned with his own job security.
First of all, we must consider those who depend the most upon a healthy and normal yield curve. Retirees, pensions, and small to regional banks depend more on long term rates to yield an acceptable rate of return than most other segments of society. Yet, Operation Twist is taking from those who have worked and saved, pressuring pension funds which are already stretched thin, and tilting the board to favor the megabanks which have far more diverse revenue streams – banks that have already been bailed out once.
In addition, only those people who qualify for refinancing will be able to benefit from these lower rates—if the bank is willing to lend at all—but those on the edge of walking away from their mortgages will see no reason to change their minds. As a result, real estate values will remain soft from the glut of homes on the market.
Mr. Bernanke (Wile E.), perhaps it is time to stop chasing Mr. Recovery (Road Runner). Retreat. Reconsider. Let supply and demand determine housing prices.
Perhaps some young couples starting out could benefit from a real break. If left alone, they will soon have saved enough money to do the things that move economies.
They could start a business and hire people. Perhaps their local bank would lend them money for commercial property if rates were attractive. Maybe Grandpa could have helped them out in a tight spot if his cash flow wasn’t restricted by a meddling little man in a far away place with a fancy title and wild ideas.
Henry Dillon is the Principal/Adviser with Founders Finance, LLC located in Huntington, WV. For further information, please visit their website at www.foundersfinance.com
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Joe Biden Causes Increases In Rapes
The Joe Biden Theory of Police Presence and Increases of Instances of Rape can be put to teh test in other areas besides Republican fiscal responsibility.
Joe Biden supports OWS and like movements across the country.
Prominent officials' support of such movements encourage local city governments to tolerate their presence no matter how violent, unhealthful, etc. they get.
A large assemblage of shady characters requires a larger than normal police presence.
Those police are not on their usual beats.
This causes rapes.
Therefore, according to his own logic . . .
Joe Biden causes rape.
Joe Biden supports OWS and like movements across the country.
Prominent officials' support of such movements encourage local city governments to tolerate their presence no matter how violent, unhealthful, etc. they get.
A large assemblage of shady characters requires a larger than normal police presence.
Those police are not on their usual beats.
This causes rapes.
Therefore, according to his own logic . . .
Joe Biden causes rape.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
If We Wanted to: How to Comply With OWS Demands
OWS demands pretty much fly all over the place. This should get even more freaktastic now that Islamic militants have joined in common cause bare breasted hippie girls that have (useless) college degrees. But a few stand out. Universal distribution of food and through the roof minimum wages are only a couple of the proposals/demands heard from these protests.
Conservatives claim that such demands are impossible. We are wrong. They are possible, as well as easy, to fulfill. We cannot do these things through simple taxation because American businesses and individuals simply do not have enough wealth to cover the bill.
One model of society that could satisfy the demands made by OWS was proposed over two thousand years ago in Plato's Republic.
Hippies would love this. Philosophers, defined by Plato as the enlightened, not necessarily the ones from the ivory tower, get to rule. Bankers, soldiers, merchants, artists, and professionals have their place in this system. The intelligent, educated, and enlightened get to spend all of their time pursuing the work that fulfills them and avoiding other kinds of dull or dangerous labor.
Sounds great so far. Just what the young want. Fulfilling work that pays. There is a catch, though. Plato insists that each person fulfill their intended roles. He then lists a number of jobs and includes the word "slave" in the list. Plato's model state rests on slavery. This produces the wealth that enables everyone else to pursue their dreams without worrying about who digs the ditches.
Let's say that we don't want to enslave anyone. We can still pay off the debt and do as OWS desires, at least for a few decades. The answer is conquest. Yes, we can pay for everything by seizing the wealth and resources of neighboring states. We have military strength and resources to seize Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and any other nearby area that suits our needs. We then just take what we want for the greater good.
Towards the end of the Roman Republic, the masses were encouraged by opportunistic political leaders to demand more and more handouts. The constitution, once revered, was increasingly seen as an obstacle rather than a guardian. Poor leaders demanded action now, even if it violated individual rights and constitutional law. Once leaders started down that road, it led to civil wars, conquests, and, eventually, an empire led by insane tyrants.
Yes we can do what OWS wants. We could enslave our own population. Or conquer others and lose our own constitution in the process. Or we could ignore the simple minded drivel and make long term plans to cut spending, cut regulation, spur economic growth, and diligently climb out of the mess created by greedy government.
Conservatives claim that such demands are impossible. We are wrong. They are possible, as well as easy, to fulfill. We cannot do these things through simple taxation because American businesses and individuals simply do not have enough wealth to cover the bill.
