Stereotypes
In trying to formulate a new label for the stereotypical liberal Democrat various letters were jumbling around the cranium..and then it hit me:
Big Government
Spend and Tax
Weak on Defense ....
hmmmm
B-G-S-P-T-W-D
THATS IT!
BIG SPIT WAD!
That this happens to connote both the relative substance and worth of their ideology, and the spit their general attitude toward anyone with an opposing view, well that's just cosmic coincidence.
From here forward Big Spit Wad will be interchangeable with liberal Democrat.
As you were.
Tea Anyone?
Proving their grasp of history sucks almost as bad as their grasp of fundamental economics the mainstream media is in a scramble to define the Tea Party Movement for us idiots here in flyover country, or to each other more likely, since they are bewildered at the hoopla and unaccustomed to seeing so many people when they look down their noses.
It never ceases to amaze however that when the furrowed brows have no clue about who or what they are talking about they are perfectly willing to assign any number of meanings, typically out of whole cloth and usually inferring something either conspiratorial or nefarious, you know to keep with the narrative that conservatives are stupid, evil, or both. It is so much easier you see, to deman and dismiss shit you make up than it is to actually , oh I don't know, challenge, or God forbid, seek to understand, an opposing view.
Dr. Zero has a lengthy and nuanced treatise you can click and scroll to the right over there, and as always John is worth the read for the sheer pleasure of reading.
On the other hand this can be blown way out of proportion with over thinking. The bottom line is people are pissed off. Newt Gingrich offered a great idea last night; instead of saying tea party say disillusioned voters, which is just a more venue appropriate way of saying pissed off.
A basic appreciation of history might give these hand wringers a clue that, as in colonial Boston, citizens today are tired of having their earnings forcefully confiscated at and for the pleasure of the ruling class. Period. It's as simple as that. Funny thing, that one really wasn't about tea at all, and neither is this one.
Another take at Big Journalism dot com pretty much says it all It's The Constitution Stupid That works for me.
The Fallacy of Fairness
What's To Fear About Big Government?
Dr Hanson weighs in here courtesy Pajmasa Media
Chicagobamanomics and Public Unions
I first started reading Michael Barone when I subscribed to U.S. News and World Report back in the 80"s. Always appreciated the succinctness of his analysis. As the years progressed he has become known both for his encyclopedic knowledge of politics and in the particular the machinations of the electoral process. You want to find out the handicap on any district or candidate Barones the guy.
His current post in the Washington Examiner is headlined Public-sector Unions Bleeding Taxpayers
I said it's a headline, not that it's news.
some interesting points:
But union membership is still growing in the public sector. Last year 37.4 percent of public-sector employees were union members. That percentage was down near zero in the 1950s. For the first time in history, a majority of union members are government employees.
Why, you may ask, is this a problem? Don't mean to insult your intelligence by belaboring the obvious but try this on for size
Public-sector unionism is a very different animal from private-sector unionism. It is not adversarial but collusive. Public-sector unions strive to elect their management, which in turn can extract money from taxpayers to increase wages and benefits -- and can promise pensions that future taxpayers will have to fund.
Really? Would the Chicagobama spoils system really be so audacious and blatant, ya think? Barone divulges some numbers resulting from the stimulus plan:
While the private sector has lost 7 million jobs, the number of public-sector jobs has risen. The number of federal government jobs has been increasing by 10,000 a month, and the percentage of federal employees earning over $100,000 has jumped to 19 percent during the recession.
As I implied, to us news junkies none of this is really, you know, news. But when somebody like Barone fleshes it out with actual numbers it becomes much more powerful and, one hopes, will alert more people. Enter the Tea Party movement.
This is a good companion piece to the Dr Zero column on privatization. The longer we let government manage anything through tax confiscation and regulatory coercion that the private sector can provide more efficiently through fair and open competition the more we delay fiscal sustainability.
A Pair of Docs On Duty
Dr. Zero provides a lesson in econ 101 here The Answer to Socialism
Special weekend reading bonus the inestimable George Will has some hopeful speculation here Charting Our Way to Solvency
I think Mr. Will also has a phd but will have to verify. h/t townhall
Double bonus, from the give credit where credit is due department, Dennis Prager, not a doctor but a radio talk show host, author, columnist and Rabbi explains why he has never been so proud of the Republican party. Gotta admit I have to agree.
What I Said to the Republican Members of Congress h/t townhall
sample: Leftism is a substitute religion. For the Left, the "health care" bill transcends politics. You are fighting people who will go down with the ship in order to transform this country to a leftist one. And an ever-expanding state is the Left's central credo.
Enjoy the Superbowl
off to whip up a batch of my famous Jambalaya, not that I'm rooting for the Saints or anything, but if had to pick a city for it's food Indianapolis, a.k.a., Indanoplace wouldn't be one of the choices..
