I'll write a response later.
On Nov. 2, Rich wrote an editorial denouncing his tax bills for tree and street maintenance and property taxes for public schools. Like Rich, I also pay taxes, oppose our wars and bailouts, have no children and have sometimes been attracted to libertarian ideals (although I’m hesitant to jump on any political bandwagon). Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world.
Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society. The self-sufficient feudalist societies of the medieval era, Anderson writes, contained hidden costs of illiteracy, isolation, disease, coercion and threat of war. On the other hand, our modern communities are composed of skilled, specialized workers who must depend on each other for our society’s health and vitality. “The Myth of Self-Reliance,” available online, makes for fascinating reading that challenged my political assumptions.
What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests? What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for “wonderful creations,” the office buildings Rich celebrates? What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of “beautiful, useful” office condominiums? What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding? What is the correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility?
On the same day that Rich's editorial appeared, a front-page article indicated that 95 percent of Bozeman High School students scored at or above grade level in reading. As a community, we must be doing something right. Rich, none of us is truly self-reliant anymore.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Proud to be a liberal - FB conversation
S.B. posted this:
I've ALWAYS been proud to be a liberal.
REFRAMING THE WORD 'LIBERAL'
SHARE if you too ARE PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL!
Monte Wolverton is one of the world's most widely syndicated editorial cartoonists. His work appears in fine newspapers, periodicals, websites and blogs everywhere. I guess this cartoon allows us to safely state that he is a LIBERAL... check more of his toons: http://www.wolvertoon.com/toons/
Me: Meh. A full half of those things are still societal problems that haven't been solved.
S.B.: well, let's see: Consumer protection? Do you think the industry that brought us exploding Pintos and the Corvair would have increased auto safety at this rate without regulation?
Me: It's wonderful that safety has increased. But we don't know what would have happened without government intervention, nor do we know the cost to society in other ways, nor do we know how many deaths and injuries resulted from these regulations.
S.B.: or lead exposures -- remember all the industry bitching about eliminating lead from gas?
S.B.: I can go on, but it won't change your view on the matter, and those of us who are proud of these accomplishments aren't about to consider them failures.
Me: Yeah, and remember trying to drive a wheezer from circa 1977? And I wonder how much cost is added to a vehicle to comply with these regulations, how much natural resources were used in their manufacture, and what other things might have happened in industry without having to devote those resources to government mandates.
You celebrate the easy-to-discern benefits without regarding the unseen detriment. The equation is much bigger than you are allowing for.
Me: will always have air that is too dirty, which justifies the eternal involvement of government in all phases of our lives.
S.B.: I not only remember, but I grew up in a gas station in those years, so worked on them.
But the industry figured it out, and today my brother's corvette goes 0-60 quicker than anything on the road in 1968 or 1978, yet gets 26mpg when he wants to.
And EVERY signficant increase in vehicle fleet economy has been preceded by regulatory action to force those changes.
K,M.: The bad and the good... we lost the chrome. But we don't have to drive 55 anymore.
Me: Assuming there are some overall benefits from a few of these liberal achievements, then do liberals also take the blame for skyrocketing crime, illegitimacy, illiteracy, and inner city desolation that has ocurred over the last 40 years? Or do liberals get credit for all the "good" stuff resulting from their policies, but the bad stuff is someone else's blame?
R.E.: Lest we forget the Community reinvestment act that lead to Freddy mac and fanny mae and the melt down of the housing market.
R.B.: "Assuming" there are benefits? Brother, you're in denial. And to blame a liberal political philosophy for the ills you iterate Rich, is without demonstrable merit. And R.B., claiming that the Community Reinvestment Act led to the housing bubble is either a deliberate falsehood, or just stupidity. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative, but being a stupid, arrogant conservative sucks.
ME: R.B., for liberals to take credit for good things without assuming blame for bad things is without demonstrable merit.
And by the way, you are stupid and arrogant. Or simply a boor.
V.M.: It's stupid to use Conservative OR Liberal as a negative term. I like this way much
I.S.: More than happy to take the blame for the "bad" we've done. Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years and cleaning up their messes instead of letting them wallow in the consequences of their stupidity and arrogance. The only "skyrocketing" that is factual and actual is the massive redistribution of wealth and destruction of the middle class started by St. Ronnie -- who would never be elected today as he would be classified as "too liberal".
R.E.: Cummunity Reinvestedment Act was the Start and then Clinton wanting to make it easier for people to buy houses accelerated the housing bust thru sub par mortgages. even tho the senate was warned that unless something was done Fanny Mae would collapse. They were warned in 2002 that we were heading for a mortgage crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Me: "Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years..." What? With the exception of 2000-2006, liberals were in charge of at least one branch of government, and sometimes all three during the last 30 years.
The only messes that must be cleaned up are liberals and their republican big government co-conspirators who have spent this country into oblivion.
I.S.: Turn off Fox.
Me: Ms. Suver, don't forget to call me a bigot and a homophobe. Whatever name calling assuages your failure to offer substantive rejoinders.
I've ALWAYS been proud to be a liberal.
REFRAMING THE WORD 'LIBERAL'
SHARE if you too ARE PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL!
Monte Wolverton is one of the world's most widely syndicated editorial cartoonists. His work appears in fine newspapers, periodicals, websites and blogs everywhere. I guess this cartoon allows us to safely state that he is a LIBERAL... check more of his toons: http://www.wolvertoon.com/toons/
Me: Meh. A full half of those things are still societal problems that haven't been solved.
S.B.: well, let's see: Consumer protection? Do you think the industry that brought us exploding Pintos and the Corvair would have increased auto safety at this rate without regulation?
Me: It's wonderful that safety has increased. But we don't know what would have happened without government intervention, nor do we know the cost to society in other ways, nor do we know how many deaths and injuries resulted from these regulations.
S.B.: or lead exposures -- remember all the industry bitching about eliminating lead from gas?
S.B.: I can go on, but it won't change your view on the matter, and those of us who are proud of these accomplishments aren't about to consider them failures.
Me: Yeah, and remember trying to drive a wheezer from circa 1977? And I wonder how much cost is added to a vehicle to comply with these regulations, how much natural resources were used in their manufacture, and what other things might have happened in industry without having to devote those resources to government mandates.
You celebrate the easy-to-discern benefits without regarding the unseen detriment. The equation is much bigger than you are allowing for.
Me: will always have air that is too dirty, which justifies the eternal involvement of government in all phases of our lives.
S.B.: I not only remember, but I grew up in a gas station in those years, so worked on them.
But the industry figured it out, and today my brother's corvette goes 0-60 quicker than anything on the road in 1968 or 1978, yet gets 26mpg when he wants to.
And EVERY signficant increase in vehicle fleet economy has been preceded by regulatory action to force those changes.
K,M.: The bad and the good... we lost the chrome. But we don't have to drive 55 anymore.
Me: Assuming there are some overall benefits from a few of these liberal achievements, then do liberals also take the blame for skyrocketing crime, illegitimacy, illiteracy, and inner city desolation that has ocurred over the last 40 years? Or do liberals get credit for all the "good" stuff resulting from their policies, but the bad stuff is someone else's blame?
R.E.: Lest we forget the Community reinvestment act that lead to Freddy mac and fanny mae and the melt down of the housing market.
R.B.: "Assuming" there are benefits? Brother, you're in denial. And to blame a liberal political philosophy for the ills you iterate Rich, is without demonstrable merit. And R.B., claiming that the Community Reinvestment Act led to the housing bubble is either a deliberate falsehood, or just stupidity. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative, but being a stupid, arrogant conservative sucks.
ME: R.B., for liberals to take credit for good things without assuming blame for bad things is without demonstrable merit.
And by the way, you are stupid and arrogant. Or simply a boor.
V.M.: It's stupid to use Conservative OR Liberal as a negative term. I like this way much
I.S.: More than happy to take the blame for the "bad" we've done. Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years and cleaning up their messes instead of letting them wallow in the consequences of their stupidity and arrogance. The only "skyrocketing" that is factual and actual is the massive redistribution of wealth and destruction of the middle class started by St. Ronnie -- who would never be elected today as he would be classified as "too liberal".
R.E.: Cummunity Reinvestedment Act was the Start and then Clinton wanting to make it easier for people to buy houses accelerated the housing bust thru sub par mortgages. even tho the senate was warned that unless something was done Fanny Mae would collapse. They were warned in 2002 that we were heading for a mortgage crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Me: "Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years..." What? With the exception of 2000-2006, liberals were in charge of at least one branch of government, and sometimes all three during the last 30 years.