One model of society that could satisfy the demands made by OWS was proposed over two thousand years ago in Plato's Republic.
Hippies would love this. Philosophers, defined by Plato as the enlightened, not necessarily the ones from the ivory tower, get to rule. Bankers, soldiers, merchants, artists, and professionals have their place in this system. The intelligent, educated, and enlightened get to spend all of their time pursuing the work that fulfills them and avoiding other kinds of dull or dangerous labor.
Sounds great so far. Just what the young want. Fulfilling work that pays. There is a catch, though. Plato insists that each person fulfill their intended roles. He then lists a number of jobs and includes the word "slave" in the list. Plato's model state rests on slavery. This produces the wealth that enables everyone else to pursue their dreams without worrying about who digs the ditches.
Let's say that we don't want to enslave anyone. We can still pay off the debt and do as OWS desires, at least for a few decades. The answer is conquest. Yes, we can pay for everything by seizing the wealth and resources of neighboring states. We have military strength and resources to seize Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and any other nearby area that suits our needs. We then just take what we want for the greater good.
Towards the end of the Roman Republic, the masses were encouraged by opportunistic political leaders to demand more and more handouts. The constitution, once revered, was increasingly seen as an obstacle rather than a guardian. Poor leaders demanded action now, even if it violated individual rights and constitutional law. Once leaders started down that road, it led to civil wars, conquests, and, eventually, an empire led by insane tyrants.
Yes we can do what OWS wants. We could enslave our own population. Or conquer others and lose our own constitution in the process. Or we could ignore the simple minded drivel and make long term plans to cut spending, cut regulation, spur economic growth, and diligently climb out of the mess created by greedy government.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Ann Coulter
I had a chance to see Ann Coulter at Georgetown University last week. She put on an impressive show.
About 2/3 of the student crowd were respectfully hostile. Coulter delivered a lively and confrontational performance. She did not just want to preach to the choir, but also to afflict the comfortable liberals and leftists in their own academic lair.
Coulter cast her lines and reeled them in. No one disrupted the forty minute speech, but the question and answer session, called by Coulter "the fun part," brought forth lines of undergraduate students offering themselves up as neophyte gladiators against a master of rhetoric.
An academic world dominated by leftists and liberals can only with difficulty produce people of that ideology who can argue their own cause. The best resorted to ad hominem attacks against her while the worst spouted incoherent and untrue anecdotes of things that were said to have happened ten years ago. At one point, in mock frustration, she stated that she gave them a half an hour of actual issues to attack her on, but none of them were creative enough to go beyond what they found on "AnnCoulterisacword.com" talking points.
It's true. They attacked her language and image, but none took issue with the substance of her speech on economics and society.
Most amazingly, a few of the very critical questioners, whom she dispatched easily, showed up afterwards, her $29 book in hand, to get an autograph and shake her hand.
It reminded me of a scene from the movie Private Parts where the network executives were aghast that not only did Howard Stern's fans listen regularly, but also those who hated and complained about him.
In this sense, Ann Coulter entertains liberals. She offers herself and her views on their turf and invites their attacks. Like the old contests where an average guy can win a prize if he lasts three minutes with a boxing champion, they test themselves. They come out the loser each time, but they can at least brag that they faced their conservative devil and lived to tell the tale. Coulter goes beyond the preaching to the choir mentality that a lot of commentators have. She engages, entertains, and provokes. Very likely, liberals often leave a presentation of hers at least rethinking some of their ideals because she presents her own very logically. But they also enjoy the kind of rhetorical tussle with an accomplished conservative that rarely happens on a college campus.
It's also obvious that she loves the fight as well.
About 2/3 of the student crowd were respectfully hostile. Coulter delivered a lively and confrontational performance. She did not just want to preach to the choir, but also to afflict the comfortable liberals and leftists in their own academic lair.
Coulter cast her lines and reeled them in. No one disrupted the forty minute speech, but the question and answer session, called by Coulter "the fun part," brought forth lines of undergraduate students offering themselves up as neophyte gladiators against a master of rhetoric.
An academic world dominated by leftists and liberals can only with difficulty produce people of that ideology who can argue their own cause. The best resorted to ad hominem attacks against her while the worst spouted incoherent and untrue anecdotes of things that were said to have happened ten years ago. At one point, in mock frustration, she stated that she gave them a half an hour of actual issues to attack her on, but none of them were creative enough to go beyond what they found on "AnnCoulterisacword.com" talking points.
