I say to myself,
I will not mention him,
I will speak in his name no more.
But then it becomes like
fire burning in my heart,
imprisoned in my bones;
I grow weary holding it in,
I cannot endure it
Jeremiah 20:9
From One of My Favorite Christmas Movies: Joyeux Noël
The Christmas Eve truce of 1914: let us hope one day that all nations resolve their issues by making trade, not war. (More on "Silent Night" at the end of the post.)
Image of the Day
 |
| Via the Independent Institute |
Pope Francis Gets 88% Approval From US Catholics; I'm not One of Them
At first I was charmed by some of his symbolic moves--things like simpler digs and tastes, including girls (including a Muslim) in the reenactment of Jesus' washing the feet of His disciples. But he sent mixed messages, signaling his desire not to see the Church stereotyped in terms of focus on abortion, birth control and homosexuality. Excuse me, when you hear the pontiff say, "Who am I to judge gays?"--which gets him named a gay organization's "Man of the Year", I think we're seeing Obamafication of the papacy; I halfway expect to see him reading off teleprompters. I don't believe in leadership by gimmicky soundbites or dog and pony shows; I don't want derivative "progressive" rhetoric which confuses means with ends. And any familiar reader knows that I have been vocal critic of Francis's recently published exhortation, in particularly, his incompetent characterization of the free market (his cartoonishly simplistic denunciations of "trickle-down" economics (really more of an inexcusable pejorative), social darwinism, income inequality. He reduces capitalism to greed and zero-sum economics; he praises the political profession. He doesn't have a clue as to the dynamic economy and how government intervention makes things worse for poor people--fewer employment opportunities, higher prices, lower supplies and variety, lower purchasing power to limited resources. I would venture to guess his opinions reflect as many in his leftist/populist home country of Argentina, one of the most repressed economies of the world; I am particularly disappointed that he is satisfied with such a superficial understanding of things that he is writing about ; there is little balance--for example, he doesn't seem to recognize the damaging aspects of morally hazardous policy on human dignity of Statist economies.
I'm rather insulted that CNN played up the saintly John Paul II's plummeting ratings in the wake of malicious assaults by the mainstream media after the mishandled sexual abuse cases. The first non-Italian pope in recent memory, John Paul played a pivotal role in the end of the Cold War; Francis seems more interested in being politically correct or media savvy--I find nothing of the stuff of John the Baptist confronting the sinfulness of King Herod. So for me, the jury is still out, but he's off to a poor start.
Facebook Corner
(Illinois Policy Institute). Michael Jordan may have paid $178,900 in property taxes on his Highland Park home in 2012.
But his property taxes aren’t even enough to cover the annual pension of Highland Park’s highest-compensated retired Teachers’ Retirement System member.
Linda Hanson, 66, is a former Highland Park Township High School District 113 superintendent who has been retired for more than 10 years.
She currently collects a $214,000 annual pension.
Property taxes don't pay for pensions. The individual teacher defers 9% of their salary per year to TRS to fund their pensions.
The state over time borrowed from the pensions with the promise of paying the money back with interest. The IOU is now due and the state created a crisis to get out from their obligation to return the money.
Again, this is not a property tax issue it's a - you borrowed the money - pay it back.
You must be unfamiliar with teacher pension pickups. Teachers are obligated by law to pay 9.4% of their salary into the retirement system. But over the years, school districts began paying the teacher’s required contribution. This practice often is called a “pickup.” Pension pickups have become a standard in almost two-thirds of Illinois’ school districts.
First, all public education funding, including teacher compensation, is by taxpayer money. Second, the reason you have an unfunded liability is because not enough was invested by the education system and/or the teachers. The so-called union management knew that the government was underfunding the pension system. Arguing that present/future taxpayers should pick up deferred obligations due to a corrupt, unsustainable bargain between government and unions is unconscionable.
(Learn Liberty). So now that everyone has had a few days to chill out, what do you think about Phil Robertson's remarks? Do you agree with A&E's decision to suspend him?
It's simple: He can say it; they can suspend him; the people can decide whether or not they want to watch DD in the future; the company can then decide whether or not their losses/profits were worth their decision, and it's over. Voila.