The only messes that must be cleaned up are liberals and their republican big government co-conspirators who have spent this country into oblivion.
I.S.: Turn off Fox.
Me: Ms. Suver, don't forget to call me a bigot and a homophobe. Whatever name calling assuages your failure to offer substantive rejoinders.
Monday, October 31, 2011
The goals of Occupy
I don't remember where I got this list.
Funny, I didn't realize that anarchists could be so, um, organized.
1. Complete bans on federal political contributions, replaced by public campaign financing.
2. Reversal of the "Citizens United v. FEC" Supreme Court decision.
3. Combating Washington's "revolving door."
4. Bans on gifts to federal officials.
5. Tax reform--eliminating special carve-outs and increasing progressiveness.
6. Single-payer health care.
7. Increased environmental regulation.
8. Reduction of the national debt through a progressive income tax and elimination of corporate handouts.
9. Federal job-training programs.
10. Student loan debt forgiveness.
11. Immigration policy, including amnesty for illegals.
12. Recalling the U.S. military globally.
13. Education mandates and teacher pay.
14. Massive expansion of public works projects.
15. Spurring China to end currency manipulation.
16. Reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
17. Refinance all underwater mortgages at 1% interest rate.
18. One-year freeze on all foreclosures.
19. Free air time for all political candidates who gather sufficient signatures.
20. Immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Funny, I didn't realize that anarchists could be so, um, organized.
1. Complete bans on federal political contributions, replaced by public campaign financing.
2. Reversal of the "Citizens United v. FEC" Supreme Court decision.
3. Combating Washington's "revolving door."
4. Bans on gifts to federal officials.
5. Tax reform--eliminating special carve-outs and increasing progressiveness.
6. Single-payer health care.
7. Increased environmental regulation.
8. Reduction of the national debt through a progressive income tax and elimination of corporate handouts.
9. Federal job-training programs.
10. Student loan debt forgiveness.
11. Immigration policy, including amnesty for illegals.
12. Recalling the U.S. military globally.
13. Education mandates and teacher pay.
14. Massive expansion of public works projects.
15. Spurring China to end currency manipulation.
16. Reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
17. Refinance all underwater mortgages at 1% interest rate.
18. One-year freeze on all foreclosures.
19. Free air time for all political candidates who gather sufficient signatures.
20. Immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
My response to Mr. Lourie
His letter is here. My original editorial is here.
--------------
Mr. Lourie,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my column. I read your letter with interest. You know, as I re-read your letter, it became clear that you seem to be responding to someone else’s column, not mine. You make statements about things I never wrote about. Examples:
1) “…which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly.”
2) “His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong.”
3) “Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant.”
4) “Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication.”
5) “Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie.”
6) “Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. [Rich] and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change. “
Well, that’s interesting. After eliminating the things I did not write about, there is very little left of your letter. Although I would be happy to discuss those things with you, I don't feel compelled to defend positions I never took.
But, I will address those things that are related to my column:
1) Regarding the lack of a surplus during the 1990s, you may look for yourself: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm . This is the government’s own website. Clearly the national debt increased all through the 1990s. Therefore, I did not lie.
2) Ok, so there is no #2. So I guess if you have additional commentary regarding what I actually wrote, I would be interested to read it.
Thanks,
Rich
--------------
Mr. Lourie,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my column. I read your letter with interest. You know, as I re-read your letter, it became clear that you seem to be responding to someone else’s column, not mine. You make statements about things I never wrote about. Examples:
1) “…which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly.”
2) “His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong.”
3) “Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant.”
4) “Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication.”
5) “Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie.”
6) “Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. [Rich] and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change. “
Well, that’s interesting. After eliminating the things I did not write about, there is very little left of your letter. Although I would be happy to discuss those things with you, I don't feel compelled to defend positions I never took.
But, I will address those things that are related to my column:
1) Regarding the lack of a surplus during the 1990s, you may look for yourself: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm . This is the government’s own website. Clearly the national debt increased all through the 1990s. Therefore, I did not lie.
2) Ok, so there is no #2. So I guess if you have additional commentary regarding what I actually wrote, I would be interested to read it.
Thanks,
Rich
Dan Lourie's criticism of my editorial
This is a letter to the editor from Dan Lourie, responding to my editorial.
The reactionary right-wing ideology of Rich, as shown in his recent op-ed, is insidious, amoral, dishonest and ignorant of history. It shows not a glimmer of the American experiment in a democracy which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly. His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong. Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant. They are lies and should be challenged.
Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication. Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie. President Reagan had to raise taxes eleven times to keep his “trickle down” fantasy from bankrupting the nation. The first seven years of the GW Bush presidency increased the deficit by almost twice as much as the 32 years from JFK through GHW Bush combined.
Fact: Clinton’s administration bequeathed to President Bush a $236 billion surplus, a 10-year surplus forecast of $5.6 trillion. Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. Rich and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change.
Claiming that “conservatives have opposed deficit spending” after witnessing eight years of Bush profligacy is absolute hypocrisy. Fact: the first two fiscal years of the Obama presidency have seen unprecedented deficit decreases.
I encourage readers to turn off the right-wing Fox News lie machine and seek the truth.
I sent him an email, saying "Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter. Perhaps you could indentify two or three lies I made." No response as of yet. My response is here.
The reactionary right-wing ideology of Rich, as shown in his recent op-ed, is insidious, amoral, dishonest and ignorant of history. It shows not a glimmer of the American experiment in a democracy which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly. His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong. Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant. They are lies and should be challenged.
Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication. Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie. President Reagan had to raise taxes eleven times to keep his “trickle down” fantasy from bankrupting the nation. The first seven years of the GW Bush presidency increased the deficit by almost twice as much as the 32 years from JFK through GHW Bush combined.
Fact: Clinton’s administration bequeathed to President Bush a $236 billion surplus, a 10-year surplus forecast of $5.6 trillion. Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. Rich and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change.
Claiming that “conservatives have opposed deficit spending” after witnessing eight years of Bush profligacy is absolute hypocrisy. Fact: the first two fiscal years of the Obama presidency have seen unprecedented deficit decreases.
I encourage readers to turn off the right-wing Fox News lie machine and seek the truth.
I sent him an email, saying "Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter. Perhaps you could indentify two or three lies I made." No response as of yet. My response is here.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Uganda's LRA atrocities - FB Conversation
A friend posted a video regarding the ongoing problems in Uganda.
"...President Obama that 100 U.S. advisory troops have been deployed to Central Africa to help combat the LRA and remove Joseph Kony from the battlefield..."
E.J.: The LRA needs to be stopped.
Me: they need to be stopped, but why the US government?
E.J.: Why not the US government? I am not sure why you would not want to see this man stopped at any cost...
Me: Well, would you support the idea of a foreign power landing a strike team in D.C. to take out Obama?
C.H.: Obama and Joseph Kony are very different. If Obama was kidnapping children, and turning the girls into sex slaves and the boys into soldiers who are forced to kill their families, then yes, I would want to see that happen. The things that Kony has done are down right evil.
C.H.: Plus, the country of Uganda has been asking for help with this for years. We are not talking about political figures. They are there to help stop a rebel army.
Me: So you would support a foreign strike team if Obama was evil enough?
C.H.: If he had been terrorizing us for decades, commiting war crimes against the citizens of our country, and was fighting against our own military, then yes. Truly, it's an absurd argument, because like I said, there is no comparison between Obama and Kony. Obama is an elected official, who is doing the job he was brought into office for. Kony is a war criminal that the country of Uganda has been trying to stop for over twenty years. And, we aren't just going in there on our own as some foreign strike team. The Ugandan government asked for our assistance. And, just this last year, a petition went around the US asking our government to give Uganda the aid they needed in this matter. So, this has been supported by citizens of both countries.
C.H.: And, it's not a matter of revenge. Trust me, if there was a better solution, I would be happy for it. But the LRA has to be stopped. An entire generation in parts of Africa has grown up living in fear of their brutality.
Me: Judging by your response, you are hardly in a position to judge absurdity. You just told me that you support the idea of a foreign force assassinating an American president on our soil.
I don't trust you, I don't know you. But I am absolutely sure that there is a better solution than to put Americans into a fight that isn't ours, fighting an intractable problem.