It's true. They attacked her language and image, but none took issue with the substance of her speech on economics and society.
Most amazingly, a few of the very critical questioners, whom she dispatched easily, showed up afterwards, her $29 book in hand, to get an autograph and shake her hand.
It reminded me of a scene from the movie Private Parts where the network executives were aghast that not only did Howard Stern's fans listen regularly, but also those who hated and complained about him.
In this sense, Ann Coulter entertains liberals. She offers herself and her views on their turf and invites their attacks. Like the old contests where an average guy can win a prize if he lasts three minutes with a boxing champion, they test themselves. They come out the loser each time, but they can at least brag that they faced their conservative devil and lived to tell the tale. Coulter goes beyond the preaching to the choir mentality that a lot of commentators have. She engages, entertains, and provokes. Very likely, liberals often leave a presentation of hers at least rethinking some of their ideals because she presents her own very logically. But they also enjoy the kind of rhetorical tussle with an accomplished conservative that rarely happens on a college campus.
It's also obvious that she loves the fight as well.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Republicans Need to Talk Team In Presidential Race
America is living through a crisis that we have not seen in two generations. Somewhere between the Carter years and the Great Depression is our economic mess, caused by big government, easy credit, tax policy that is beyond stupid, and overregulation.
Republican presidential candidates and political minds, too influenced by both "The Won" and the Ron, offer themselves as the solution.
Most of us following the chase for the Republican nomination know that no free market white knight messiah exists on stage. One has personal baggage, the presumed winner before it starts is more liberal than Joe Manchin, another sees aggressive foreign policy as a covenant with death, the leader's demise has already been predicted, and the guy from Texas is just making it up as he goes along.
The GOP choices look way too much like a Washington Redskins quarterback controversy. All bring strengths to the table, but none stand out as a definite winning horse, not yet anyway.
So I want to hear something more team oriented. Not "I." We don't have complete confidence in any of you yet. You have all had failings and flaws at some point. You all bring weaknesses to the table, even you, Newt. Talk about the team. Talk about working with John Boehner, other prominent members of Congress such as Allen West and Marco Rubio, state governors, and even each other.
What we actually have is a slate full of great potential Cabinet appointees. Paul at Treasury (imagine the Federal Reserve boys if he actually got that appointment!), Gingrich at State, Romney or Cain at Commerce, Perry at Homeland Security. Bachman should stay where she is and work towards a committee chairmanship. Santorum to Labor, or something else domestic. But we have to pick one of these people for president.
Conservatives ridiculed and decried "The Won." Now we are foolishly looking for our own version. We only got one of those in the past century and some countries never see his ilk in their entire histories. They need to talk about how they will work together after the primaries and a successful GOP campaign. Even Romney and Perry, who obviously share some dislike, need to talk about cooperating in the future.
The team concept is how to sell the GOP nominee to the country. You don't just get the nominee, but you also get the Republican team. The adults are coming back to set things right again.
Republican presidential candidates and political minds, too influenced by both "The Won" and the Ron, offer themselves as the solution.
Most of us following the chase for the Republican nomination know that no free market white knight messiah exists on stage. One has personal baggage, the presumed winner before it starts is more liberal than Joe Manchin, another sees aggressive foreign policy as a covenant with death, the leader's demise has already been predicted, and the guy from Texas is just making it up as he goes along.
The GOP choices look way too much like a Washington Redskins quarterback controversy. All bring strengths to the table, but none stand out as a definite winning horse, not yet anyway.
So I want to hear something more team oriented. Not "I." We don't have complete confidence in any of you yet. You have all had failings and flaws at some point. You all bring weaknesses to the table, even you, Newt. Talk about the team. Talk about working with John Boehner, other prominent members of Congress such as Allen West and Marco Rubio, state governors, and even each other.
What we actually have is a slate full of great potential Cabinet appointees. Paul at Treasury (imagine the Federal Reserve boys if he actually got that appointment!), Gingrich at State, Romney or Cain at Commerce, Perry at Homeland Security. Bachman should stay where she is and work towards a committee chairmanship. Santorum to Labor, or something else domestic. But we have to pick one of these people for president.
Conservatives ridiculed and decried "The Won." Now we are foolishly looking for our own version. We only got one of those in the past century and some countries never see his ilk in their entire histories. They need to talk about how they will work together after the primaries and a successful GOP campaign. Even Romney and Perry, who obviously share some dislike, need to talk about cooperating in the future.
