“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Rahm Emanuel, Nov 2008.

Like Machiavelli in “The Prince” (published in 1532) none of this is anything new, but it’s rare that someone actually says it out loud. Government creates, sustains, and basically exaggerates problems in order to implement their desired solution. i.e. To pass their particular political agenda.

Obama did it immediately after taking office, exploiting the economic crisis to pass his “recovery” plan to funnel tax dollars to his constituents. He did it again early this year to pass health care “reform”, and he’s attempting to do it today with the oil spill – using it to advance his carbon “cap and trade” and “alternative energy” agenda.

BTW – This isn’t just me bashing Obama, ALL governments do it. Obama isn’t even particularly good at it. GWB was the master.

Bush II was adept at exploiting the crisis du jour. Is there any doubt that Bush took advantage of 9/11 in order to finish off the Hussein/Bush Family Feud once and for all? There was never the slightest connection between Saddam and 9/11, but Bush – along with his lackey Colin Powell – did their best to scare the crap out of everyone to make them think Saddam was Hitler II.

How about the way Bush used 9/11 to implement his version of security – which is way closer to Hitler’s Gestapo and SS than Saddam ever dreamed of doing – called the USA PATRIOT Act?

I swear I’m not making this up – it’s official name is the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001″. Everyone knows it as the Patriot Act, and it’s has done more to strip fundamental rights rights away from Americans than anything that Bin Laden or Saddam could ever dream of doing.

Basically every single article of it that’s made it to the Supreme Court has been ruled unconstitutional. Eventually, the whole thing will be thrown out, but that takes years of court battles – and someone with the balls (and money) to challenge the law – instead of meekly doing whatever the Gestapo tell them what they are allowed to do.

Bush also used 9/11 to implement the gigantic, overblown, over-funded, mismanaged, best-example-of-big-government-gone-awry-since-LBJ’s-Great-Society, stupidity-enshrined-in-law-monstrosity-that-we-call-the “Department of Homeland Security”.

I mean really, WTF are we all doing standing in lines at airports so federal agents can be voyeurs to enable them to find and take away those fingernail files and 3.6oz tubes of toothpaste that we’re going to use to take over the plane and crash it into the Podunk State Fair?

And then there’s the $700 billion bailout of the banks (aka TARP) that Bush pushed through as he was leaving office. I could write hundreds of pages about the stupidity and ultimate uselessness of that alone.

And please don’t forget one of the most obnoxious and intrusive laws ever imposed on Americans – the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. SOX was passed in response to the Enron fiasco. AFTER Enron had already collapsed. The free market, on it’s own, without government doing a damn thing, had already corrected the problems with Arthur Andersen and other accounting firms cooking the books and basically making up numbers. The bad companies disappeared and their stockholders lost money – precisely what should have happened. No additional regulation required.

SOX reporting requirements have sucked hundreds of billions – if not trillions – from companies over the past decade. How many millions of productive workers could have – would have – been employed with that money instead?

I gotta give credit where credit is due though – Bush II (or King George II, whichever moniker you prefer) was even able to take something which was a “good thing” and turn it into a crisis. He inherited surpluses (they were fake, but no need to get into that here) “as far as the eye can see” into the future, and turned them into the largest deficits ever known in the history of man.

He did this by convincing people that the “surpluses” were simply the government taking away their hard earned wealth and squandering it. Seriously. Look up his acceptance speech when he won the nomination. He said “Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend. But they’ve got it backwards. The surplus is not the government’s money; the surplus is the people’s money.”

In the first place, there was no surplus, but more importantly, IF there had been a surplus, it should have been used to pay down the existing debt. Bush seriously thought he could cut taxes AND increase spending AND pay down the debt AND everything would be just fine. He was – and is – a world class moron.

Instead of paying down the (approximately) $5.6 trillion in debt he inherited, Bush II fricking doubled it during his term. In just 8 years, Bush II increased our debt as much as ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED!

This is so hard to comprehend that I’ll try saying it another way. During the first 212 years (from 1789 until 2001) that the US had been in existence, we accumulated about $5.6 trillion in debt. Total. The first 42 US Presidents combined spent a total of $5.6 trillion more than they collected via taxes. Got it?

Now Bush II becomes President. Starting with $5.6 trillion in debt. With his budget for 2009, he left us over $11 trillion in debt. I can spend money, but DAMN, that boy was good! Even a drunken sailor has to stop when he runs out of money. Bush didn’t.