C.H.: Wow, that is not what I meant at all. I am sorry you took it that way. I was simply trying to show a scenario that would make it possible to compare the two. That is why I said it was absurd. Because you can't really compare the two. I was just referring to the fact that Obama is our president, and Kony is not an elected official. Obama could not actually do the things I said and still be president. I definitely do not want to see any harm come to our president.
You have every right to feel that way about the soldiers being there. If you have a better solution, I would honestly love to hear it. This atrocity has been going on for decades, and it has to stop somehow.
If it makes you feel any better, the one-hundred soldiers who were put on the ground are supposed to be there in an advisory capacity, not to actually fight. I hope that really is the case. I don't want to see any of our soldiers put in harms way if they don't have to be.
Me: This is the problem. It all depends on what kind of scenario we speculate upon. Obama himself is not the subject, he is simply a convenient Important American Figure. Insert your own character in the scenario and ask if it would be appropriate or desirable for a foreign force, even one invited by our authorities, to come and kill that person? For example, would it be desirable to invite the Russians to come in and kill Jeffrey Dahmer, or the masterminds of the WTC attack?
The point is, when the scenario playing out in Uganda is compared to a similar situation in the US, suddenly it doesn't seem so agreeable, does it?
We sent advisors to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea. We have a demonstrated history of intervening in the affairs of other nations with uniformly disasterous results. We always have a noble cause as an excuse. There is always some atrocity or evil tyrant to stop. What makes you think that the US will limit its involvement to these 100 "advisors?" What makes you think that we will be able fix a situation that has been going on for decades?
My solution is that the US government should mind its own business and stay out of the affairs of other nations.
C.H.: I absolutely agree that we can't be policing the world. Personally, I think it is right to step in and help in a limited capacity if our allies ask for it, but that is just my opinion. There really is nothing in our country that can compare to what the LRA has done and is doing, and I would like to think that if there was, that our allies would help us when asked.
"...President Obama that 100 U.S. advisory troops have been deployed to Central Africa to help combat the LRA and remove Joseph Kony from the battlefield..."
E.J.: The LRA needs to be stopped.
Me: they need to be stopped, but why the US government?
E.J.: Why not the US government? I am not sure why you would not want to see this man stopped at any cost...
Me: Well, would you support the idea of a foreign power landing a strike team in D.C. to take out Obama?
C.H.: Obama and Joseph Kony are very different. If Obama was kidnapping children, and turning the girls into sex slaves and the boys into soldiers who are forced to kill their families, then yes, I would want to see that happen. The things that Kony has done are down right evil.
C.H.: Plus, the country of Uganda has been asking for help with this for years. We are not talking about political figures. They are there to help stop a rebel army.
Me: So you would support a foreign strike team if Obama was evil enough?
C.H.: If he had been terrorizing us for decades, commiting war crimes against the citizens of our country, and was fighting against our own military, then yes. Truly, it's an absurd argument, because like I said, there is no comparison between Obama and Kony. Obama is an elected official, who is doing the job he was brought into office for. Kony is a war criminal that the country of Uganda has been trying to stop for over twenty years. And, we aren't just going in there on our own as some foreign strike team. The Ugandan government asked for our assistance. And, just this last year, a petition went around the US asking our government to give Uganda the aid they needed in this matter. So, this has been supported by citizens of both countries.
C.H.: And, it's not a matter of revenge. Trust me, if there was a better solution, I would be happy for it. But the LRA has to be stopped. An entire generation in parts of Africa has grown up living in fear of their brutality.
Me: Judging by your response, you are hardly in a position to judge absurdity. You just told me that you support the idea of a foreign force assassinating an American president on our soil.
I don't trust you, I don't know you. But I am absolutely sure that there is a better solution than to put Americans into a fight that isn't ours, fighting an intractable problem.
C.H.: Wow, that is not what I meant at all. I am sorry you took it that way. I was simply trying to show a scenario that would make it possible to compare the two. That is why I said it was absurd. Because you can't really compare the two. I was just referring to the fact that Obama is our president, and Kony is not an elected official. Obama could not actually do the things I said and still be president. I definitely do not want to see any harm come to our president.
You have every right to feel that way about the soldiers being there. If you have a better solution, I would honestly love to hear it. This atrocity has been going on for decades, and it has to stop somehow.
If it makes you feel any better, the one-hundred soldiers who were put on the ground are supposed to be there in an advisory capacity, not to actually fight. I hope that really is the case. I don't want to see any of our soldiers put in harms way if they don't have to be.
Me: This is the problem. It all depends on what kind of scenario we speculate upon. Obama himself is not the subject, he is simply a convenient Important American Figure. Insert your own character in the scenario and ask if it would be appropriate or desirable for a foreign force, even one invited by our authorities, to come and kill that person? For example, would it be desirable to invite the Russians to come in and kill Jeffrey Dahmer, or the masterminds of the WTC attack?
The point is, when the scenario playing out in Uganda is compared to a similar situation in the US, suddenly it doesn't seem so agreeable, does it?
We sent advisors to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea. We have a demonstrated history of intervening in the affairs of other nations with uniformly disasterous results. We always have a noble cause as an excuse. There is always some atrocity or evil tyrant to stop. What makes you think that the US will limit its involvement to these 100 "advisors?" What makes you think that we will be able fix a situation that has been going on for decades?
My solution is that the US government should mind its own business and stay out of the affairs of other nations.
C.H.: I absolutely agree that we can't be policing the world. Personally, I think it is right to step in and help in a limited capacity if our allies ask for it, but that is just my opinion. There really is nothing in our country that can compare to what the LRA has done and is doing, and I would like to think that if there was, that our allies would help us when asked.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Name calling for me but not thee - FB conversation
Dennis Prager wrote an interesting article that made a few assertions about atheists: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=359933&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150504192403776_22450260_10150504899303776&ref=notif¬if_t=open_graph_comment
Someone made this comment:
"More straw men. Liberals are not necessarily atheists,nor are they in any way "anti-family" ,nor do they think that there is no such thing as right and wrong and that anything should be permissible ,etc.
But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious. They think that they and they alone will go to "heaven" and that all those who do not share their rigid and irrational beliefs are doomed to "hell". Their bigotry toward gay people is despicable.
Their relentless Bible-thumping and arrogance is disgusting."
I replied, quoting him: 'But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious.'
Um, straw man, meet irony.
He replied: SOME liberals and some Christians and some of anything are DISGUSTING...that's not the point.
My rejoinder: 'Tend to be' has now become 'some.' Feel free to backtrack as far as you like.
So, do you HAVE a point besides engaging in the same gratuitous stereotyping that so offends you?
And he responds: Wait a minute, LIBERALS aren't nec anything except, probably GOOD things, and CAN lie, cheat and steal in the name of the CAUSE.
And then this: When neither side is perfect, I can still chose which one is less dangerous.
Me: "Tend to be." "Some." And now, "neither side is perfect." Let's keep those goal posts moving...
Someone made this comment:
"More straw men. Liberals are not necessarily atheists,nor are they in any way "anti-family" ,nor do they think that there is no such thing as right and wrong and that anything should be permissible ,etc.
But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious. They think that they and they alone will go to "heaven" and that all those who do not share their rigid and irrational beliefs are doomed to "hell". Their bigotry toward gay people is despicable.
Their relentless Bible-thumping and arrogance is disgusting."
I replied, quoting him: 'But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious.'
Um, straw man, meet irony.
He replied: SOME liberals and some Christians and some of anything are DISGUSTING...that's not the point.
My rejoinder: 'Tend to be' has now become 'some.' Feel free to backtrack as far as you like.
So, do you HAVE a point besides engaging in the same gratuitous stereotyping that so offends you?
And he responds: Wait a minute, LIBERALS aren't nec anything except, probably GOOD things, and CAN lie, cheat and steal in the name of the CAUSE.
And then this: When neither side is perfect, I can still chose which one is less dangerous.
Me: "Tend to be." "Some." And now, "neither side is perfect." Let's keep those goal posts moving...
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Editorial, Baucus on the deficits
Senator Baucus recently sent out an email touting his appointment to what he called the “debt reduction committee,” officially known as “Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.” Here are some excerpts:
"…I'm working with my colleagues to come up with a plan to cut our nation's debt."
Excellent. It’s an issue conservatives have been hammering for decades. But let’s define some terms. The deficit is the yearly budget shortfall, while the national debt is the total of all deficits. Senator Baucus, as you will see, conflates the two.
His email included a deficit projection, which shows an immediate large reduction in the deficit, then continuing smaller deficits over the next 10 years. He explains: "...we've already taken major steps out of [the recent large deficits]… the leveling out we see over the next ten years is because of the Budget Control Act we passed in July."