The team concept is how to sell the GOP nominee to the country. You don't just get the nominee, but you also get the Republican team. The adults are coming back to set things right again.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Joe Biden Rape Prevention Act Goes Down
Senator Manchin and other fiscally conscious Democrats joined with Senate Republicans to shoot down Obama's mini stimulus, an action that Joe Biden said would increase rape and murder. So, if you combine Obama and Biden, Republicans support unbreatheable air, rape, dirty water, murder, and puppy kicking.
Biden's assertions come from his speech in Flint, Michigan, one of the few cities with rising violent crime rates. He claimed that less police mean more rape and murder.
We could point out that police departments are shedding jobs as crime drops and technology improves.
But it is more fun to point out that most major cities have been run by Democrats for decades. They build sports complexes that they cannot afford and do not pay for themselves. They follow tax and regulation policies destructive to business. Their tax bases drop and they cannot hire as many city employees, including police. That all being said, population drops might account for a lower crime rate as well.
That is not a federal issue. It is municipal mismanagement. At some point, the bailouts and handouts have to stop.
Biden's assertions come from his speech in Flint, Michigan, one of the few cities with rising violent crime rates. He claimed that less police mean more rape and murder.
We could point out that police departments are shedding jobs as crime drops and technology improves.
But it is more fun to point out that most major cities have been run by Democrats for decades. They build sports complexes that they cannot afford and do not pay for themselves. They follow tax and regulation policies destructive to business. Their tax bases drop and they cannot hire as many city employees, including police. That all being said, population drops might account for a lower crime rate as well.
That is not a federal issue. It is municipal mismanagement. At some point, the bailouts and handouts have to stop.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
$300,000 Is Not Flexing Muscle
Yesterday a news story made its way through the wires without question or analysis. It even ended up in the Washington Times. It claimed that OWS was flexing its muscle because it raised $300,000 in a month.
Wow. A nationwide, nay, we are told, worldwide movement raised $300k in a single month?
That's not muscle flexing in the world of political fundraising. The worst president in one and a half centuries raised $300,000 in the past hour. That is nothing.
Truth is that OWS and its related movements are losing steam. The Howard Stern Show on Monday claimed to have interviewed over 150 people who could not identify any coherent reason why they were in New York protesting. DC protesters are somewhat more intellectual, but the lunchtime exercisers have started crowding their dwindling numbers out. Most of the remaining die hards are anti-war protesters, who could not have been thrilled with the recent deployment to Uganda.
Many on the conservative side counted on this movement to discredit leftism through stupidity and foolish acts. Since Obama backed it, they reasoned that he would be tied to their behavior. It turns out that they are inept and incoherent, much like Obama himself. The brightest ones in the protests, not any better informed, but better able to articulate a philosophy of some sort, are the old timers.
A few beacons of reason are sprinkled among them, but very few. I saw an interview with a true old school Truman type liberal. He described the loss of pensions and secure jobs in the past few decades without really understanding why those things disappeared. But he was older, reasonable, rational, generally not anti-capitalist, and an unabashed lover of his country. He was not sure how to fix things, but believed that labor unions could provide the answers. Again, not a bad or a stupid guy, just misguided. He was rare, though.
As badly as some in the media and the Obama Administration want this to continue, it looks to be fizzling. The Tea Party has a pretty coherent idea of what it wants economically and politically, a little less coherence socially. But they have a much tighter focus and are more effective. OWS is all over the place.
Wow. A nationwide, nay, we are told, worldwide movement raised $300k in a single month?
That's not muscle flexing in the world of political fundraising. The worst president in one and a half centuries raised $300,000 in the past hour. That is nothing.
Truth is that OWS and its related movements are losing steam. The Howard Stern Show on Monday claimed to have interviewed over 150 people who could not identify any coherent reason why they were in New York protesting. DC protesters are somewhat more intellectual, but the lunchtime exercisers have started crowding their dwindling numbers out. Most of the remaining die hards are anti-war protesters, who could not have been thrilled with the recent deployment to Uganda.
Many on the conservative side counted on this movement to discredit leftism through stupidity and foolish acts. Since Obama backed it, they reasoned that he would be tied to their behavior. It turns out that they are inept and incoherent, much like Obama himself. The brightest ones in the protests, not any better informed, but better able to articulate a philosophy of some sort, are the old timers.
A few beacons of reason are sprinkled among them, but very few. I saw an interview with a true old school Truman type liberal. He described the loss of pensions and secure jobs in the past few decades without really understanding why those things disappeared. But he was older, reasonable, rational, generally not anti-capitalist, and an unabashed lover of his country. He was not sure how to fix things, but believed that labor unions could provide the answers. Again, not a bad or a stupid guy, just misguided. He was rare, though.