Can you tell that I think Bush II was (and still is) the Worst. President. Ever? He even beats Carter who previously held that title in my opinion. (Hmmm… I may have to rethink this. Carter couldn’t even successfully exploit the numerous crisis he had (oil embargo, Iranian Hostage, giant swamp rabbit, etc), so it’s conceivable that he was even dumber than Bush…. I need to ponder this at length sometime.)

Anyway, Obama isn’t doing anything that previous Presidents haven’t done as well, but that doesn’t mean I like it. Just because your predecessor sucked, and you happen to (in the immortal words of a team member) “suck less” doesn’t mean I like it. It doesn’t mean I think you’re doing a good job either.

Just because I think Obama “sucks less” than Bush II doesn’t mean I agree with his policies. As with Bush II, I can name a dozen areas where I disagree with Obama. And Obama obviously learned from Bush – he isn’t going to to let a crisis go to waste. Betcha thought I’d never get back to that point, but I did.

So he’s going to use the Gulf Oil Spill crisis to impose restrictions on drilling, and oil companies, and to impose new taxes to “punish” those responsible, and whatever else he thinks he can get away with to advance his agenda.

While I totally support “alternative energy” I do not agree with his agenda. I am a HUGE proponent of wind and solar power, and I would cover my south facing roof with solar panels and put a wind turbine in my backyard tomorrow morning – IF it made economic sense to do so. It does not.

The ONLY way it could possibly make economic sense (to individuals like me) at this point in time would be to tax the hell out of traditional power sources. Which is stupid. If I actually need to explain WHY that would be stupid, then you are too stupid to understand it.

Seriously. Read a Econ 101 textbook (or better yet, read Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson” (http://jim.com/econ/chap01p1.html) particularly “The Lesson Applied”) then ask me to explain it if you still don’t get it.

When alternative energy sources become economically viable – either by the price of them dropping or by the price of traditional sources rising via free market forces – I won’t be the only one buying and using them. Everyone will want a “cheap energy thingy” in/on their house. And they’ll have one.

Just as petroleum based kerosene displaced whale oil as fuel for lights, and gasoline beat out electric and steam powered automobiles in the early 1900’s, when “alternative” energy costs drop below the cost of fossil fuels, everyone will use it. No government interference, regulation, increased taxes, “cap and trade”, or whatever else they what to call it is required to make that happen.

Leave the market alone (no subsidies for anyone – oil companies or ethanol producers or corn growers or solar panel factories or wind turbine generator manufacturer’s or biomass methane producers or hydro wave action scheme of the day, etc.) and everyone will do what makes cents (I know it’s a bad pun, but I’m bored) for them to do.

That’s what a free market does best. No government policy can change that. And crisis management – or management by crisis – will have no lasting effect. Unfortunately, we’re not doing that.

I read somewhere that “you can sway 1000 people by emotion faster than you can convince one with logic” – or words to that effect. The problem is that those thousand people can be “swayed” back to the opposite viewpoint the next day by a new demagogue. The one who you convinced with logic will stay convinced.

Hopefully, I’ve given enough examples, and used enough logic to convince the 2 people who actually read through this rant that they shouldn’t blindly agree with the proposed solution(s) to the crisis du jour.

Please think about it. Think it through. Think about the implications of the new policy. Not simply what it means today, or what feels good, or makes you feel better because you (or your proxy the government) are sticking it to “the man”, but what the new policy will actually accomplish.

There, I feel better.

Share on Facebook

Just wanted to point out a few facts that aren’t getting much coverage.  I saw these in a Yahoo news story earlier today that I had bookmarked, but when I went back to it, Yahoo had “updated” the story and removed the stuff I wanted to talk about.  But I found the stuff in a story from WGN.

A few quotes from the article:  Today, he stopped at a beach where absorbent booms and sandbags have been laid for miles to try to keep more oil from washing ashore. Hmmm….  Where did those “miles” of “absorbent booms and sandbags” to keep the oil off the shore come from?  You think the Federal government did it?  Or BP?  Be honest now…. 

“It’s a dog and pony show. What can he really do?” said Billy Ward, 53, who comes to his beach house here every weekend. It’s always a dog and pony show when any official visits any disaster area.  They can’t do anything, and they distract from the work that the people (who can do something) are doing.  But it makes for nice photo ops for the politician.

To be fair, the politician is in a no win situation.  He’s accused of being aloof and non-caring if he doesn’t show up, and people like me (and Billy Ward) point out the hypocrisy involved if he does show up.