The Senator is certainly proud of that budget deal, but it was vociferously opposed by the political left, accompanied by their routinely hyperbolic rhetoric about children starving and people dying. I suppose it’s racist and homophobic as well. And lest we forget, conservatives and the TEA party also opposed the deal because it continues to furiously add to the national debt.
By the Senator's own admission, there will be deficits for the forseeable future. Unfortunately, these continuing deficits mean the national debt will INCREASE.
Deficits must be eliminated and a surplus achieved to reduce the debt. Remember, that is his stated goal.
"...the 90's we were a time of surplus. Our budget was balanced with money to spare. And we were not adding to the total debt."
This persistent myth about the Clinton “surplus” is contradicted by the government's own website: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm. A quick review reveals the national debt increased all through the 90s.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Fewer bank choices - FB conversation
S.B. posted a link to this chart:
S.B.: interesting graphic showing the concentration of financial power into fewer and fewer banks. Certainly THIS can't be good for innovation in the economy or even just the financial sector?
J.L.: *yoink* I knew cats were evil
B.R.: Excellent graphic, it really adds perspective to the argument for deregulating the financial sector. If competition inspires innovation, it's probably best having those four entities as the only ones competing, they have a proven track record of putting American's best interests first. Let's fix this economy with new jobs! More jobs! More money! Buy stuff you can't afford! Hurray for usur...I mean credit!
L.B.: Two words: credit union.
Me: Hmmm, I wonder how many of these got bailed out...
Me: By the way, Travelers is no longer a part of CITI group, been that way for years.
R.B.: Granted I think this source is kind of dated, the following biggest banks from here were bailed out:
Citi Bank - $25 bil
Wells Fargo - $25 bil
JP Morgan - 25 bil (has since paid back the loan)
Bank of America - $15 bil (has since paid back the loan)
Me: So we can conclude, then, that these four banks are hand-picked by the government?
P.H.:handpicked by the government? Uh, yeah...NO. Not even close.
Me: What else is a bailout? Some institutions are deemed worthy of government largess, others not. And now we are left with the four winners picked by government, enhanced at taxpayer expense, which are now poised to really begin taking advantage of us.
By the way, do you have anything like a rebuttal available? Or is it capitalism's fault somehow? Your rudimentary denial brings no value to the conversation.
P.H.: Neither are your comments
Me: No one asked you to read them. Typical leftist.
P.H.: You're right! (Yawn) time to turn the channel...
S.B.: interesting graphic showing the concentration of financial power into fewer and fewer banks. Certainly THIS can't be good for innovation in the economy or even just the financial sector?
J.L.: *yoink* I knew cats were evil
B.R.: Excellent graphic, it really adds perspective to the argument for deregulating the financial sector. If competition inspires innovation, it's probably best having those four entities as the only ones competing, they have a proven track record of putting American's best interests first. Let's fix this economy with new jobs! More jobs! More money! Buy stuff you can't afford! Hurray for usur...I mean credit!
L.B.: Two words: credit union.
Me: Hmmm, I wonder how many of these got bailed out...
Me: By the way, Travelers is no longer a part of CITI group, been that way for years.
R.B.: Granted I think this source is kind of dated, the following biggest banks from here were bailed out:
Citi Bank - $25 bil
Wells Fargo - $25 bil
JP Morgan - 25 bil (has since paid back the loan)
Bank of America - $15 bil (has since paid back the loan)
Me: So we can conclude, then, that these four banks are hand-picked by the government?
P.H.:handpicked by the government? Uh, yeah...NO. Not even close.
Me: What else is a bailout? Some institutions are deemed worthy of government largess, others not. And now we are left with the four winners picked by government, enhanced at taxpayer expense, which are now poised to really begin taking advantage of us.
By the way, do you have anything like a rebuttal available? Or is it capitalism's fault somehow? Your rudimentary denial brings no value to the conversation.
P.H.: Neither are your comments
Me: No one asked you to read them. Typical leftist.
P.H.: You're right! (Yawn) time to turn the channel...
My final score
As I mentioned before, I intentionally failed every question. They still want me to have the sticker and be a good little scientist. No thanks.
So I took the quiz.
I took the quiz and purposely tried to get every one wrong in order to see the responses. It is formatted as a series of quotes and responses:
Quote #1 "If you have one volcano in the world, that one volcano puts out more carbon dioxide than everything that man puts out. I don't think [global warming is] a farce, but I think temperatures go up and I think temperatures go down."
Nope, that's not science!
That was three-time U.S. senate candidate John Raese from West Virginia incorrectly asserting that volcanoes today produce more carbon dioxide than humans. When you compare natural factors that affect the climate — such as solar variation and volcanic eruptions — with human activities that affect the climate, scientists have found time and again that humans have been a major contributor to climate change over the last 50 years. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey found that volcanic carbon dioxide emissions were less than 1 percent when compared to the global emissions released from the burning of fossil fuels.
Quote #2 "I'm not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring."
Unfortunately, it's true.
This was Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, confirming that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activity. He went on to add "If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we'd listen to them."
Quote #3 "This year, we witnessed weather disaster after weather disaster. There have been massive floods, fire, droughts, and heat waves. Yet earlier this year the House passed a bill that repealed EPA's scientific finding that climate change is occurring."
Unfortunately, it's true.
That was Representative Henry Waxman from California, commenting on the number of extreme weather events we've seen recently across the United States. Powerful rain and snow storms and intense drought periods are well-documented consequence of a global warming.
Quote #4 "The EPA has been implementing regulations to force utilities to reduce emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and mercury even though the current emissions are not causing air-quality or public-health problems anywhere in America."
Nope, that's not science.
That was Steven Milloy, Fox News commentator and founder of the website junkscience.com, incorrectly stating in an op-ed in the Washington Times that there have been no health impacts from global warming emissions. In fact, recent Union of Concerned Scientists analysis shows that global warming threatens public health and raises health care costs by increasing ground-level ozone — the primary component of smog, which can exacerbate lung diseases such as asthma and cause breathing difficulties even in healthy individuals.
Quote #5 The planet used to be dramatically warmer when we had dinosaurs and no people. To the best of my knowledge the dinosaurs weren't driving cars."
Uh-uh, that's not science.
That was Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives attempting to explain away the facts of human-caused global warming by talking about Earth's temperature 245 to 65 million years ago. While it's true that when dinosaurs roamed the planet, global average temperatures were much higher, it's faulty logic to assume that therefore means that the temperature increases scientists have seen in the last thousand years are not caused by human activity. Scientists have found that heat-trapping emissions from human sources over the past half-century by far outweigh emissions from natural sources.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
There are no anti-intellectual democrats? FB conversation
S.B.: this was too good not to share:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov..
A.E.: Don't you think it's kind of funny how neoconservatives dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as unpatriotic and anti-American? Intellectually, this is a fallacy. And yet "intellectualism" is employed here in precisely the same way.
S.B.: can you seriously deny that there is a strong anti-intellectual tendency in much of the rhetoric coming out of the political right? Bachman and Perry, in particular, make statements that are anti-intellectual, anti-science, all in the name of a sort of faux populism that seems to be their homage to Reagan.
I think it's a pretty lousy (and, coming from you, lazy) analogy.
B.B.: Maybe A.E. had an HPV vaccination. *ducks and runs very quickly away*
Me: can't wait for the obligatory shot at religion, fox news, and limbaugh...
S.B.: I try not to take shots at religion, Rich. I'm not religious myself, but I don't have a problem with people who are. On the other hand -- Fox and Limbaugh -- I think they're fair game in any discussion of the anti-intellectual movement....
There are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent and well studied conservatives in this country and always have been. So it's not like conservatism NEEDS to be go in that direction. But I think any honest examination of the political rhetoric of the mainstream political candidates will support the idea that there's an anti-intellectual bent to it.
H.C.: Saying FOX, Limbaugh, AND intellectual in the same sentence is just wrong...
Me: the reflexive repetition of bumper sticker slogans by the left is anti-intellectual. Does anyone really think "faux" is in any way clever?
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov..
A.E.: Don't you think it's kind of funny how neoconservatives dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as unpatriotic and anti-American? Intellectually, this is a fallacy. And yet "intellectualism" is employed here in precisely the same way.