As badly as some in the media and the Obama Administration want this to continue, it looks to be fizzling. The Tea Party has a pretty coherent idea of what it wants economically and politically, a little less coherence socially. But they have a much tighter focus and are more effective. OWS is all over the place.
Monday, October 17, 2011
David McKinley's Bill On Coal Ash Sails Through House
McKinley’s Jobs Bill on Coal Ash Passes Full House
W.Va. freshman’s compromise legislation passes with bipartisan support
Washington, D.C. – A jobs bill (H.R. 2273) authored by Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV), which for the first time sets minimum federal guidelines regulating coal ash while empowering the states to enforce them, passed the House Friday with overwhelming bipartisan support. McKinley’s legislation, which a Veritas study found could protect up to 316,000 jobs from being eliminated, was approved 267-144, with 37 Democrats voting yes. The Charleston Gazette’s Ken Ward Jr. today noted that the question of how to regulate coal ash has been “a long simmering issue ignored by many policymakers” – until now.
Rep. McKinley made the following statement about H.R. 2273 on the House floor today:
“Every day coal ash is produced in nearly 700 coal-fired generating plants in 48 of the 50 states in America. Approximately 140 tons are produced annually with 40% of that coal ash being beneficially recycled. Over the years, scientists and entrepreneurs have found uses for coal ash through a variety of recycling options. Businesses were emboldened to recycle the material after two studies by the EPA in 1993 and in 2000 found that coal ash is not a hazardous material and could be used by the public. The findings of these two studies specifically state that there have been no documented cases of coal ash damaging human health or the environment. As a result industries have sprung up all across America and thousands of jobs have been created by recycling coal ash.
“After 30 years we finally resolved the issue today. H.R. 2273 is strongly endorsed by state environmental officials, including the Environmental Council of the States and the Association of State and Solid Waste Officials as well as various labor unions. I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues support this bipartisan, pro-jobs legislation.”
McKinley concluded by saying, “This is a jobs bill and a public health bill; protecting the livelihoods and the health of our working men and women are not mutually exclusive ideas.”
H.R. 2273 now moves to the Senate, where already fourteen Democrats have expressed support for the approach taken by McKinley’s legislation. Rep. Gene Green, a Democrat from Houston who rarely votes with Republicans on environmental issues, rose in support of McKinley’s legislation today and hailed its bipartisan nature: “We are doing something here that we don’t do very often in this House. We actually have a bill that came out of committee that has bipartisan support…this bill is something we don’t do on this floor in the last 10 months very often: we actually compromised and came up with good legislation, and we hope the Senate will pass it.”
In a Statement of Administration Policy this week, the White House notably did not threaten a veto of this bill unlike previous House-passed EPA bills.
Background:
H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, would ensure the continued beneficial use of coal combustion residuals and strengthen state regulatory authority over these materials under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The legislation would prevent the Obama administration’s attempt to reclassify these materials as a hazardous waste— a designation previous administrations have deemed inappropriate.
###Friday, October 14, 2011
Suggested Strategy to Cain: Voter Registration
Herman Cain, I am not your strategist, but here is a thought that you should consider.
You are an outside the box thinker, always have been. That is why you are a success. No, I don't like any national sales tax plan that does not come with a constitutional cap. But I like your style and I think you are one of the folks that can whip Obama next year.
Here is your strategy to win. Voter registration.
Everyone wants to register voters, but you have the opportunity to do something groundbreaking and game changing. Go into black communities on intense voter registration drives. Emphasize individual choice over the mass mentality. Share your optimism and your belief in work, education, and drive. Sell them on registering Republican and backing your candidacy.
This is how you can win. Bring over tens of thousands of black voters into the GOP column in every state. Of course they are not voting for a Leader, but for themselves. Their votes and registrations tell the Democratic Party that they cannot be taken for granted. Maybe even the unions will someday learn that.
Young people are living the post racial society. It is they who you can bring aboard in the largest numbers. Your vision, even if you do not win, is key to countering the depressing and woeful victicrat line that dominates black political thinking. The Democratic race coalition is cracking anyway. J. C. Watts, Allen West, Condoleeza Rice all experienced racial prejudice when it was still a major problem in society and all turned out to be devotees of the free market and personal liberty. You can further that movement.
Just a thought, Mr. Cain. But you should definitely consider it.
