I’ve moved.

Electronically.

All my old posts have been moved to Wifey’s blog, and I’m going to be posting over there from now on.

See you there.

Obvious Antithesis to “Yes, we can”

While it may be obvious to some, I feel the need to point this out to all. And the move is relatively simple: What is the opposite of “yes?” “No.”

So, it might be very easy, via the transitive property, to say the alternative to “Yes, we can” is “No, we can’t.” But this additional phrase complicates the matter. It is not as simple as adding the phrase to the opposite of the first word.

Now certainly, it is important in any decision to examine whether it is possible to do something. I cannot buy a flying car – perhaps not because of costs or ideology or the usefulness of a flying car – because they do not exist.

But quite aside from the initial examination of whether a thing is possible, it is necessary to look at whether a thing ought be done. For the most part, within the political arena, the possibilities of things are foregone conclusions – especially for the left.

To emphasize the point, Thomas Sowell writes in The Vision of the Anointed:

“Solutions” are out there waiting to be found, like eggs at an Easter egg hunt. Intractable problems with painful trade-offs are simply not part of the vision of the anointed. Problems exist only because other people are not as wise or as caring, or not as imaginative and bold, as the anointed.

With the “anointed” being the left, it is obvious that they take for granted the possibility of almost anything.

The new commercials railing on “clean coal” exemplify this point entirely. Environmentalists use extreme sarcasm to point out that “clean coal” is not free from pollution and carbon emissions. Well hoo-ray for these enlightened and reasonable fellows. So, in conclusion, we are left with what, exactly? So we cease using “clean coal” as a result of it not being 100% free of pollution? Apparently, “progressive” liberals should now be referred to as “all or nothing” liberals.

(This point falls so closely to Sowell’s other point about solutions and trade-offs, but as he is far more intelligent and published than I, you should let him tell you.)

Of course, this is ridiculous. If no action could ever be taken to incrementally affect a negative attribute in society, persuasion would be lost. Entirely. This is no small point. It is absolutely as totalitarian as possibly to remove the ability for incremental progress in favor of absolute solvency. (Not to mention, it isn’t possible, in most cases.)

This brings me to my next point: the area of diminishing returns. Statistically, we can demonstrate that certain policies can diminish, for instance, corporate theft, to a very few instances, or dollars. (Hiring a theft-prevention manager is an example.) But, to eliminate it completely, the corporation would have to monitor 100% of the activity inside its own walls, which would be so costly, it would outweigh the amount of money saved on the stolen property. So the company can effectively reduce say, 98% of theft reasonably, and the last 2% is acceptable for effective operations.

With these premises laid out, I should not need to demonstrate the applications it has to our country’s current situation:

1: AIG executives should be left alone. (They should never have been made a focus of politicians in the first place.)

2. Failing companies should be allowed to fail. (Our brilliant politicians believe, and have for a long while, that dollars, and not innovative ideas, solve problems. This is not the case. Here, an economic model picked up by several lending institutions is shown not to work (referring to the packaging of bad mortgages). And Congress says, “Well, it’s money they need.” No, it isn’t money that they need. It is adaptability. And it is this and nothing else.)

4. Relying on Congress (Obama, Geithener, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, George W. Bush, Mitch McConnell and a lot of others) to solve any issues in the economy is absurd. These people have not said one impressive, knowledgeable, insightful thing about the economy since this crisis began. Why? Because they are experts in a different field (namely, the field of using issues as a political football in order to “score” an election victory). None of them know how to do anything with a barrel of oil, besides maybe light it on fire. None of them have apparently ever read the Constitution, Free to Choose, Atlas Shrugged, The Vision of the Anointed, Basic Economics, the GOP Platform, or the 2009 Stimulus Bill.

5. Relying on TV news guys to parrot the above fools is equally absurd. (Looking at Rachel Maddow, Keith Oberman, Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, David Gregory, Donnie Deutsch, etc.) It is the blind taking directions from the blind. Especially given the antics of 24 hour news stations these days, allowing all of 180 seconds for an “interview” with an expert amid shouting between hosts and panels, only to go back to the indoctrinated panel members for a “discussion” on the character, references, and history of the expert. It would remind me of a televised interview if I didn’t already know that there are no jobs available these days.