S.B.: can you seriously deny that there is a strong anti-intellectual tendency in much of the rhetoric coming out of the political right? Bachman and Perry, in particular, make statements that are anti-intellectual, anti-science, all in the name of a sort of faux populism that seems to be their homage to Reagan.
I think it's a pretty lousy (and, coming from you, lazy) analogy.
B.B.: Maybe A.E. had an HPV vaccination. *ducks and runs very quickly away*
Me: can't wait for the obligatory shot at religion, fox news, and limbaugh...
S.B.: I try not to take shots at religion, Rich. I'm not religious myself, but I don't have a problem with people who are. On the other hand -- Fox and Limbaugh -- I think they're fair game in any discussion of the anti-intellectual movement....
There are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent and well studied conservatives in this country and always have been. So it's not like conservatism NEEDS to be go in that direction. But I think any honest examination of the political rhetoric of the mainstream political candidates will support the idea that there's an anti-intellectual bent to it.
H.C.: Saying FOX, Limbaugh, AND intellectual in the same sentence is just wrong...
Me: the reflexive repetition of bumper sticker slogans by the left is anti-intellectual. Does anyone really think "faux" is in any way clever?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Prayer with confidence
This, then, is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
Matt. 6:9-13
I noticed for the first time a forcefulness in what we are commanded to pray. We aren't instructed to beg. Hallowed, give us, forgive us, lead us not, deliver us. These are all direct statements. There is no groveling, no "please please please." There is no deference, no "if it is your will, God."
This identifies a problem with the way we sometimes view ourselves in relation to God. We don't realize who God has made us. We are sons of the living God, we have an inheritance, a destiny, a position that God has elevated us to, we are now partakers of the Kingdom.
We are not beggars. There is no command to plead with God. We come boldly before the Throne because we are entitled to be there by the blood of Christ. Our hearts are no longer wicked. We no longer have the stain of sin. We are new creations, made in the image of Christ, recipents of every promise of God.
Our prayers, when done in accordance with God's Word, are no longer namby-pamby requests, they are reaffirmations of what God has already said. They are declarations to the heavenlies of the truth, of reality, of holy principles.
This is not to say that we arrogantly strut around proclaiming our blessing, favor, or prosperity. There is a difference between agreeing with God and presumption.
Grace, often defined as the "undeserved favor of God," should be redefined as the "deserved favor of those who are co-heirs in Christ." It's time we balanced the fear of the Lord with an embrace of our sonship. We need both.
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
Matt. 6:9-13
I noticed for the first time a forcefulness in what we are commanded to pray. We aren't instructed to beg. Hallowed, give us, forgive us, lead us not, deliver us. These are all direct statements. There is no groveling, no "please please please." There is no deference, no "if it is your will, God."
This identifies a problem with the way we sometimes view ourselves in relation to God. We don't realize who God has made us. We are sons of the living God, we have an inheritance, a destiny, a position that God has elevated us to, we are now partakers of the Kingdom.
We are not beggars. There is no command to plead with God. We come boldly before the Throne because we are entitled to be there by the blood of Christ. Our hearts are no longer wicked. We no longer have the stain of sin. We are new creations, made in the image of Christ, recipents of every promise of God.
Our prayers, when done in accordance with God's Word, are no longer namby-pamby requests, they are reaffirmations of what God has already said. They are declarations to the heavenlies of the truth, of reality, of holy principles.
This is not to say that we arrogantly strut around proclaiming our blessing, favor, or prosperity. There is a difference between agreeing with God and presumption.
Grace, often defined as the "undeserved favor of God," should be redefined as the "deserved favor of those who are co-heirs in Christ." It's time we balanced the fear of the Lord with an embrace of our sonship. We need both.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The poor: FB conversation
R.W. posted: The TRUTH about the poor in this country.
What You Don't Know About Poverty in America. In his address to the joint session of Congress last week, President Barack Obama called for $477 billion in new federal spending, which he said would give hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people hope and dignity while giving their low-income parents “ladders out of poverty.”
A.F.: Having been one of the poor people this article talks about I find it very offensive and misleading. Did you read the full report that it takes it's facts from?
R.W.: The facts come from the census. I have not read the full census. It does not change the facts. What we think of ad poor does not always mean homeless and starving. At least not in this country.
A.F.: You're right, it doesn't always mean homeless and starving. But often times it means being one paycheck away from that. Just because a person has a TV does not mean they're living the high life. No where in the data does it say how much these people had paid for any of these items. Maybe their TV is 20 years old and cost $10? All I can say is it is a life I would not want to go back to and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
J.J.: How poor do we have to be before we help, professor? Somalia poor? Mexico poor? Starving baby with flies around the eyes poor? Because they have a car they are fine? Is that it? I wish you would have resisted posting this. (by the way, that heritage report also calculates that most poor people have a refrigerator for food. Those lazy bastards.)
What You Don't Know About Poverty in America. In his address to the joint session of Congress last week, President Barack Obama called for $477 billion in new federal spending, which he said would give hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people hope and dignity while giving their low-income parents “ladders out of poverty.”
A.F.: Having been one of the poor people this article talks about I find it very offensive and misleading. Did you read the full report that it takes it's facts from?
R.W.: The facts come from the census. I have not read the full census. It does not change the facts. What we think of ad poor does not always mean homeless and starving. At least not in this country.
A.F.: You're right, it doesn't always mean homeless and starving. But often times it means being one paycheck away from that. Just because a person has a TV does not mean they're living the high life. No where in the data does it say how much these people had paid for any of these items. Maybe their TV is 20 years old and cost $10? All I can say is it is a life I would not want to go back to and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
J.J.: How poor do we have to be before we help, professor? Somalia poor? Mexico poor? Starving baby with flies around the eyes poor? Because they have a car they are fine? Is that it? I wish you would have resisted posting this. (by the way, that heritage report also calculates that most poor people have a refrigerator for food. Those lazy bastards.)
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Editorial, my rants
I just gotta rant: Why can’t manhole covers be located where we don’t drive on them? Why are you so willing for government to dictate what is beautiful, moral, or good for you? From the color of your house to what foods you can eat, what’s so great about government running your life?
A recent Chronicle article presented a teacher who was teaching his students about the Constitution. Good. But the result was the students imposed a bunch of rules on themselves. Had the Constitution been accurately portrayed, however, the students would have imposed rules on the teacher.
Stop criticizing President Obama for non-political issues. Yes, it’s an easy trap to fall into, and I know you want him treated the way Bush is treated, but that’s no excuse. Bad behavior does not justify bad behavior.
Valley Center Road was the recipient of $4 million in stimulus funds. After two years, it’s now wider and smoother. A typical government enterprise, it has sidewalks next to farmers’ fields and no center turn lane.
My detractors often conflate Republicans with conservatives and therefore expect me to defend Republican positions. I am not Republican. I want limited government, but I am a supposedly a hypocrite for being silent on my critics’ pet issues, despite having previously stated my positions. For the record, I am not opposed to MMJ. I oppose the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind. I am against the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and America. I do not support mandatory auto insurance.
Further, I am against government involvement in marriage, no matter what genders or species are involved. I don't care who you love or your sexual predilections. I don't care how, why, or when you have sex. I don't care what orifice you deem worthy of constitutional protection. I don't care. I. Don't. Care. Go do your thing, but leave me out of it.
Did you know that TEA partiers are racist? You haven’t heard? Well they are. You want evidence? Well, um, ahhh.
Did you know the TEA partiers are stupid? They offer no solutions. And where were they when Bush was running up the debt…
Did you know that if you criticize something you favor its opposite? Criticizing Social Security means you want seniors to starve. Questioning government solutions to global warming means you want pollution and are anti-science. If you favor tax cuts, you are racist. Advocating limited government means you are against highways and fire protection. Pro-life means anti-woman. Does this anti-intellectual crap really persuade anyone any more?
Christians, stop arguing for Christian moral values if you aren't living those values. Your complaints about government welfare ring hollow if you are not helping the poor. You have a fish symbol on your car and you speed. You divorce your spouse, belittle your kids, and give a tiny tip in a restaurant. You are a hypocrite. Do something about it.
Warren Buffet famously wants his taxes raised, yet he’s delinquent on his taxes. Dude, pay up. Pay extra if you want. Don’t take your tax write-offs. Easy.
And what about ultra-rich environmentalists like Al Gore, who has a carbon footprint as large as a small city? I'll make you a deal. When y'all start actually living like you preach, I will then listen attentively as you expound on the virtues of the IRS and the EPA.