You are an outside the box thinker, always have been. That is why you are a success. No, I don't like any national sales tax plan that does not come with a constitutional cap. But I like your style and I think you are one of the folks that can whip Obama next year.
Here is your strategy to win. Voter registration.
Everyone wants to register voters, but you have the opportunity to do something groundbreaking and game changing. Go into black communities on intense voter registration drives. Emphasize individual choice over the mass mentality. Share your optimism and your belief in work, education, and drive. Sell them on registering Republican and backing your candidacy.
This is how you can win. Bring over tens of thousands of black voters into the GOP column in every state. Of course they are not voting for a Leader, but for themselves. Their votes and registrations tell the Democratic Party that they cannot be taken for granted. Maybe even the unions will someday learn that.
Young people are living the post racial society. It is they who you can bring aboard in the largest numbers. Your vision, even if you do not win, is key to countering the depressing and woeful victicrat line that dominates black political thinking. The Democratic race coalition is cracking anyway. J. C. Watts, Allen West, Condoleeza Rice all experienced racial prejudice when it was still a major problem in society and all turned out to be devotees of the free market and personal liberty. You can further that movement.
Just a thought, Mr. Cain. But you should definitely consider it.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Learning to Like Mitt Romney
I am learning to like Mitt. Why? Because odds are, he will be the nominee.
I don't dislike him personally. He seems to be a decent enough person. But he reminds me all too much of that Thomas E. Dewey northeastern establishment Republican set. Romney will not heartily embrace the kind of conservatism that galvanizes the rest of America outside of New England. Romney's positions, to put it mildly, seem to change a great deal over time. On one or two issues, that's fine. Doing that on several leaves him vulnerable. His Mormonism is not a concern for me, actually it is a plus. Mormonism requires a strong spirit and self-discipline. I respect the heck out of that. Romney also has administrative experience and seems to run his operations and communications fairly smoothly.
No, he is not a guy the conservatives love. But he could be what we have.
Instead of hating Romney and peeing in our own Corn Flakes if he wins, we have to strategize for success.
First of all, get the man elected president if we nominate him. He is not a revolutionary prophet of conservative change, but he is not the incompetent Il Duce that we have now. Romney's foreign policy speeches should bring comfort to anyone at home and abroad who understands that America has a positive mission in the world. Domestically, though, the right must hold Romney's feet to the fire and pressure him into supporting the shrinking of government. We can do that through the congressional Tea Party factions.
There is a potentially great president on the horizon who bowed out of this year's contest. Bobby Jindal has almost no negatives. He is experienced, has terrific conservative credentials, highly intelligent, and has shown strong leadership at crucial times for Louisiana. Jindal is what Palin could have been had she stayed at her gubernatorial post and worked at it aggressively. Getting to a Jindal, or some other strongly conservative administration without four more years of irreparable damage to our system is paramount. Romney may not have great conservative credentials, but I cannot imagine that he will make things a lot worse. We need to get rid of Obama and his leftist cadre first so that we can turn this thing around.
It looks more and more like the first step in turning this thing around could be the election of Romney as president.
I don't dislike him personally. He seems to be a decent enough person. But he reminds me all too much of that Thomas E. Dewey northeastern establishment Republican set. Romney will not heartily embrace the kind of conservatism that galvanizes the rest of America outside of New England. Romney's positions, to put it mildly, seem to change a great deal over time. On one or two issues, that's fine. Doing that on several leaves him vulnerable. His Mormonism is not a concern for me, actually it is a plus. Mormonism requires a strong spirit and self-discipline. I respect the heck out of that. Romney also has administrative experience and seems to run his operations and communications fairly smoothly.
No, he is not a guy the conservatives love. But he could be what we have.
Instead of hating Romney and peeing in our own Corn Flakes if he wins, we have to strategize for success.
First of all, get the man elected president if we nominate him. He is not a revolutionary prophet of conservative change, but he is not the incompetent Il Duce that we have now. Romney's foreign policy speeches should bring comfort to anyone at home and abroad who understands that America has a positive mission in the world. Domestically, though, the right must hold Romney's feet to the fire and pressure him into supporting the shrinking of government. We can do that through the congressional Tea Party factions.
There is a potentially great president on the horizon who bowed out of this year's contest. Bobby Jindal has almost no negatives. He is experienced, has terrific conservative credentials, highly intelligent, and has shown strong leadership at crucial times for Louisiana. Jindal is what Palin could have been had she stayed at her gubernatorial post and worked at it aggressively. Getting to a Jindal, or some other strongly conservative administration without four more years of irreparable damage to our system is paramount. Romney may not have great conservative credentials, but I cannot imagine that he will make things a lot worse. We need to get rid of Obama and his leftist cadre first so that we can turn this thing around.