6. There is a reasonable, succinct alternative to “Yes, we can.” It is “No, we shouldn’t.”

Further, I advise that radical terrorists must be destroyed.

My Comment to Madville Times

The top story over at Madville Times grants us an opportunity to see “The Cosmic Viewpoint” in action.  Since the author of that site does not allow anonymous posters, I am posting my comment here.

While I do feel sorry for this gal, I am not at all convinced that socialized healthcare is a good trade off to help her with her situation.

I’ll quote Thomas Sowell, from The Vision of the Anointed, “Unless we adopt the arbitrary doctrine that any degree of equalization, however small, is worth any sacrifice, however large, differences in life chances are among the many imperfections of life whose remedy is not even conceivable, short of the cosmic viewpoint.”

When you attempt to create social policy to equalize things such as health, socio-economic status, height, weight, eye color, skin color, gender, sexual-orientation, religion, etc., you are 1) decreasing liberties and 2) (as Sowell puts it) “divorcing reward from performance.”

It was exactly an age limitation that had us praising John Glenn when he took to outer space a while back. It was a gender limitation that has us praising women as they break more and more glass ceilings. And in the case of Stephen Hawking, FDR, Helen Keller, and others, health issues can be a limitation. Of course, health issues can also be the reason we will be praising the successes of the girl you were speaking of.
Good Luck and God Bless her and everyone else in her situation!

It is of course easy to believe that a specialist out there knows how to make cars fly, get 500 miles to the gallon, and keep the price tag as low as $9,999.  But if that were to happen, we would see it on the market.  It hasn’t happened.  So know one yet knows how to do this.

Similarly, it is a comfort to think that socialized health care will mean hospitals stay as they are, but are just free.  This is a fantasy.  I’ll assume that you all know that “there is no free lunch,” but can we consider the other implications, since so many seem to be willing to give their entire paycheck to the federal government?  (I am suddenly getting a flashback of W. saying, in a State of the Union address, for those willing to pay more taxes, the IRS is now accepting checks, money orders and credit cards.)

The answer is yes, we can consider the ramifications of socializing healthcare outside of the tax burden it will put on tax payers.  Expect less pay for doctors, nurses, and staff, which will lead to less doctors, nurses and staff.  Expect longer waiting periods, increased ambulance response times, more forms at the desk, and more routine, incorrect diagnosing of illnesses.

In a free market economy, more demand would increase the costs of these treatments and operations.  When the government has the puck, there is no incentive for doctors to be paid more: they will be paying the patient’s bill anyway – there is no need to increase the salary for government workers.  (Which leads me to yet another point: expect more strikes from employees who would have been paid (in the free-market) according to their performance.)  With no competition, there is no reason for the government to race across the rink and score the goal.  Any lazy, slow, or mediocre performance will win the game when there is no goalie.  (This hockey analogy was inspired by the NHL playoffs: Go Blackhawks!)

It is very unfortunate that while I keep noticing that the game will never be the same, most folks are just watching the scoreboard.  ”Yea!  Another goal was scored,” they will excitedly exclaim, without considering that there are no longer athletes.  They were replaced by advisors, politicians, and analysts.

There will be more of this on the way, including how we should look upon individual successes, but for now, if you find this analysis captivating, try reading The Vision of the Anointed and Basic Economics, both by Thomas Sowell.
Further, I advise that radical terrorists must be destroyed.

**EDIT**   I almost forgot this line in the Madville Times article:

The young woman I visited with isn’t looking for a handout. She’s doing everything we tell her to: work hard, take a chance, pursue your dreams. But our private health insurance system is telling her “Don’t you dare.” It’s keeping her and lots of other graduates from the freedom that America promises.