One of my Facebook friends insists that good government is about compromise. Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans agree with Democrats. And “good government” has led us to the brink of economic disaster. I think I’ve had quite enough good government.
Can we just admit that the Streamline bus experiment is a failure? And by the way, why is it that people expect to be driven around and have others pick up their tab? It’s too bad I have a word limit, because I have a lot more complaining to do. Maybe another time…
Friday, August 19, 2011
The superiority of the conservative philosophy, editorial
It's fair to say that we choose to support various political figures because of their stated positions on issues. Their positions draw our vote, our loyalty, and even perhaps our dollars.
But I wonder, have you ever been so sure about something, so convinced that you understood it, tested it, and lived it, only to discover that it was a lie? Right up to the moment of your discovery, you operated in what you thought was the truth. You believed that this was the way the world worked, but now you are shaken.
So, if you happen to think that politicians are really telling you what they believe, that government is a problem solver for society and is doing all these wonderful and noble things, what would it take to abandon such a belief? In light of our continued economic slide, with government running out of fixes to try, and after decades of politicians promising to fix problems like poverty, racism, and hunger with little or nothing to show for all those tax dollars they spent, why are you still a believer?
We need to understand that politics is not about helping people. It is not about fixing the economy or creating jobs. Feeding the hungry is not the goal. You are being deceived. Politics is about the acquisition, accumulation, retention of power. And if “doing good” happens to coincide with the real goal of getting more power, so much the better.
What is the aim of all this power? Certainly being a politician is an almost guaranteed path to millionaire status, but that is only part of it. They want to remold society according to their vision. They believe that government ought to transform how society works. They believe that they can change the world. They want to force you to change and have you pay for it too.
We might think that they are trying to do “good.” Maybe they even think they are. But the problem is, government power is not limited to doing good. If the wrong people are elected to office, there is nothing to stop them from wielding that power in their own way. We have abandoned the mechanism, constitutional limits, that would rein in that power.
My friend and I had lunch the other day, and he asked me, "Could those who hold elective office simply refuse to step down, essentially overthrowing the government?" We discussed possibilities like imposing martial law, amending the Constitution, delaying or fixing elections, and even a military coup.
I suggested that given the apathy of the American public, a stealth takeover of government could be staged relatively easily. In fact, one could justifiably assert that various moneyed interests like unions and corporations have indeed taken over government. We don’t need to speculate about shadowy secret societies exerting influence, it’s right out in the open.
As government consolidates more and more power for itself, liberty suffers. We become servants the government, not the other way around. With a lot of money at stake, with powerful interests influencing policy, and with career politicians who are willing to do whatever it takes to retain their positions, government has become unmanageable at best, and unstoppable at worst.
This is why a powerful government is the philosophical Achilles’ heel of the political Left. I would suggest that conservative philosophy is therefore superior to liberal philosophy. The conservative wants to restrain and limit government. He distrusts the power of government, even when it might be in his favor. A limited government, when corrupted, can only do limited damage. It is much easier to correct. A limited government has minimal impact on peoples' lives. A limited government cannot steer taxpayer money to special interests.
Big government will turn against you. Sooner or later it does to everyone. That’s why it should be limited.
But I wonder, have you ever been so sure about something, so convinced that you understood it, tested it, and lived it, only to discover that it was a lie? Right up to the moment of your discovery, you operated in what you thought was the truth. You believed that this was the way the world worked, but now you are shaken.
So, if you happen to think that politicians are really telling you what they believe, that government is a problem solver for society and is doing all these wonderful and noble things, what would it take to abandon such a belief? In light of our continued economic slide, with government running out of fixes to try, and after decades of politicians promising to fix problems like poverty, racism, and hunger with little or nothing to show for all those tax dollars they spent, why are you still a believer?
We need to understand that politics is not about helping people. It is not about fixing the economy or creating jobs. Feeding the hungry is not the goal. You are being deceived. Politics is about the acquisition, accumulation, retention of power. And if “doing good” happens to coincide with the real goal of getting more power, so much the better.
What is the aim of all this power? Certainly being a politician is an almost guaranteed path to millionaire status, but that is only part of it. They want to remold society according to their vision. They believe that government ought to transform how society works. They believe that they can change the world. They want to force you to change and have you pay for it too.
We might think that they are trying to do “good.” Maybe they even think they are. But the problem is, government power is not limited to doing good. If the wrong people are elected to office, there is nothing to stop them from wielding that power in their own way. We have abandoned the mechanism, constitutional limits, that would rein in that power.
My friend and I had lunch the other day, and he asked me, "Could those who hold elective office simply refuse to step down, essentially overthrowing the government?" We discussed possibilities like imposing martial law, amending the Constitution, delaying or fixing elections, and even a military coup.
I suggested that given the apathy of the American public, a stealth takeover of government could be staged relatively easily. In fact, one could justifiably assert that various moneyed interests like unions and corporations have indeed taken over government. We don’t need to speculate about shadowy secret societies exerting influence, it’s right out in the open.
As government consolidates more and more power for itself, liberty suffers. We become servants the government, not the other way around. With a lot of money at stake, with powerful interests influencing policy, and with career politicians who are willing to do whatever it takes to retain their positions, government has become unmanageable at best, and unstoppable at worst.
This is why a powerful government is the philosophical Achilles’ heel of the political Left. I would suggest that conservative philosophy is therefore superior to liberal philosophy. The conservative wants to restrain and limit government. He distrusts the power of government, even when it might be in his favor. A limited government, when corrupted, can only do limited damage. It is much easier to correct. A limited government has minimal impact on peoples' lives. A limited government cannot steer taxpayer money to special interests.
Big government will turn against you. Sooner or later it does to everyone. That’s why it should be limited.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Warren Buffet - FB conversation
S.B.: gotta love Warren Buffett. "I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said
Stop coddling the super-rich: Buffett' on Yahoo! News. (Reuters) - Billionaire Warren Buffett urged lawmakers to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.
Me: Yeah, and Pat Buchanan said that Buffet should stop posturing about tax increases for the rich and write a check for $5 billion to the government. If he wants higher taxes, there is nothing stopping him from doing something about it.
L.E.: just tired of the brou-ha-ha...
R.B.: Buffet is a communist who has never worked a day in his life.
B.S.: Too funny, Ryan. Did you actually read the article? One of the points he makes is that people who earn their money by working shouldn't be taxed more than people like him who earn their money from having money.
B.S.: Rich - then Pat Buchanan was just reporting what Buffet had already begun - promoted the idea among his close circle of billionaire friends that they give away half their net worth.
Me: Different subject. There is a cadre of billionaires talking about giving money to charity. Buchanan is talking about Buffet wanting govt to raise taxes on the wealthy.
B.L.: I agree. The working class should pay less taxes proportionatley than the mega rich.
M.D.: The middle class is much larger and thus higher taxes on it will raise a lot more revenues. The rich use their money to create jobs
S.B.: M.D., that's actually not true. If you look at the distribution of wealth (*not incomes) in this country, something like 90% of the wealth is in the hands of fewer than 5% of the people. And increasingly, that wealth is NOT being used to create jobs -- economists note that despite good profitability and record cash reserves, companies are NOT increasing hiring, instead looking to automation and other forms of productivity increases to get the work done. When jobs ARE created, they're increasingly being created overseas, for a wide variety of reasons including the fact that is where the new markets are.
If you want to increase jobs, find a way to increase real income for the middle class. That has been flat or worse for decades, and without demand, there's no point in being a supplier.
Me: It is not the purpose of wealth to create jobs. Jobs are created when there is work to be done. There is no work for 22% of the people, thanks to Bush II and III.
By the way, all that wealth is not hidden in a mattress somewhere.
S.B.: No, much of it is being invested in emerging economies, creating jobs THERE, not here.
Me: I take it you're an advocate of protectionism and closed borders?
S.B.: Not really. Just observing that it cannot be taken for granted that wealth accumulated in the us is going to be reinvested here.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Tax code and behavioral modification - Editorial
The tax code was originally intended to fund government, but has morphed into a behavioral modification program. Taxation is routinely used to target certain activities, either to discourage an activity (tobacco taxes, for example), or to encourage it (like the home mortgage deduction). Not content with simply funding government, our legislators think they know how we ought to live, and they reward or punish us based on our conformity with their values.
One way they do this it to fund certain programs or benefits with taxes that are earmarked for that specific purpose. These include campsite fees, gas taxes, tolls, car licenses, Social Security, etc. The stated intent is to make the users of a service pay for it. But I’m sure you know that the real reason government does this is to create new revenue streams while simultaneously leaving the existing revenue structure open for continued manipulation.