It looks more and more like the first step in turning this thing around could be the election of Romney as president.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Al Davis and Occupy Wall Street
I originally was going to use Mylan Puskar as a perfect foil for the anti-everything Occupy Wall Street Crowd. His story of work ethic, success, and generosity are shining examples of what the free market is all about. Then I figured, that's too easy.
So I picked a villain. Al Davis. Recently deceased owner of the Oakland Raiders.
Davis was a guy that everyone loved to hate, unless they played for him. He believed that he was the smartest man in the room. Every room. The Raiders and the old American Football League were his initial passions and he fought like the devil for both. Most other owners and commissioners thought that he was the devil.
Until his decline in the past decade, Davis bestrode his part of the NFL as a colossus. He dared to innovate and take chances, and Davis' mark remains strong. The vertical passing game evolved from simply a Raiders strategy to a league-wide norm. His habit of picking up odds, ends, and rejects lives on as the modus operandi of the Patriots organization.
Davis was an innovator and a competitor. He earned every accolade and treated almost all of his players (Marcus Allen excluded) like family.
Al Davis worked hard, like Mylan Puskar, in their respective fields. They were both ahead of their time and both showed what our economic system can do for anyone, if they are wiling to work and take some risks.
The difference was that Al Davis was not a personable guy. He was easy to hate to the point that too many overlooked his positive impact and influence over both the business side of football and over the many young men who wore the silver and black over the decades. But he was a gritty all American guy, a streetfighter in the boardroom. Al Davis was the kind of guy that the hippified protesters love to hate, but he helped to build a powerful and profitable business that puts a lot of food on a lot of tables. Davis was an honest capitalist and, regardless of how some feel about his attitude, or his teams, earned our respect.
**************************************************************
The F 35 remains a hot topic in Washington. An Air Force official noted that:
So I picked a villain. Al Davis. Recently deceased owner of the Oakland Raiders.
Davis was a guy that everyone loved to hate, unless they played for him. He believed that he was the smartest man in the room. Every room. The Raiders and the old American Football League were his initial passions and he fought like the devil for both. Most other owners and commissioners thought that he was the devil.
Until his decline in the past decade, Davis bestrode his part of the NFL as a colossus. He dared to innovate and take chances, and Davis' mark remains strong. The vertical passing game evolved from simply a Raiders strategy to a league-wide norm. His habit of picking up odds, ends, and rejects lives on as the modus operandi of the Patriots organization.
Davis was an innovator and a competitor. He earned every accolade and treated almost all of his players (Marcus Allen excluded) like family.
Al Davis worked hard, like Mylan Puskar, in their respective fields. They were both ahead of their time and both showed what our economic system can do for anyone, if they are wiling to work and take some risks.
The difference was that Al Davis was not a personable guy. He was easy to hate to the point that too many overlooked his positive impact and influence over both the business side of football and over the many young men who wore the silver and black over the decades. But he was a gritty all American guy, a streetfighter in the boardroom. Al Davis was the kind of guy that the hippified protesters love to hate, but he helped to build a powerful and profitable business that puts a lot of food on a lot of tables. Davis was an honest capitalist and, regardless of how some feel about his attitude, or his teams, earned our respect.
**************************************************************
The F 35 remains a hot topic in Washington. An Air Force official noted that:
Air Force chief: F-35 'must succeed'
Let there be no doubt. The F-35 cannot be replaced. That is why Senators Jay Rockefeller and Joe Manchin should support funding the project.
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley recently called a new long-range bomber "essential" and said there is "no alternative" to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as he pledged to protect some major weapons programs from defense spending cuts.
Pointing to a fighter fleet that is on average 22 years old and a tanker force with an average age of 49 years, Donley used a speech to the Air Force Association to lay down markers on spending needs. "Simply put, there is no alternative to the F-35 program," Donley said of this advanced fighter jet. "It must succeed."
The $382 billion program is designed to replace older fighter jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps over the next 30 years.
Let there be no doubt. The F-35 cannot be replaced. That is why Senators Jay Rockefeller and Joe Manchin should support funding the project.
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley recently called a new long-range bomber "essential" and said there is "no alternative" to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as he pledged to protect some major weapons programs from defense spending cuts.