No oil could be seen in the water during Obama’s helicopter ride from New Orleans, over Louisiana bayous, to Port Fourchon down the coast from Grand Isle. I think that bears repeating – Obama took a helicopter ride from New Orleans, down the coast in order to see the damage.  He found none.  Zero.  “No oil could be seen”.

Go ahead, look up Port Fourchon LA on a map.  Look up Grand Isle LA.  Look at the amount of coastline and water that Obama flew over attempting to see oil washed up and polluting the beaches.  Damn.  Couldn’t find any.  (Maybe, just maybe, this isn’t as big of a disaster as some media outlets are making it out to be.)

That changed when he arrived at Fourchon Beach, however. A shirt-sleeved Obama walked to the water’s edge, stooping as Adm. Thad Allen of the Coast Guard explained what he was seeing.

The beach, sealed off with crime-scene-style yellow tape, is one of the few sandy stretches on Louisiana’s coast, where most is marshland. Obama called reporters traveling with him to the water’s edge and picked up a few pebble-sized tar balls. No other oil was visible. Again, I think it’s important to point this out -mainly because it seems to be hard to find oil on the LA coast.  I could be wrong about this, but assuming Obama was looking for a photo op and this was the best he could do, I think we’re in pretty damn good shape so far.

It’s also important to note that “tar balls” wash up on beaches all the time from oil that oozes naturally from the floor of the gulf.  When they found some on FL beaches last week, everybody freaked.  But when it turned out that the tar balls couldn’t be blamed on BP the frenzy quickly faded away and it stopped being news.  Morons.  A tar ball is a tar ball.  Why would one be ok but another be a disaster?

“These are the tarballs that they’re talking about,” he said. “You can actually send out teams to pick up as they wash on shore.” So send em out!  WTF are you doing?  If it’s that easy to clean up, station people on the beaches and clean it up.

More from the story: Early in the morning in advance of the president’s arrival, hundreds of workers clad in white jump suits and rubber gloves hit the beaches to dig oily debris from the sand and haul it off. Workers refused to say who hired them, telling a reporter only they were told to keep quiet or lose their jobs. Sounds like someone is cleaning up the oil.  Maybe BP?  It also sounds like where Obama was going to visit was a poorly kept secret, and that perhaps someone decided to clean it before he got there to keep from being embarrassed.  But if a beach can be cleaned in one morning, there obviously wasn’t much there to begin with.

I do not want to diminish the impact of this spill.  It’s obviously not a good thing, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.  On the other hand, I’ve seen blogs and comments on news stories where they basically say that BP could have stopped this a long time ago, but they didn’t want to have to seal the well because they wanted to be able to get that oil.  That’s simply BS.   If they could have shut down the well at once they would have done so.   Does anyone honestly think BP wants this publicity?  Maybe leftist conspiracy nuts would go there, but as a Libertarian nut, I won’t. 

gk

Share on Facebook

This is something I posted on Facebook a few months ago.  Decided it belonged here as well.  Hope you enjoy it!

As I was watching a documentary “Decisions that shook the world” about Ronald Reagan last night, I just had to make a comment about it because the documentary did a good job of capturing the mood of the late 70’s early 80’s.

I’ll try to capture some of it here for those of you who don’t remember. Jimmy Carter was President. He was quite possibly the most inept President ever. Even worse than Bush I. Maybe even worse than Bush II. For example, there was a revolution in Iran and a bunch of students took over the American Embassy late in 1979.

The Iranians held 53 Americans hostage for 444 days. Carter’s response was to negotiate. When (after months and months) it was obvious to even the thick headed dufus President that negotiations weren’t working, Carter authorized a rescue mission. Due in large part to Carter’s interference and general ineptitude in military matters (even though Carter was a former submariner) the rescue mission failed miserably.

I’m too lazy to look it up right now, but I know the US only sent like 6 or 8 helicopters and 2 or 3 or them crashed on the way. None of them even made it to the embassy before turning around. It was a PR (and military) disaster.

Another item – the Soviets had invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Carter’s response was to boycott the 1980 Olympics being held in Moscow. That really taught those commie bastards a lesson….

Another – Communists took over El Salvador sometime late in Carter’s term. His response was nothing.

Another – The Sandanista’s (Communists) took over Nicaragua about the same time. Carter again did nothing. In the post Vietnam era, Carter wasn’t about to do a damn thing with the military. He was “born again” (hey, like Bushie II – maybe that should tell us something?) and everyone assumed he meant well, but he truly sucked as a President.