UPDATE: Opposites Distract
No sooner do I see a headline addressing a nagging conundrum like this:
Why Are Liberals So Condescending? In the Washington Post no less. (Some assistant editor is in for a tongue lashing.)
It is followed immediately by another headline proving the point:
Blame the Childish, Ignorant American Public typical fare for Slate Magazine
The first by Associate Professor of Politics at U of VA Gerard Alexander tries to explain what has become so painfully apparent to so many. Therein I noticed echoes of my previous post BTW:
...'This worldview was on display in the popular liberal reaction to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Rather than engage in a discussion about the complexities of free speech in politics, liberals have largely argued that the decision will "open the floodgates for special interests" to influence American elections, as the president warned in his State of the Union address. In other words, it was all part of the conspiracy to support conservative candidates for their nefarious, self-serving ends.
Wish I'd've said that, oh wait a minute, I think I did...
The other is by Jacob Weisberg, Editor, Slate Magazine. You remember, the one who so sagefully pronounced in 2008 that the ONLY reason Obama could lose was racism.
Funny, I don't recall hearing anything from him on how non-racist America is since November 2008.
Seriously, is it any wonder why we talk past each other?
Abridging The Freedom of Speech
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Ten little words, seven of which are single syllable, fairly simple, and still the subject of heated political debate recently stoked by the Supreme Court. Ten words I would like to have tattooed, in reverse for mirror gazing, on the foreheads of Russ Feingold, John McCain, Barack Obama, along with the 4 dissenters.
The fallout form the recent SCOTUS decision to enforce the constitutional right to free speech has all the usual suspects making all the usual suspect claims. Those who disagree with the courts decision, who I like to call free speech opponents, are renewing their fear mongering that there will a tsunami of money flowing into politics corrupting the system. To which a casual observer might ask, and that would be different how? These same folks already whine about too much money in politics, a specious claim at best since, according to George Will, who I am loathe to second-guess, advises that the amount of money spent on the last, most expensive general election ever, is roughly equal to that of what Americans spend on potato chips per year. Snack on that.
It’s not about the amount, it’s about the transparency. I find no inconsistency with the right to free speech in a law that would require full disclosure of every penny donated to every candidate. The web offers the perfect tool for such transparency and a free and open society, as ours is alleged to be, should embrace the opportunity to shed light on the deepest, arguably darkest corners of our political process. Divulge how much, to whom, from whom, and let the voters figure out whether it's kosher or not. But instead we get statist political careerists, but I repeat myself, promising to design new routes around the ruling and retrofit speech controls back into law. So much for that oath of office thing. Opponents of the first amendment, like their counterparts on the second amendment, are always about limiting someone else's rights and never about enforcing the plain text.
There are a couple of other curiosities about the debate. First, the predictable changing of the subject. Somehow the ruling has been reduced/transformed from an enforcement of the first amendment question to whether corporations should be allowed a voice in politics. Why should’t they? Corporations are made up of people, a group who, by common investment, are exercising their first amendment right to peaceably assemble. When corporate heads decide to advocate politically it should be at the behest and in the best interest of their investors. People invest in corporations to make money, not political advocacy, which they can do much more effectively on their own. If they don’t like who the corporation endorses they can and should dump the stock.
Transparency will show that overly generous corporations are trying to gain a legislative or policy advantage for their product or service. Astute business analysts and investors need to tune in to the idea that corporate/political system-gaming obfuscates that a corporations good or service must have shortcomings if they have to rely on legislative advantage to compete. Of course a curious media shining a light on these connections would be helpful, if they too weren't corporations seeking their own advantages. Look for an increasing role by the alternative media in this regard.
To allow the government any control over any political message is to stand the right of free speech on its head. I can’t be the only guy to notice this debate hardly ever includes the recipients responsibility in the roll of political donations. They are, after all, the ones who finally decide whether to accept or return those nasty donations. Political careerists who advocate for government control over political speech are admitting that they are incapable of making those decisions. Sorry folks, if you can't make that call your judgment on everything is suspect. Find another line of work.
I also find it a rather bizarre disconnect that those so dedicated to abridging the speech of corporations would never dream of not taxing them. Muzzling an entity on one hand while taxing them with the other is about as stark of an example of taxation without representation as you are likely to find. In what other arena than government would the concept of a mute payer even exist? With every transaction, even the payment of taxes, there is an implied warranty and assumption of good faith. The assumption with taxes is that it is for your benefit but also that, as the financier, you have a voice in determining what those benefits should be. I’m no constitutional expert like the President but it looks to me like taking money and then passing laws limiting the payers ability to comment infringes the right to redress grievances as well.
In the end the libertarian credo that the best thing for free speech is more, not less, speech. It is up to the individual listener to decide, tune in, turn off, or refute what they decide to hear - - not the governments which is steadily becoming the mother of all special interests.