No. A&E and the Robertsons had a contract. Robertson did not waive his unalienable rights. There might be be some standard restriction (e.g., not revealing privileged information, not to disparage the company). In this case, Robertson's conservative positions were publicly known before agreeing to the contract. Given the family pushed back on A&E's preference not to do the closing prayer, the idea that Phil Robertson knowingly signed a contract waiving the right to discuss his religious view is simply not tenable. This is a blatant violation of Robertson's free speech rights; A&E participated in an act of economic aggression. From a libertarian perspective: two cardinal sins: a violation of contract; a violation of negative liberties.
They are a private enterprise. They are allowed to do what they want.
No, I disagree completely. A&E and the Robertsons have a contract; contracts can involve waiver of specified rights--for example, a company may waive at will in a collective agreement with a union, and an employee or contractor may agree to a no-compete agreement for a period following end of employment. I do not know the specifics of the contract. But it's hard to believe Phil Robertson, whose religious views were publicly available before the show, would have agreed not to discuss opinions off the job, especially since the Robertsons pushed back on A&E's desire not to end each episode with a prayer.
 |
| Via LFC |
True capitalists, not the phony chrony capitalist?
Cronyism is an artifact of self-perpetuating Big Government; businesses are useful whipping boys for the megalomaniac delusions of Statism, an attempt to deflect attention from government failures. Government intervention creates market uncertainty. The cart follows the horse: it is only natural that some businesses, especially weak ones, seek to mitigate damage of dysfunctional government policies, impair competition or exploit government incompetence or corruptibility. The only way to deal with this corruption is to limit or downsize government, simplify/flatten the tax revenue burden, and streamline regulation.
But not corporatists.
what does that even mean? every retirement fund owned by an individual is from a corporation. stop posting bumper sticker silliness. take a course on business and economics instead.
I think you, [Discussant], should learn what a corporatist is. It is not someone who likes corporations. It is someone like this president who wants to control all the corporations through hyper regulation, thereby imposing the costs on the private sector while accepting the public benefits, as opposed to a socialist who would want to nationalize them but then have to bear the costs.
[Discussant] and [discussant] are both right. Leftists view corporatism as corporations "buying" elections, e.g., "progressive" populist demagogues like "Cherokee Lizzie" Warren. (We need protection from consumer "protection" populists.) Notice, for instance, how leftists are blaming insurance companies for premium increases to cover the insane public policies of guaranteed issue and community rating. When companies have to cover policyholders below expected costs, does the government cover the costs of implementing its own policies? Of course not! (The government is supposed to kick in something if a company attracts "too many" poor risk policies".) But basically the insurers are hoping to capture enough low-risk customers at a significant markup to subsidize the high-risk. Those subsidies from low to high-risk policyholders are an implicit tax imposed by the government mandate which doesn't appear on the government's books. I prefer the term "economic fascism" vs. corporatism, because most people griping about crony capitalism are not free marketers.
I seriously doubt Jesus meant Government should FORCE you to give to charities of their choosing against your will under threat of jail and/or the barrel of a gun. That is slavery.
I don't remember Jesus ever speaking out against slavery, but he did tell people to pay their taxes. Not the ideal libertarian hero, that Jesus.
Jesus make it clear that His mandate was not a political one, and one is responsible for his own actions/inaction (regardless of any government programs).
But keep in mind: this was a trap: the Roman government had co-opted the Jewish authorities. If Jesus said, "Pay the imperial tax", it would appear that He, too, had been co-opted ; if He said, "Don't pay the tax", He would have been seen as an insurrectionist. Notice He doesn't specify what is owed to the Roman authorities or what is God's. And there were taxes beyond the imperial tax. So you can't generalize He advocated paying taxes, particularly imperial taxes; I think He was pointing out God has differing, higher priorities. This was reinforced during the Passion when He was reminded the Roman Authority had power over His life and death.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall |
Celtic Woman, "Silent Night". What can I say about Méav Ní Mhaolchathacan do justice to her exquisite interpretation? Technically not on my iPod yet.
Written by a nineteenth-century Austrian Roman Catholic priest, melody by his parish organist, the carol was notably sung bilingually during the famous spontaneous 1914 Christmas Eve truce along the Western Front. The song is perhaps the most recorded ever, by over 300 artists, said to be translated in over 300 languages, nearly half listed here. I'm also embedding Bing Crosby's 1942 version, a current rendition by Kelly Clarkson, her mother-in-law Reba McEntire, and Trisha Yearwood, and Enya's Irish version.