Who’s for anthropomorphization?  Let’s go get this mean ol’ private health insurance system and beat this guy girl person organization of people thing up!

The Obama Administration: Getting Semantics on Their Side

So, I’ve been reading about Obama, recently.

I think the Politico forgot one, but I’ll be happy to add it to the list.

Tom Daschle: lobbyist, but not “technically.”

No lobbyists, indeed.

**Update:** The Politico has uncovered a bit more about Mr. Daschle.

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga) is an enlightened and reasonable man.

I’ll admit I’m a little mad about this, so I don’t have much of a lead-up to my analysis.  Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga) has spoken out against Rush Limbaugh, and prime facie, that is just terrific.  Rush Limbaugh has a (mostly) conservative base of about 20 million listeners.  And he’s on the radio.  Everyday.  For three hours.  I have never heard of Rep. Phil Gingrey.  Maybe a David vs. Goliath complex?  Napoleon Complex?

Meanwhile, over on Fastidious blog, she posted about a phone call she put in to Rep Gingrey.  I want to make reference to claim made by his lackey: (I’m paraphrasing, as I was not on the phone) “We didn’t get accurate information on the Bailout bill.”

Precisely.  I’ll bet that’s just exactly right.  Except, it’s not as though the information was not out there.  It’s not as though 200 different economists kept quiet about the problems with the bill. (One quick Google search, folks.)  More on point, those bailout “Yes” voters DID NOT SEEK this information.  The three letters I received from my Representative and Senators all said, “Normally, we would vote no. . .but due to x specific circumstance. . . the world will crumble, and so we must act.”

I will tell you, I believe the Economy was the most important issue for voters.  Apparently, U.S. News and World Report agrees.  So, on the one piece of legislation that represents that issue, the Bailout Bill, how did these men vote? Gingrey voted against the bailout.  John Boehner says, “The enactment of this flawed but necessary bill is not a cause for celebration.” He voted “Yes.” And Sen. Mitch McConnell?  He also voted, “Yes.” (Also, McCain, Thune, et al.)

So, Rep. Phil Gingrey, you were defending these jackasses?  (For a quick reference, go to www.govtrack.us and check all three names.  Toward the center of the page, you’ll see an ideology meter, and Gingrey is the only “Republican” without the “Moderate” modifier.)  According to you, Mr. Gingrey, “I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach.”

So, I ask, which is it?  Either the Bailout was a correct move, or it wasn’t!  Talking out of both sides of your mouth won’t do:  if you didn’t vote for the bailout because of your conservative principles, how can they be taking the right approach?  Our Leadership was given credit for the “bipartisan” nature of the Bill, and here is a perfect example of our leadership speaking just like Democratic leadership.  (via The New York Times, October 2008)

President Bush issued a statement applauding the Senate for its vote in favor of a bill he called “essential to the financial security of every American.” He urged the House to follow suit.

Give me a break, Gingrey, you are going after the wrong guy here!  Limbaugh has no problem with telling it like it is:  on the biggest issue for voters during the 2008 Election, McCain voted like Obama, Boehner voted like Pelosi, McConnell voted like Reid – see where this is going?  If our leadership votes like their leadership, what is the difference between “ours” and “theirs“?  There isn’t any difference.

I don’t care what you think of Rush Limbaugh.  That makes no difference to me whatsoever; so long as you understand that he is correct about conservatism.

Your claim to the Politico:

“I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell.”

You are right about one thing, Limbaugh isn’t in the position of Boehner or McConnell – and neither am I.  But if I was, I would be swearing up and down that I would never do anything as dumb as voting to socialize the United States of America.

(P.S.:  Rep Gingrey, You didn’t get sworn in to “do what’s best for your people and your party.”  Your oath was:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Remember the Constitution?)

**Update:**

Rep. Phil Gingrey has received an influx of phone calls, and he’s sorry.

Jim Shekleton in an enlightened and reasonable man.

I saw this bill earlier in the year in the paper, and I gave the article to my wife because I thought she might need to laugh.