Oil embargo – Carter’s response was to wear a sweater and order the heat to be turned down in th White House.

Inflation at 12% and 13% and unemployment at 7% and interest rates over 20%. The economy was so bad new terms were being invented to describe how bad it was. Terms like STAGFLATION and MISERY INDEX.

With very few exceptions, everyone in the world was convinced that America was done. The cold war was over and the Russians had won. After all, we had lost Vietnam, Communists/right wing dictators – I paint with a broad brush, both are totalitarian – were taking over Central and South America, Japan was buying up American real estate and businesses, Americans waited in gas lines to buy gas (even numbered days only if your license plate was an even number and vice versa), and drugs…

Crap, if you were a teenager from 1977 through 1980 (I turned 16 in 1978) and you say you didn’t do drugs, you’re almost certainly a liar. I was in a small town, Bonnots Mill, MO, population about 70, and pot was everywhere. If it was available there, it was available everywhere. Seriously. Something like 1/3 of all military personnel admitted to using drugs on a regular basis.

Carter’s response was to make a speech saying (I remember this distinctly) “we need to stop cursing and start praying” and (I don’t remember the exact words) “we will limit energy use” and/or “we will ration gas” and/or “we will turn down our thermostats, wear sweaters, join carpools, use public transportation” etc, etc, etc.

It struck me at the time as an attempt to do a Churchill-like “blood, toil, sweat, and tears”, “we will fight on the beaches”, or “this was their finest hour” type of speech. You know, shared sacrifice for the greater good and better days ahead type of speech – without ANY of the the optimism of Churchill.

It became known as the “malaise speech” or the “limits speech”. It was a speech about how America sucked, why we sucked, and how we – possibly, with a lot of sacrifice – could suck less.

Carter made it embarrassing to be an American in 1980. The Charlie Daniels Band had a hit song (In America) about America pulling together and kicking ass and Carter still managed to pull everyone down.

About this time Ronald Reagan started talking about what we could be, not what we couldn’t be. I took the time to look this up, because I wanted to capture it as he said it. Keep in mind the defeatist mood of the country at the time, as exemplified by Carter’s numerous (did he do ANYTHING right?) failures and inability to inspire and lead. Now read these lines from Reagan’s speech anouncing why he was running…. Direct quote follows….

“There are those in our land today, however, who would have us believe that the United States, like other great civilizations of the past, has reached the zenith of its power; that we are weak and fearful, reduced to bickering with each other and no longer possessed of the will to cope with our problems.”

“Much of this talk has come from leaders who claim that our problems are too difficult to handle. We are supposed to meekly accept their failures as the most which humanly can be done. They tell us we must learn to live with less, and teach our children that their lives will be less full and prosperous than ours have been; that the America of the coming years will be a place where — because of our past excesses — it will be impossible to dream and make those dreams come true.”

“I don’t believe that. And I don’t believe you do either. That is why I am seeking the presidency. I cannot and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself. Our leaders attempt to blame their failures on circumstances beyond their control, on false estimates by unknown, unidentifiable experts who rewrite modern history in an attempt to convince us our high standard of living, the result of thrift and hard work, is somehow selfish extravagance which we must renounce as we join in sharing scarcity. I don’t agree that our nation must resign itself to inevitable decline, yielding its proud position to other hands. I am totally unwilling to see this country fail in its obligation to itself and to the other free peoples of the world.”

Another part of his speech – and the main reason I think Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents. “The 10th article of the Bill of Rights is explicit in pointing out that the federal government should do only those things specifically called for in the Constitution. All others shall remain with the states or the people. We haven’t been observing that 10th article of late. The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well.”

I can’t think of a single federal law enacted under Reagan where individual citizens lost either rights or income. There is no other president since Herbert Hoover who could even remotely make that claim that I can think of right now – possibly excepting JFK. (JFK made some starts on civil rights that I don’t believe belonged at the fed level, but overall he also did a good job of leadership.)

I’m not saying they were all bad, but all others expanded the role of the feds – Reagan didn’t in any way that I recall right now. I could – quite probably even – be wrong, but no one could have done more to change the tone of the country than Reagan in the early 80’s.