Hey Big Spender
The coolest things about a blog is that any passing thought that may occur to you eventually gets fleshed out by someone who is paid to research, think, and report about such things.
As an example I was pondering a post called They're Called Stereotypes For a Reason wherein I recognize how perfectly President Obama fits the old "Democrats-are-big-governmnet-tax-and-spend-liberals-who-are-weak-on-defense" stereotype.
The list of support for that assertion is growing by the hour, almost to the point where even those who "don't follow politics" are beginnig to notice.
Anyway, for a great expansion on that passing thought I direct you to a piece by Real Clear Politics columnist David Paul Kuhn Dems Haunted by Revived Stereotypes.
h/t instapundit
But, Friday is Krauthammer Day here at the murmur:
the nub:
This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?
Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.
The line I wish I'd written:
For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism.
The brilliance of brevity.
to RTWT: Charles Krauthammer: The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010
In other business...
I got the following, much to my consternation, for the second time today. This time it pissed me off because it seems to have legs. Perhaps you've seen it...
There recently was an article in the St. Petersburg Fl. Times. The
Business Section asked readers for ideas on: "How Would
You Fix the Economy?"
I think this guy nailed it!
_____
Dear Mr. President,
Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy. Instead
of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the
money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.
You can call it the "Patriotic
Retirement Plan":
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them
$1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:
1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
2) They MUST buy a new American CAR. Forty million cars ordered – Auto Industry fixed..
3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage – Housing
Crisis fixed.
It can't get any easier than that!!
P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their
taxes....
Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social
Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!
If you think this would work, please forward to everyone you know.
If not, please disregard.
I got this once, heard Rush actually read on air and ALMOST posted it here. Problem is I hope to be taken seriously, I like to defy and frustrate random fact-checkers by citing a source or verifiable stat. So before posting this the first time I got it I did a little math.
Here's the problem: 1 million x 40 million = 40 TRILLION!!!
So instead of "if you think this would work, please forward....", buy a fucking calculator, use it, and think again. This isn't a common sense solution to our economic problems, it's a sure recipe for planetary financial collapse.
Rather than a conservative who knows what he's talking about the author of this letter is more likely a frustrated liberal whose only question is never whether to throw more money at a problem but only how much.
It's disheartening to see something like this get traction in conservative circles. It makes us look as out to lunch on fiscal sanity as the left.
Seriously people, when you get stuff like this give it a smell test. (it's pretty easy really, test my math now, google "how much is 40 million X 1 million") The fundamental ineptitude at basic arithmetic is a big part of the problem. Shit like this proves the point and doesn't help, which in a cynical way, sort of explains how it got by the editors at the St. Petersburg Times.
Get Out Of Our House
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Samuel Adams, 1776
Let's do this.
As recording secretary of the recently chartered C4 cabal I have been entrusted to formulate our endorsement of GOOOH, and to alert readers here and my personal e-mail list about the grass roots group www.goooh.com or Get Out of Our House.
This group has made it their mission to drive a dagger through the heart of political careerism by replacing the entire US House of Representatives in November - - THIS November.
Ladies and gentlemen, gird your loins and tighten your chin straps, the rebellion is about to commence.
Please click and browse www.goooh.com to find out more and join the cause, unless of course the status quo is OK with you, and in which case I would need to ask why in the hell are you hanging around here?
GOOOH is a non-partisan effort first organized during the Bush administration, though I am sure that won't stop certain elements of the loony left from equating them to the Klan, it's just how they roll these days, and even more predictable than it is pathetic.
The fundamental premise, one which I have held for years, is that a random group of everyday Americans cannot possibly do a worse job of running this country than political careerists.
Should you share that view click through the link, www.goooh.com , sign up, and support the cause. Feel free to cut and paste the following as your requested testimonial. After that, cut, paste and circulate this memo, or send a this link www.heartlandmurmurs.co to your friends and ask everyone on your mailing list to join the cause as well.
PRO BONO INFINITUM!
The official C4 endorsement:
Whereas in recognition of the fact that we have a virtually unretractable and near hopelessly entrenched political duopoly that systematically and purposefully reduces electoral choices to a lesser of 2 evils and
Whereas said 2 party system has spawned, cultivated, and nurtured political careerism as the tyrannically wielded mechanism that prioritizes the perpetuation of incumbency over sound governance and
Whereas money = power political careerism has resulted in a cesspool of dirty money and governance -by-spoils-system on steroids and
Whereas the likelihood that the odds of a pack of self serving parasites will initiate correction, either self-imposed or by constitutional means, of this cancer on our republic is virtually non-existent so then
WE hereby wholeheartedly endorse GOOOH in its effort to
REPLACE EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES this election year, 2010, through grass roots, citizen-imposed term limits via the ballot box.