This is why the city of Bozeman can keep increasing water and sewer taxes while simultaneously justifying impact fees by saying they keep service costs lower for existing property owners. This makes perfect sense if you love the power government has over the people. As a bonus you get to pretend to help them as you suck money out of their pockets. Diabolical brilliance.
I have this picture of our government officials gathering around a table in the dead of night to invent new ways of prying money out of our hands. They rub their hands together and cackle at their cleverness as they create new burdens for us. “Woohoo, I have an idea. How about if we pass a law that requires everyone to pay a tax on plastic grocery bags?” “Hahahahaha, that’s good, but what about this: Why don’t we make it illegal to smoke in places where people like to come and smoke?” Snorf, chortle, guffaw.
Each new tax, every one a “worthy” cause with compassionate intent, piles on until we taxpayers reel under the burden. Under the guise of improving our lives (at least, improving it according to their priorities), government makes it harder for people to live them. And more expensive.
But the fact is, we just cannot afford this anymore. Government has been riding the crest of prosperity funded by debt, and the carnival is ending. The false prosperity of the Bush years, buoyed by gargantuan spending programs guided by a philosophy of government economic intervention that is traceable back to the New Deal, has led to this latest financial crisis. Ironically, Bush III (Obama) has been content to make no change in the Bush II approach, deepening the financial devastation.
I was guardedly optimistic that the TEA party influence would reverse the tide. I applauded as they stood firm as one bad deal after another paraded by. However, there are just not enough of them to make an impact. And unfortunately, so many caved. All told, 59 freshmen voted for the debt bill and 28 voted against it. Only a few short months and the TEA partiers are now part of the problem.
We watched an elaborate dance with much posturing and bellowing. Boehner wobbled like a tower made of jello, and the Democrats, having no plan on the table, became the party of no. But once again, in the dead of night I’m sure, they cut a sweetheart deal that benefits only government. And yet again, we will pay. Dearly. This deal will add $12 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. It raised the debt ceiling. There are no cuts, it only lowered rate of increase. Slightly.
Unfortunately, there are still so many of us still cling to this failed system. It’s like trying to squeeze just a little more toothpaste from the empty tube. But it’s time to face the truth. From the City of Bozeman to the feds in D.C., the clever manipulations of government have yielded no answers. We are out of money. It’s time to face reality.
One way they do this it to fund certain programs or benefits with taxes that are earmarked for that specific purpose. These include campsite fees, gas taxes, tolls, car licenses, Social Security, etc. The stated intent is to make the users of a service pay for it. But I’m sure you know that the real reason government does this is to create new revenue streams while simultaneously leaving the existing revenue structure open for continued manipulation.
This is why the city of Bozeman can keep increasing water and sewer taxes while simultaneously justifying impact fees by saying they keep service costs lower for existing property owners. This makes perfect sense if you love the power government has over the people. As a bonus you get to pretend to help them as you suck money out of their pockets. Diabolical brilliance.
I have this picture of our government officials gathering around a table in the dead of night to invent new ways of prying money out of our hands. They rub their hands together and cackle at their cleverness as they create new burdens for us. “Woohoo, I have an idea. How about if we pass a law that requires everyone to pay a tax on plastic grocery bags?” “Hahahahaha, that’s good, but what about this: Why don’t we make it illegal to smoke in places where people like to come and smoke?” Snorf, chortle, guffaw.
Each new tax, every one a “worthy” cause with compassionate intent, piles on until we taxpayers reel under the burden. Under the guise of improving our lives (at least, improving it according to their priorities), government makes it harder for people to live them. And more expensive.
But the fact is, we just cannot afford this anymore. Government has been riding the crest of prosperity funded by debt, and the carnival is ending. The false prosperity of the Bush years, buoyed by gargantuan spending programs guided by a philosophy of government economic intervention that is traceable back to the New Deal, has led to this latest financial crisis. Ironically, Bush III (Obama) has been content to make no change in the Bush II approach, deepening the financial devastation.
I was guardedly optimistic that the TEA party influence would reverse the tide. I applauded as they stood firm as one bad deal after another paraded by. However, there are just not enough of them to make an impact. And unfortunately, so many caved. All told, 59 freshmen voted for the debt bill and 28 voted against it. Only a few short months and the TEA partiers are now part of the problem.
We watched an elaborate dance with much posturing and bellowing. Boehner wobbled like a tower made of jello, and the Democrats, having no plan on the table, became the party of no. But once again, in the dead of night I’m sure, they cut a sweetheart deal that benefits only government. And yet again, we will pay. Dearly. This deal will add $12 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. It raised the debt ceiling. There are no cuts, it only lowered rate of increase. Slightly.
Unfortunately, there are still so many of us still cling to this failed system. It’s like trying to squeeze just a little more toothpaste from the empty tube. But it’s time to face the truth. From the City of Bozeman to the feds in D.C., the clever manipulations of government have yielded no answers. We are out of money. It’s time to face reality.
Friday, August 5, 2011
A Manifesto: The Centrality of Worship
Note: My comments specifically address musical worship. That is not the only form that worship takes, but it is my particular passion. This is directed to those who want to be worshipers, in a church that wants to be a worshiping church.
1) The High Calling
As we walk through our Christian life we probably have a number of spiritual priorities. Things like love, obedience, service, giving, and holiness, among other things. All of these are noble and worthy of pursuit. I would not diminish any of them, but I believe they all descend from one single, primary thing.
Jesus tells us the greatest commandment in Matt 22:37: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” As far as I can tell, Jesus identifies only one thing the Father is looking for. Only one. In John 4:23, He tells the Samaritan woman at the well: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." My conclusion is that there is nothing more important to God than for us to be true worshipers.
This understanding is foundational; here is our high calling. We are created to be worshipers, first and foremost! Our calling is to possess a heart and soul and mind fully occupied with celebrating the glories of God. Psalm 71:8: “My mouth is filled with your praise, declaring your splendor all day long.” I believe that this is our duty, our privilege, our pleasure.
As I read through Scripture I take note of all the mentions of singers, dancers, worshipers, musicians. I see all the pivotal moments where worship was present and powerful. I read about how the musicians were noted specially by name in Scripture. David, Israel’s singer of songs. Jubal, the father of all who play the harp and flute. The musicians Heman, Asaph and Ethan, who were cymbal players. Zechariah, Aziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Maaseiah and Benaiah, who played lyres. Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom, Jeiel and Azaziah on the harps. Kenaniah the head Levite, who was in charge of the singing; that was his responsibility because he was skillful at it. The Bible takes great pains to enumerate the worshipers and musicians. Clearly God regards musical worship as important.
So, I wonder if we are underestimating or misunderstanding the role that musical worship plays in the Kingdom of God. We seem to have a way of doing things in the church that is more based on what we have always done. But shouldn’t we be doing what God wants? If we choose anything other than God’s purpose we violate Scripture, our purpose, and the heart of God. I know these are harsh words, but permit me to make my case in the following pages. Let me also say that none of these remarks are directed at any particular person or group.
2) Worship and Relationship
God is all about relationship. After all, Christ died on the cross in order to establish relationship between God and fallen man. But salvation is not the end, it is the beginning, the beginning of a lifetime of relationship with God via His Holy Spirit. And that developing relationship with God occurs in an environment of worship.
In His presence we discover His heart. We are transformed, enabled, and instructed. We draw near to the Father in the Most Holy Place. There is no way we can be in the presence of God without being changed. The world is washed from us and our weakness fades away. Our spirits become tender to receive from Him. Christ-likeness springs from relationship with Him. We learn what to do and how to live from being with Him. We become what we are called to, because we know Him and spend time with Him and listen to Him and attend to Him.
Our relationship with the Father translates into what our human relationships ought to be. So, as we become the worshipers the Father is looking for, we become the church the Father is looking for. As we nurture our relationship with God we grow together as body. The result is we begin to see the purposes of God made known in our midst. Relationship, first with God and then with each other, will manifest in a church when worship becomes important to the church.
This suggests that worship needs to rise up in importance in our lives.
1) The High Calling
As we walk through our Christian life we probably have a number of spiritual priorities. Things like love, obedience, service, giving, and holiness, among other things. All of these are noble and worthy of pursuit. I would not diminish any of them, but I believe they all descend from one single, primary thing.