It is “An Act to  prohibit acts of terrorism against persons engaged in a state university activity involving live animals.” But now, poor HB1078 has been killed. And thank God.  I believe the whole situation was summed up best by Rep. Charles Turbiville: “Commonsense tells me existing criminal code must cover every aspect of this.”

But Jim Shekleton, the SD Board of Regents Lawyer, had this to say:  “People who had been content to firebomb the facilities are now going after the workers because it’s more effective.”  Sorry?  When was the last firebombing of anything that occurred in South Dakota?  In other words, what makes this relevant at all in the face of legislation that already covers illegal activities such as:  assault, murder, trespassing, arson, vandalism, harassment, stalking, threats, etc.

Well, this is not the only time Mr. Shekleton has been bright and reasonable.  Last year,  HB 1261 was proposed, and for all those who immediately roll their eyes: take another look.  This bill did not make toting guns on campuses legal.  This bill did not arm crazies from the right.  This bill did stop a jurisdictional problem that we had, namely that the SD Board of Regents are shmucks, and do not have any right usurping the 2nd Amendment.

According to the Volante, here’s what Shekleton said on HB 1261

Jim Shekleton, state Board of Regents legal counsel, simply expressed concern for safety and says the bill is unnecessary. He said the bill is not fact-driven, but emotionally motivated.

“When college students are victims of violent crime, 93 percent of that is off campus. The likelihood of something happening is diminishingly small,” Shekleton said.

Those power-hungry folks at the SD BOR had indeed overstepped their bounds when they decided to strip students’ rights, without, apparently, checking with lawyers about what it’s like to circumvent the Bill of Rights.  I am curious about what Jim Shekleton thinks about the Bill of Rights, since he doesn’t seem to think that HB 1261 is “necessary.”

Two quotations should sum this issue up:

• “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” (Thomas Jefferson).
• “From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?” (from Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address).

So, it is the members of the Board of Regents who would dare attempt to stop students – who, by the way, are required to live on SD campuses during their first two years of their college education – from protecting themselves inside institutions that will instruct them on topics including the Constitution.  Rule by elite groups indeed.

This bill was completely jurisdictional; the SD BOR does not have the authority to deliver assessments on the rights that are protected by the Constitution; and on that note, I’m going to call my representatives right now to get this back in motion.

South Dakota State Constitution Results!

In my first post, I described the frustration of not being able to find the South Dakota State Constitution online.  I also reported the problem with the state website and its (apparently) lazy administrators.

Well, I am pleased to report to you all that you can find the complete Constitution here, on my blog.  Further, if you would like a paper copy of the Constitution, you may contact the SD Secretary of State, Chris Nelson, and get one mailed out to you.

(605) 773-3537 is the number to call.

Ann Coulter is wrong, wrong, wrong.

So, in the interest of laughter and good times, I’ve opened Ann Coulter’s new book, Guilty.  In reading the beginning of Chapter 2, she gives away a plot point in the 2006 film Superman Returns.  And I haven’t seen Superman Returns, so now, I know something I might have had to watch the film to know.  And I just wanted to post that this is the one place that I definately disagree with Ann – I wouldn’t have written a plot point about a newer movie in case I would be giving away something that one wouldn’t want to know.

But so far, everything else she has written has been pretty dead-on.  So, finally, the left and I agree.  Too bad it’s only about 1 Ann Coulter line.  (Otherwise, good job, Ms. Coulter!)

Mossberg 500a 12 Gauge (2 3/4″ and 3″ shells)

This is the newest addition to my arsenal.  It’s a 2002 Mossberg 500a Field Model, that my grandfather had picked up and never fired.  At Christmas, he ended up letting go of it, and now I’ll be enjoying the universal language that is the sound of a pump-action shotgun.

A Worthwhile Website

I would like to take the time to give everyone a nod toward a website I’ve been browsing around lately.  http://www.ar15.com

The forum community there has been a delight to communicate with, if you are interested in the subject matter.  The site itself is highly informative and organized, and I recommend visiting it to see for yourself.