We went from Carters’ “don’t do that, can’t do that, no way we can afford that, turn down the temp, stay home, we don’t wanna get involved cause we’ll lose like in Vietnam, don’t, can’t, won’t” to “you/we can, you/we will, make it happen, America can do it, we will stop aggression” etc. etc. etc…

Reagan carried (I looked this part up) 44 states in1980. Reagan inspired people. The totalitarian regimes around the world KNEW that Reagan meant what he said. It’s no coincidence that the Iranians released the hostages the same day Reagan was sworn in. Th Iranians KNEW that Reagan would have hit them with everything we had – admittedly not much in Jan of 1981, but a hell of a lot more than 6 or 8 fucking helicopters in the middle of the night. They KNEW that they would die if they didn’t release the hostages unharmed. So they did. (I had joined the Army in August 1980. I bet my dad that the hostages would be released if Reagan won – before Reagan took office. I lost that bet by a few hours)

Within a few years, Reagan could run an ad that said:
“It’s morning again in America. Today more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country’s history. With interest rates at about half the record highs of 1980, nearly 2,000 families today will buy new homes, more than at any time in the past four years. This afternoon 6,500 young men and women will be married, and with inflation at less than half of what it was just four years ago, they can look forward with confidence to the future. It’s morning again in America, and under the leadership of President Reagan, our country is prouder and stronger and better. Why would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago?”

Is it any wonder that he won with a 49 state landslide? Mondale only carried his home state of Minnesota.

Reagan turned the country around. Without him (in my opinion and many others) the Soviet Union would still be here, there’d still be a Berlin Wall, and America would be MUCH worse off than we are – and we are in bad shape right now IMHO.

Yes, Reagan screwed up. He spent way too much and he should’ve vetoed more spending. But without him, it might have been the US gone instead of the USSR. And I don’t think that’s much of an exaggeration. Spending too much money is a venial sin when viewed through that lens.

gk

Share on Facebook

Laws need to be enforced. Illegal means NOT legal. But that does not mean that LEGAL residents – even American citizens – need to carry and show proof of residency to any Tom, Dick, or Harry in Jerkwater, USA. The 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments have not been repealed as far as I know.

In particular, the 14th Amendment states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The text of the Arizona law is here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

I have read it. Twice. I don’t see anything in it that prevents Sheriff Teasle from harassing anyone he wants to mess with, for any reason, at any time. So if you appear to be Hispanic in Arizona, you better carry your papers with you. Even if your family has lived here for 150 years.

The AZ law states:
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Reconcile that statement (go ahead, read the law for yourself) with the 4th Amendment, which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I am all for States Rights – the 10th Amendment has also not been repealed. I am in favor of enforcing all legally established laws. I am also of the opinion that I don’t care what the law in Podunk, AZ says – if it conflicts with the US Constitution.

Read that 14th Amendment again. Now please explain to me how the Arizona law can possibly be Constitutional. EQUAL protection means EQUAL protection. It does not mean that any idiot “LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER” can, at his sole discretion “WITHOUT A WARRANT”…. “ARREST A PERSON” just because they don’t look like they belong in the US. That constitutes “probable cause” under this law.

I agree that illegal immigrants are illegal, and that when we discover that they are in this country illegally, we should detain them and deport them to their country of origin. Immediately or as soon as feasibly possible. But that’s not the same as passing a law saying that any law enforcement officer can stop/detain/question/arrest anyone who – in the sole opinion of the local yokel bigoted inbred law enforcement official – may possibly be in the country illegally.

Hmm…. I wonder how many of the citizens – and legislators – of Arizona carry documentation with them – at all times – showing that they are in the US legally? I don’t carry a copy of my birth certificate with me. Or my Social Security card. I don’t have a green card either.

TN has a list of acceptable documents: http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/driverlicense/dlcitizen.htm
MI has a list: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Applying_for_lic_or_ID_SOS_428_222146_7.pdf
OR has a list: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/driverid/idproof.shtml#legal_presence
AR has a list: http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

Go ahead, read through the lists of acceptable documents. Do you carry – at all times – ID’s acceptable to the local idiot law enforcement official? Remember that you need to provide two forms of ID…. I don’t. But I’m an old bald white guy who talks funny – no one would ever question my citizenship. I think. But what if I was Hispanic? ANY racist idiot official in AZ could stop me if he believes that I might be in the US illegally and arrest me. At any time. At his sole discretion. As long as he thought he had probable cause – which could mean that I acted funny, or looked Hispanic. Doesn’t matter – the local yokel can arrest, search, question, and detain me whenever he wants to. That’s not Constitutional under any reasonable definition.