Jesus tells us the greatest commandment in Matt 22:37: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” As far as I can tell, Jesus identifies only one thing the Father is looking for. Only one. In John 4:23, He tells the Samaritan woman at the well: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." My conclusion is that there is nothing more important to God than for us to be true worshipers.
This understanding is foundational; here is our high calling. We are created to be worshipers, first and foremost! Our calling is to possess a heart and soul and mind fully occupied with celebrating the glories of God. Psalm 71:8: “My mouth is filled with your praise, declaring your splendor all day long.” I believe that this is our duty, our privilege, our pleasure.
As I read through Scripture I take note of all the mentions of singers, dancers, worshipers, musicians. I see all the pivotal moments where worship was present and powerful. I read about how the musicians were noted specially by name in Scripture. David, Israel’s singer of songs. Jubal, the father of all who play the harp and flute. The musicians Heman, Asaph and Ethan, who were cymbal players. Zechariah, Aziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Maaseiah and Benaiah, who played lyres. Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom, Jeiel and Azaziah on the harps. Kenaniah the head Levite, who was in charge of the singing; that was his responsibility because he was skillful at it. The Bible takes great pains to enumerate the worshipers and musicians. Clearly God regards musical worship as important.
So, I wonder if we are underestimating or misunderstanding the role that musical worship plays in the Kingdom of God. We seem to have a way of doing things in the church that is more based on what we have always done. But shouldn’t we be doing what God wants? If we choose anything other than God’s purpose we violate Scripture, our purpose, and the heart of God. I know these are harsh words, but permit me to make my case in the following pages. Let me also say that none of these remarks are directed at any particular person or group.
2) Worship and Relationship
God is all about relationship. After all, Christ died on the cross in order to establish relationship between God and fallen man. But salvation is not the end, it is the beginning, the beginning of a lifetime of relationship with God via His Holy Spirit. And that developing relationship with God occurs in an environment of worship.
In His presence we discover His heart. We are transformed, enabled, and instructed. We draw near to the Father in the Most Holy Place. There is no way we can be in the presence of God without being changed. The world is washed from us and our weakness fades away. Our spirits become tender to receive from Him. Christ-likeness springs from relationship with Him. We learn what to do and how to live from being with Him. We become what we are called to, because we know Him and spend time with Him and listen to Him and attend to Him.
Our relationship with the Father translates into what our human relationships ought to be. So, as we become the worshipers the Father is looking for, we become the church the Father is looking for. As we nurture our relationship with God we grow together as body. The result is we begin to see the purposes of God made known in our midst. Relationship, first with God and then with each other, will manifest in a church when worship becomes important to the church.
This suggests that worship needs to rise up in importance in our lives.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The folly of government - editorial
History is replete with the failures of those who have attempted to use the power of government to accomplish their goals. Some of them just wanted to do good. Others considered themselves to be more enlightened. Still others were interested in domination, control, or conquest.
The failures of lesser men, when entrusted with or who accumulate power, are strikingly evident. But even principled, intelligent leaders become corrupt, wielding coercive government with devastating results. That is why the Founders wisely crafted a limited government.
But our government has become nearly unlimited. Central planners want to impose their vision of society. They love government because it’s useful to implement their progressive utopia. Humming “Give Peace a Chance” to themselves, they view government as the means to achieve a social paradise where no one suffers, no one lacks, and social justice prevails.
However, society is too complex for interventionist planners. Freedom is too deeply ingrained in the human psyche. They might try to manipulate just a few variables, but the unexpected results are manifold. Society is dynamic. It shifts around government obstacles with results that always look quite different than what the planners expected. Despite the mayhem they routinely cause, they remain blindly persuaded of their ability to steer outcomes.
Our own city commissioners were apparently looking to further their own social utopia right here. Riding high on a government-on-steroids-induced economic upturn (which of course could never, ever end), commissioners passed an ill-considered law requiring developers to build affordable housing. Armed with good intentions, they decided to force developers to serve their social vision.
In essence, they attempted to make things better for some by making it worse for others. Cleverly, no tax increase was necessary to implement this little social engineering experiment. All that was needed was a law that coerced private parties to fund and implement their feel-good policy.
Yes, they were shocked when the economy tanked. “No one foresaw the economy falling off a cliff,” Commissioner Chris Mehl said. Of course not. Their assumptions are based on Keynesian economics and static equations. But somehow it was still “…a worthwhile endeavor and not all worthwhile endeavors work out,” according to Commissioner Carson Taylor. Oh, of course. There is no failure when there are good intentions.
Taylor continued, “We want people essential to our economy — police officers, teachers and other people who work in schools, city government employees — we want them to live in the city and have a path toward homeownership because it binds them to the community and they have an affinity for it.” Let's note for the record that the people who are essential to our economy are all government employees.
But beyond that, I wonder if Taylor sees the irony that many more Bozemanites are now “bound to the community?” A lot of us own what is now “affordable” housing. The commissioners’ intent was achieved, albeit not in the way they expected. Interestingly, the federal government, responsible for this economic devastation via its meddling with the economy, foiled our local government's intervention into the economy.
Amazingly, the commissioners acknowledged their folly and repealed the law. Good for them that they recognized that things weren’t working. That is unusual in government, where programs are like vampires – impossible to kill while sucking the life out of the innocent.
But rather than realizing that government interventions cause more problems than they solve, apparently what we need is the same thing, except worse: “Bozeman needs a more flexible approach to workforce housing that’s not hamstringed (sic) by the market,” Planning Director Tim McHarg said. What? He wants an affordable housing program that functions apart from market forces? How exactly would he know that housing was in fact affordable unless he looked at the market?
One could only hope that big government types would learn to not keep trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. But these kinds of people do not easily give up their power or their faith in government. They need to be retired.
The failures of lesser men, when entrusted with or who accumulate power, are strikingly evident. But even principled, intelligent leaders become corrupt, wielding coercive government with devastating results. That is why the Founders wisely crafted a limited government.
But our government has become nearly unlimited. Central planners want to impose their vision of society. They love government because it’s useful to implement their progressive utopia. Humming “Give Peace a Chance” to themselves, they view government as the means to achieve a social paradise where no one suffers, no one lacks, and social justice prevails.
However, society is too complex for interventionist planners. Freedom is too deeply ingrained in the human psyche. They might try to manipulate just a few variables, but the unexpected results are manifold. Society is dynamic. It shifts around government obstacles with results that always look quite different than what the planners expected. Despite the mayhem they routinely cause, they remain blindly persuaded of their ability to steer outcomes.
Our own city commissioners were apparently looking to further their own social utopia right here. Riding high on a government-on-steroids-induced economic upturn (which of course could never, ever end), commissioners passed an ill-considered law requiring developers to build affordable housing. Armed with good intentions, they decided to force developers to serve their social vision.
In essence, they attempted to make things better for some by making it worse for others. Cleverly, no tax increase was necessary to implement this little social engineering experiment. All that was needed was a law that coerced private parties to fund and implement their feel-good policy.
Yes, they were shocked when the economy tanked. “No one foresaw the economy falling off a cliff,” Commissioner Chris Mehl said. Of course not. Their assumptions are based on Keynesian economics and static equations. But somehow it was still “…a worthwhile endeavor and not all worthwhile endeavors work out,” according to Commissioner Carson Taylor. Oh, of course. There is no failure when there are good intentions.
Taylor continued, “We want people essential to our economy — police officers, teachers and other people who work in schools, city government employees — we want them to live in the city and have a path toward homeownership because it binds them to the community and they have an affinity for it.” Let's note for the record that the people who are essential to our economy are all government employees.
But beyond that, I wonder if Taylor sees the irony that many more Bozemanites are now “bound to the community?” A lot of us own what is now “affordable” housing. The commissioners’ intent was achieved, albeit not in the way they expected. Interestingly, the federal government, responsible for this economic devastation via its meddling with the economy, foiled our local government's intervention into the economy.
Amazingly, the commissioners acknowledged their folly and repealed the law. Good for them that they recognized that things weren’t working. That is unusual in government, where programs are like vampires – impossible to kill while sucking the life out of the innocent.
But rather than realizing that government interventions cause more problems than they solve, apparently what we need is the same thing, except worse: “Bozeman needs a more flexible approach to workforce housing that’s not hamstringed (sic) by the market,” Planning Director Tim McHarg said. What? He wants an affordable housing program that functions apart from market forces? How exactly would he know that housing was in fact affordable unless he looked at the market?
One could only hope that big government types would learn to not keep trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. But these kinds of people do not easily give up their power or their faith in government. They need to be retired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)