Pointing to a fighter fleet that is on average 22 years old and a tanker force with an average age of 49 years, Donley used a speech to the Air Force Association to lay down markers on spending needs. "Simply put, there is no alternative to the F-35 program," Donley said of this advanced fighter jet. "It must succeed."
The $382 billion program is designed to replace older fighter jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps over the next 30 years.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Why Columbus Day?
Christopher Columbus gets a very bad rap. He is accused basically of causing every crime ever committed against Indians in North America, mostly by virtue of having shown up. Many want to downgrade his accomplishment because he did not come over first. Only the Italians and conservatives really stick up for the poor captain anymore.
If you are one of the anti-Columbus crowd, remember this. Christopher Columbus did know from his readings of the experts that the world, most likely, was round. Most people's estimates of that distance around would have put Asia around 3,000 miles away. To Columbus, however, all this was theory. It made sense, but was it accurate. He bet his life on it.
Imagine the trip. You assume that land exists 3,000 miles away and you pack provisions for the trip. But if you are not right, that 1,500 mile point in the voyage must be frightening. The courage to believe in the idea and the leadership to keep the expedition together marks Columbus as one of Western Civilization's great heroes.
Once he arrived, his leadership fell apart. The crew preferred to work the local Indians rather than themselves, and thus earned Columbus a tarnished reputation. His responsibility over them only goes so far. We ought to continue to remember his accomplishment and the courage that it took for one man to take a chance with the stakes so high.
If you are one of the anti-Columbus crowd, remember this. Christopher Columbus did know from his readings of the experts that the world, most likely, was round. Most people's estimates of that distance around would have put Asia around 3,000 miles away. To Columbus, however, all this was theory. It made sense, but was it accurate. He bet his life on it.
Imagine the trip. You assume that land exists 3,000 miles away and you pack provisions for the trip. But if you are not right, that 1,500 mile point in the voyage must be frightening. The courage to believe in the idea and the leadership to keep the expedition together marks Columbus as one of Western Civilization's great heroes.
Once he arrived, his leadership fell apart. The crew preferred to work the local Indians rather than themselves, and thus earned Columbus a tarnished reputation. His responsibility over them only goes so far. We ought to continue to remember his accomplishment and the courage that it took for one man to take a chance with the stakes so high.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Hippies Do Have a Point Here, But They Protest the Wrong Villains
A Wisconsin judge, in a wonderful display of legal wisdom, ruled that people do not have the right to drink milk directly from their own cow if they board it on another farm.
Chalk another victory up for crony mercantilism.
State and federal health guidelines used to be used to protect the general public purchasing from major corporations. You really do need to trust that the food that you buy at a store meets some health and safety guidelines. Conversely, if you buy from a truck on the side of the road or a farmers market, there is a little more caveat emptor in this situation. You might get an ear of corn with a huge worm at the top, for instance. But that's OK, just cut the top off and you still have a better tasting ear of corn.
Under the guise of trying to protect us from ourselves, but, in reality trying to protect big connected businesses from competition, food regulations have increased dramatically, especially under Obama. They hit hard the small producers and their small scale operations. Add the Obama EPA's obsession with regulating dust on a farm and you practically have a recipe for killing off the small farmer and small businesses that sell their produce.
This is part of the hippie protest of Wall Street. They really need to understand that their enemy, as always, is Big Government. Companies can ask until the cows come home for special favors. It is the obligation of the government to refuse them in the name of the free market.
Hippies, protest the real villains. Don't clog up the streets and prevent people from going to legitimate private sector work. Protest government!
Chalk another victory up for crony mercantilism.
State and federal health guidelines used to be used to protect the general public purchasing from major corporations. You really do need to trust that the food that you buy at a store meets some health and safety guidelines. Conversely, if you buy from a truck on the side of the road or a farmers market, there is a little more caveat emptor in this situation. You might get an ear of corn with a huge worm at the top, for instance. But that's OK, just cut the top off and you still have a better tasting ear of corn.
Under the guise of trying to protect us from ourselves, but, in reality trying to protect big connected businesses from competition, food regulations have increased dramatically, especially under Obama. They hit hard the small producers and their small scale operations. Add the Obama EPA's obsession with regulating dust on a farm and you practically have a recipe for killing off the small farmer and small businesses that sell their produce.
This is part of the hippie protest of Wall Street. They really need to understand that their enemy, as always, is Big Government. Companies can ask until the cows come home for special favors. It is the obligation of the government to refuse them in the name of the free market.
Hippies, protest the real villains. Don't clog up the streets and prevent people from going to legitimate private sector work. Protest government!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)